A Challenge for Believers in God.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You wrote:

["The only point I'm trying to make is that if he felt so strongly about that then he should not be debating with people of faith, but people of politics. Because by definition what he claims to support is all about equality. In other words, the freedom to believe in what one chooses, regardless of evidence."]

Religion can be made part of several different subject-constellations. Disputes inside a specific religion, disputes between religions, disputes in a political context, disputes in cultural social contexts, disputes of economical type, disputes with science/logic/academicia.

Quote: [" I think he should post his comments in the political sections instead."]

My comments include much more than just my defence of democracy. You're just trying to label me in such a way, that it could lead to removal of inconvenient opposition.

Quote: ["Then maybe what he is saying would make alot more sense"]

Do you define "making sense" as 'agreeing with you'? There are some people here, for whom I make sense.

Quote: ["The truth is, the only agenda for atheist is to try and debunk something that they don't even believe in. They would love for religion to die and that all jump on their fan wagon. To bad such a thing will never happen."]

You don't seem to have much knowledge on my real position.

Quote: ["Even if the world did come to peace and equality, people would just give credit to God for such a feat, no one else."]

A postulate.

Originally posted by bogomil

Quote: ["The truth is, the only agenda for atheist is to try and debunk something that they don't even believe in. They would love for religion to die and that all jump on their fan wagon. To bad such a thing will never happen."]

You don't seem to have much knowledge on my real position.

What other possible conclusion could one draw from your post then? If it wasn't true then why are you always debating against the Bible? Why are saying that people who hold such beliefs are wrong? You've made alot of post trying to defeat the faith of others. I'm just saying that if you were really all about peace then what's the point battling with those who have faith in God?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You certainly are ascribing a lot of things to me on: My position; how my posts exclusively can be interpretated; how and where I should post; and my relationship to the bible.... (to which I'll personally add: An atttitude I have towards similar religious manuals or ideological manifests).

As far as I can see, my posting- or character-defiencies complained about by theists, originate from my total denial of the value of self-proclaimed 'absolutes'. But it's not different from how a theist likely would react to say a hard-core communist claim, that 'reductionist materialistic philosophy' is THE one and only, exclusive, 'right' perspective/method.

I have through this thread brought up arguments on how 'divine' sanctioning of moral systems or applications aren't validated to the exclusivity, they want to give themselves, and in the proper context I could even demonstrate the factual invalidity of the bible as an 'authority' itself.

I can only regret, that you are unable to see, what my basis is, or what's beyond the material presented in the limitited context of the present thread. Something I'll not put blame on you for, though such positions regularly have manifested to greater extents on the forum. I would have expected a regular reader to be familiar with further facets of the theist conflicts with competing truth/reality-seeking systems, instead of just reacting with annoyance on my anti-invasive attitudes.

reply to post by bogomil


I'll give you this round because your right when you say it is not fair for me to attack your character or right to post your opinions. After all, I do the same thing.

But I only did so, so that you can see that what you are doing and trying to spread is no different than what a missionary does. And that is, trying to convince others that what they believe in is nothing but fallacy.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

But I only did so, so that you can see that what you are doing and trying to spread is no different than what a missionary does. And that is, trying to convince others that what they believe in is nothing but fallacy.

Bogomil has never tried to convince anyone into a specific belief system. I've never heard this user claim any truth to any personal belief he has in regards to the unknown; comparison to a missionary couldn't be any further from the truth.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

But I only did so, so that you can see that what you are doing and trying to spread is no different than what a missionary does. And that is, trying to convince others that what they believe in is nothing but fallacy.

Bogomil has never tried to convince anyone into a specific belief system. I've never heard this user claim any truth to any personal belief he has in regards to the unknown; comparison to a missionary couldn't be any further from the truth.

edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

Let's not speak for others please. But if he wasn't trying to spread what he believes to be true then he would not be speaking it so openly to those he thinks are in the wrong, right? Just because he doesn't claim any certain belief system doesn't mean he doesn't have one. We all have one whether we like it or not.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

But if he wasn't trying to spread what he believes to be true then he would not be speaking it so openly to those he thinks are in the wrong, right?

Again, i've seen no attempt to "spread" any personal beliefs; no attempt to "convert" or claim superiority to his beliefs.

Users ARE allowed to express their beliefs, lack of beliefs and their reasons for each.

Just because he doesn't claim any certain belief system doesn't mean he doesn't have one. We all have one whether we like it or not.

What's your point? I was highlighting how your comparison to a missionary was incorrect, and misleading.

I can speak on behalf of others users; again it was an interjection regarding your missionary comparison.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

But I only did so, so that you can see that what you are doing and trying to spread is no different than what a missionary does. And that is, trying to convince others that what they believe in is nothing but fallacy.

Bogomil has never tried to convince anyone into a specific belief system. I've never heard this user claim any truth to any personal belief he has in regards to the unknown; comparison to a missionary couldn't be any further from the truth.

edit on 10-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

Let's not speak for others please. But if he wasn't trying to spread what he believes to be true then he would not be speaking it so openly to those he thinks are in the wrong, right? Just because he doesn't claim any certain belief system doesn't mean he doesn't have one. We all have one whether we like it or not.

Instead of guessing, you could simply have asked. And ofcourse I do have some personal beliefs. I believe Brahms, Debussy and Gershwin are far better than rap-music, that green is better than red and that skinny women generally aren't attractive.

But unlike missionaries with similar private interests (this or that 'god'), I see no need to spread my personal preferences to all mankind.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


I think the title of your post is extremely misleading, and should be "A Challenge to Christians", because, like most of the other religious posts on ATS, it completely chickens out of discussing Islam. Since Islam, with its goal of establishing the Totalitarian Global Caliphate, is part of the New World Order, all this bowing and scraping to the most evil and destructive ideology in history makes me wonder what ATS is really all about.

Originally posted by bogomil
But unlike missionaries with similar private interests (this or that 'god'), I see no need to spread my personal preferences to all mankind.

I guess you'll just spend time bashing others instead right? How logical is that?

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
But unlike missionaries with similar private interests (this or that 'god'), I see no need to spread my personal preferences to all mankind.

I guess you'll just spend time bashing others instead right? How logical is that?

That comes off as a pejorative word, bashing. You can't say something like, being critical?
I don't see him as being unfair or partisan and don't understand how he has become a problem for you.
These are intellectual arguments and if people of faith get out of their sphere and join in intellectual argumentation they need to follow those ground rules an not to change the rules to suite a religion based structure.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


That's easy..... prayer.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
But unlike missionaries with similar private interests (this or that 'god'), I see no need to spread my personal preferences to all mankind.

I guess you'll just spend time bashing others instead right? How logical is that?

I'm not quite sure how to interpretate this. Do you mean, that my anti-missionary attitudes are missionary by themselves.

If you go that way, you'll soon be in deep semantic waters. So if you start, you can just as well from the start think about what such would imply.

Re-associating with OP's original content it could mean, that I would be committing an immoral act, if I interfered with manifestations of religious fanatism (e.g. the use of sacrificies, suppression of minority-groups or invasive efforts with monopoly aspirations), which I oppose.

Not to sidetrack the thread into politics etc., but I could similarly be accused of being invasive myself, if I had opposed Hitler, Stalin etc.

Saying NO to something, doesn't automatically mean, that I insist on a compulsary YES to something else. But maybe some theists can only see these two black/white options in life-choices. Much theist commenting on ATS points to such limited scenarios.

Because of the self-proclaimed 'truth' theists very often use, my saying 'no' to both doctrines and application is thus 'immoral'?

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
But unlike missionaries with similar private interests (this or that 'god'), I see no need to spread my personal preferences to all mankind.

I guess you'll just spend time bashing others instead right? How logical is that?

That comes off as a pejorative word, bashing. You can't say something like, being critical?
I don't see him as being unfair or partisan and don't understand how he has become a problem for you.
These are intellectual arguments and if people of faith get out of their sphere and join in intellectual argumentation they need to follow those ground rules an not to change the rules to suite a religion based structure.

Thanks, that expressed this facet of it better, than I could have done myself. I often get to convoluted complex..

Originally posted by Tib50
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

I think the title of your post is extremely misleading, and should be "A Challenge to Christians", because, like most of the other religious posts on ATS, it completely chickens out of discussing Islam.

I'd be more than happy to create and discuss Islam in another thread. This thread title isn't misleading; i mean what i mean; a challenge for believers; that can include Deists or any Theist.

Since Islam, with its goal of establishing the Totalitarian Global Caliphate, is part of the New World Order, all this bowing and scraping to the most evil and destructive ideology in history makes me wonder what ATS is really all about.

It certainly wishes to bring about an order; an order of Allah. A Holy war against "Kafirs" (non-believers...that includes Christians and anyone else who doesn't submit to Islam)

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

U2U me if you wish to discuss more. I certainly an opinion on Islam too.

Originally posted by bogomil
Because of the self-proclaimed 'truth' theists very often use, my saying 'no' to both doctrines and application is thus 'immoral'?

Ok, I agree that you are not a missionary, because that would imply that you have some form of religion, which based on your post you clearly don't, please correct if I'm wrong about that.

And just of the record, I don't have anything against you personally, after all I don't even know you. The only thing I can do is judge you by your post, and what I can see is that your post are strictly against believers of a higher power. In my mind I don't understand the logic behind this. I realize that religion has done some awful things throughout history, but is that really evidence to say that the idea of God doesn't work in people's personal life? Or because of that then God can't be real?

If we apply such reasons as proof to the non-existence of God then we also need to apply these rules to the laws of nature and science. I'm not a scientist but I'll try to provide a decent example. For example, would it really be fair to say that electricity is bad because some have died because it's power? No-one would ever make such a statement. But why? Because electricity has done more good than it has harm, sure, a few have died because of it but we have also come alot farther because of it. Therefore, it would be right to say that electricity is good, since it has provided so much to mankind.

Another example, when someone dies from eating honey does that mean honey is bad? No, it just means that honey is bad for some people but not for everyone. See what I'm getting at?

One more example. My girl thinks I'm arrogant, of course she could never prove such a statement. But does that make her a liar? No, it just means she doesn't fully understand my take on things.

The concept of God's existence is not for everyone, even though I believe that it is. What I'm saying is that just because God doesn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work for others. We all have something special we hold on too that keeps us going in life. Whether it be the God of the Bible or some rock.

My point is that I don't see the logic behind battling with people of faith, even if I don't agree with their form of belief, because not all of them agree with the way their religion or faith is being portrayed. The mere thought that something greater is out there has done alot more good than it has bad.

Just because some idiot decides to kill in the name of God for their own personal gain doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You wrote:

["Ok, I agree that you are not a missionary, because that would imply that you have some form of religion, which based on your post you clearly don't, please correct if I'm wrong about that."]

I guess, that you technically could be a missionary for a non-religious ideology also.

Quote: ["And just of the record, I don't have anything against you personally, after all I don't even know you. The only thing I can do is judge you by your post, and what I can see is that your post are strictly against believers of a higher power."]

Such a conclusion is regrettable, but not surprising. You can't possibly be expected to have read all of my posts, and as I mainly get in the hair of missionaries, it would be easy to miss the occasions, where I actually DON'T put religionists through the wringer of my 'wrath'. No blame on you.

Quote: ["In my mind I don't understand the logic behind this. I realize that religion has done some awful things throughout history, but is that really evidence to say that the idea of God doesn't work in people's personal life?"]

Not only religion. Most ideologies have their black sheep, behaving insanely. And again, you must have missed, when I actively support peoples' rights to a personal choice of a religion, stating that such is none of my business.

'My business' is in social contexts, where it becomes everybody's business.

Quote: ["Or because of that then God can't be real?"]

No problems. Personally I believe in many 'unreal' things, I just don't want them to be world-dominating.

Quote: ["If we apply such reasons as proof to the non-existence of God then we also need to apply these rules to the laws of nature and science."]

It wouldn't be very intelligent to try to actively 'dis-prove' (from a 'gnostic' position) theist claims.

Quote: ["I'm not a scientist but I'll try to provide a decent example. For example, would it really be fair to say that electricity is bad because some have died because it's power? No-one would ever make such a statement. But why? Because electricity has done more good than it has harm, sure, a few have died because of it but we have also come alot farther because of it. Therefore, it would be right to say that electricity is good, since it has provided so much to mankind."]

I have no objections to such an analogy. And that's why I direct my opposition towards invasive missionaries. I have even, trying to be fair, several times suggested a debate on the distinction between offering and pushing a religious (or ideological) message. Sofar without a response.

Quote: [" The concept of God's existence is not for everyone, even though I believe that it is."]

Fair enough, and a subject for an 'academic' debate (ofcourse on the condition, that theism doesn't try to interfere in academesia per se).

Quote: ["What I'm saying is that just because God doesn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work for others."]

People are different, and I'm far from being a typical representative of mankind; neither have I any intentions of becoming a role-model. Those consenting adults wanting a 'god', let them find one.

Quote: ["Just because some idiot decides to kill in the name of God for their own personal gain doesn't mean that God doesn't exist."]

Some of the 'gods' portrayd through doctrines etc. are less acceptable than others. I doubt, that many people would agree to the practical manifestations of the Kali-thuggees or the south-american blood-craving 'gods'. (Though liberal society would accept such a faith as a personal abstract choice.)

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


It is becoming more and more evident that ATS has a specific agenda: to promote the New World Order Global Government, by scaring everyone with fake apocalyptic comets/planets/Elenins/Niburus/whatever, attacking the Christian faith and promoting Satanism in the form of Atheism and Islam as the NWO partner religion, before later introducing the Satanic "Global Goddess" by some BlueBeam holograph in the sky. That's only the half of it, but there really is no point in saying anything further, because you have your mission and your agenda to fulfil. I will bow out quietly now, and leave you all to it.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

Wouldn't you say, a "believer" in God could change an Athiest to a believer in God?

I would call that a moral act, which a non believer is not capable of doing....depending of course on what "belief" they're corverting to.

I also find it quite amusing that you christians couldn't figure this one out.

Isn't converting part of the faith?

Or perhaps its not moral...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

Wouldn't you say, a "believer" in God could change an Athiest to a believer in God?

I would call that a moral act, which a non believer is not capable of doing....depending of course on what "belief" they're corverting to.

I also find it quite amusing that you christians couldn't figure this one out.

Isn't converting part of the faith?

Or perhaps its not moral...

I have always considered you to have a good sense of humour, so don't take it the wrong way now. This was a joke?

With the same reasoning you are using, but with inverted values, it would/could be a moral act to save a theist from the clutches of theism.

That's probably why theists hasn't used the argument.