The Abrahamic Confinement Of Atheism

Astyanax
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Well let me see, the punishment to Jacob was "you tricked, so don't complain when you get tricked" He was stuck with fighting wives and sons. They fought each other all the time...so nope, not a perfect world. I think you may think judgment only comes in hellfire and brimstone?

No, I'm willing to accept that it comes in many forms. However, there is no verse in the Bible that tells us Jacob's misfortunes were the consequence of his cheating Laban. This is a connection you have made yourself. It has no foundation in Scripture. The same goes for the rest of your claims.

Unless the causal connection is made explicit in the text itself, there is no moral to the story. Now, please, let's move on. You will never convince me that the Bible is a reliable moral guide; I have read it, you see.

Actually it is explicit when it says "you reap what you sow" and "if you sow to evil, you will reap the whirlwind but if you sow to the spirit you will reap life everlasting". If I have to take that explicit thought and apply it to myself, then I have to apply it to the entirety.

The first thing God said to Cain was "Where is thy brother?" Cain replied "Am I my brother's keeper?" We all know that one, but God finished it with "Sin lies crouched by the door, desiring to have power over you" There was punishment on Cain. It was not fire and brimstone. But as brothers and sisters in humanity, are we their keepers? I would think that we should be. Is there no moral guidance in that story?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Actually it is explicit when it says "you reap what you sow" and "if you sow to evil, you will reap the whirlwind but if you sow to the spirit you will reap life everlasting".

No, those are general statements about retribution that do not apply to the specific incidents (Jacob and Laban, etc.) I mentioned earlier. I made no mention of Cain and Abel; actually, I rather sympathise with Cain in that story.

Now look: you have been truthful and honest right up to your last post. I am impressed, and feel warmly towards you. Please do not forfeit my respect by practising to deceive as you did in the sentence quoted above.

In my experience many religious people are decent, honourable and truthful. But the ones who talk about religion in public, or try to promote their faith to others, are almost without exception dishonorable and deceitful. Please don't take that path. At least for the duration of this thread, be one of the exceptions.

Prove that a religious person can be as truthful as an atheist.

So no one has any objections to my previous posts? Am I done here?

NthOther
I feel left out. Ignored and neglected. I can’t find an atheist to debate the finer points of Taoism with me. Or any Dharmic religion for that matter. None of them seem to know anything about it. All they want to talk about is Christianity. And many of them do know a lot about Christianity, albeit academically and not experientially. I’ll give them that.

agreed... I have been saying this for years, and I have come to the conclusion that atheists just can't, ya know... keep it up, a good argument or debate that is.

things have changed on ATS, maybe it's the new format who knows? but it's not like the good ole days before atheism was deemed a religious belief and an institution having their own Mega-Churches now. Their attitude blends a strong dose of hypocrisy with a weak blend of "soft-satanism" and I say satanism because they are only interested in Christians and bullying this certain group of people. Which is really odd because most atheists are from the Christianized world, the actual philosophy which built their civilization and allows them to be the supposed free-thinkers they believe they are.

They must have skipped the part in the Bible where God gives humankind freewill? The attitude of most atheists is akin to a child screaming at their parent in Walmart because they want candy, or they want o do what they want to do without oversight, regret or limitation.

Sometimes they are just outright silly... I was watching one of Richard Dawkins' skits and he said "go read a book by a biologist" and I instantly got some comic relief. He is always plugging the word "book" and most of the time it is one of his own... because you know he too needs to make money

But what Dawkins doesn't seem to understand is that ok man I'll read one of your books, but I will not pay for it... he doesn't seem to understand that is I re-read that book of his in 100 year time then all of his words will see so elementary and outdated. But on the other hand how long has the "free" Bible been around? People are still reading the Bible in mass numbers and on a global scale, but the philosophy remains intriguing and light years ahead.

awesome book totally... happened to be the first book ever printed too.

Nth still hasn't engaged me in discussion, so maybe he or she should quit whining about feeling left out.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I think it's pretty obvious now that Nth is just an aggressive Christian troll who came up with a new(ish) angle.

Since Nth hasn't responded, and SisyphusRide seems to want a fight, maybe we can debate him/her. As soon as he/her says something worth replying to.

SisyphusRide
But what Dawkins doesn't seem to understand is that ok man I'll read one of your books, but I will not pay for it... he doesn't seem to understand that is I re-read that book of his in 100 year time then all of his words will see so elementary and outdated. But on the other hand how long has the "free" Bible been around? People are still reading the Bible in mass numbers and on a global scale, but the philosophy remains intriguing and light years ahead.

awesome book totally... happened to be the first book ever printed too.

Lol you don't think the bible is outdated? really?

Have you ever read it? beyond a 'best parts' edition?