Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 … 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Are Atheists Open for a Chat?
AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Mon 03/28/11 09:08 PM
How else are we to spread to the stars... That gods promise to Abraham be fullfilled... and his descendants one day number more than the stars in the heavens?

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Mon 03/28/11 09:40 PM
How else are we to spread to the stars... That gods promise to Abraham be fullfilled... and his descendants one day number more than the stars in the heavens? Nice catch. The only way that could be true is if we left planet Earth and colonized many other planets. The Earth couldn't possibly hold anywhere near that many humans. Clearly the people who wrote that book had NO CLUE just how many stars there truly are! And you're right, that was supposed to be God's promise to Abraham. This is like "No God's on Mt. Olympus!" The Bible is clearly just as false as Greek Mythology.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 03/29/11 04:33 AM
not necessarily Abra "Then He brought him outside and said, Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them. And He said to him, So shall your descendants be" Genesis 15:5. two things come to mind, the number of stars in the sky cant be counted BUT they are certainly at any given time a finite number, yet always changing so, with the descendants of Abraham(all descendants , not just those during ONE time), there is a finite number at any given time, but collectively OVER time the number would be uncountable

Jez Joined Wed 03/16/11 Posts: 179	Tue 03/29/11 04:36 AM
Just thought I'd jump in. Has anyone yet said "You don't believe in 2869 gods, I don't believe in 2870; you're practically an atheist too"? I'm sure someone has probably brought up the whole Creationism stance that once upon a time, Creationists could argue that God created the heavens and earths and all things that dwell upon him, but these days Creationists are forced to accept most of evolution and instead are reduced to arguing that God created a microscopic part of an animal that couldn't have evolved by natural selection (except it probably did), and therefore God's perceived actual output is just getting smaller and smaller. The phrase Dawkins uses is "the God of Gaps". Surely someone's provided links to that equally credible Creationist, Bill O'Reilly, who said that you couldn't explain tides (just because he couldn't). And of course, the violence of religion versus the violence of science. Science does not exist to be violent, but I believe many great advances in science that ended up killing people (atomic warfare, I'm looking at you) were due to political and religious forces driving their development. Religion says "listen and shut up or else". Science says "go on, keep talking". And so on and so forth. The over-arcing Christian argument seems to be "I feel sorry for you, I will pray for your soul." Which, let's face it, isn't much of an argument. I feel people should be free to practice their religion in any non-repressive, non-dogmatic, non-violent and genial fashion they care to, I'm fine with that; and atheists and scientists should be free to point out fundamental flaws in theology with no fear of physical or mental distress. Hey, I only believe in science. I haven't done all the experiments myself, or seen the curvature of the earth for myself, or any of that. So my faith in science is as much of a belief structure as anyone else's. Only my belief structure is based on provable facts and testable hypothesis, and actually WELCOMES people to prove otherwise. So it is far more likely to be closer to the gospel truth than the Gospels. That's me done. Mostly redundant, but, y'know, just saying. Anyway, as Dave Allen used to say: "Good night, and may your God go with you."

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 03/29/11 04:43 AM
And so on and so forth. The over-arcing Christian argument seems to be "I feel sorry for you, I will pray for your soul." Which, let's face it, isn't much of an argument. this christian prefers not ARGUING, I will pray for you is no more an argument when someone seems in peril than saying I bless you is an 'argument' against someone who just sneezed,,,

Jez Joined Wed 03/16/11 Posts: 179	Tue 03/29/11 04:52 AM
Sorry, I meant "argument" more in terms of as a debate response rather than as actual arguing. My mistake, I wasn't clear.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 03/29/11 04:56 AM
Sorry, I meant "argument" more in terms of as a debate response rather than as actual arguing. My mistake, I wasn't clear.

Redykeulous Joined Thu 11/09/06 Posts: 6052	Tue 03/29/11 06:10 AM
Nice responce Jezzemy - I hope you don't mind but you wrote (and I purposely put out of order) Only my belief structure is based on provable facts and testable hypothesis, and actually WELCOMES people to prove otherwise. So it is far more likely to be closer to the gospel truth than the Gospels. Hey, I only believe in science. I haven't done all the experiments myself, or seen the curvature of the earth for myself, or any of that. So my faith in science is as much of a belief structure as anyone else's. The curvature of the Earth - There are those whose beliefs will not allow them to see what lies directly beyond their nose or even under it (in books of science). Those people will never know how math and algebra work and when they look out as far as the eye can see (beyond the nose) they will not understand that a simple mathematical equation proves that a horizon exists because of the curvature of the Earth. They only sit in wonder at what lies beyond the 'flat land' ahead of them - while people of science use the equation to determine how far and how long it will take them to go beyond the horizon and find things out for themselves.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 03/29/11 07:08 AM Edited by CowboyGH on Tue 03/29/11 07:08 AM
Miles wrote: Abra I get mixed up on how to make the link direct without copying and pasting.. would you posted it the right way Thanks Abra http://www.facebook.com/home.php?react=1301171655%3A723a47ffc726fa72752549cd9743bf5d#!/profile.php?id=597370211 Sure, I hope this works. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?react=1301171655%3A723a47ffc726fa72752549cd9743bf5d#!/profile.php?id=597370211 Miles wrote: Matt 6:33-34 3 But seek first the kingdom of Yahweh and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. NKJV Matt 22:37-40 37 Yahshua said to him, "'You shall love Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." NKJV I agree with the spiritual essence of these ideals. Just keep in mind that words like "Yahweh and Elohim" simply meant "God", and did not specifically mean to imply that the Torah itself should be accepted as the "Word of God". In other words, if you allow for abstraction here, I totally accept the spiritual teachings of Jesus, just as I accept the spiritual teachings of Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and many others, even including modern day Buddha's like Deepak Chopra. I don't discount spirituality. What I argue against is Fundamental Christian Extremism. I understand the TRUTHS that Jesus spoke of. There's no need to demand that anyone accept him as their personal 'sacrificial lamb' to appease a God who would otherwise cast them into a place of everlasting punishment. That's totally uncalled for. It's one thing to understand the spiritual teachings of Jesus, and a totally different thing to support Fundamental Christian Extremism. As I often say, I agree with the famous quote of Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." It's one thing to teach the teachings of Jesus. It's a totally different thing to support Fundamental Christian Extremism. I see no reason to support the Old Testament. I see no reason to support the idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God sent to pay for the "sins" of man. None of that is key to the moral values that Jesus taught. The problem is that I cannot "Spread the word of Jesus" without CLASHING head-on with Fundamental Christian Extremists! They absolutely refuse to allow me to "Spread the word of Jesus" because they are in total opposition to what that even MEANS! As soon as you mention Jesus to a Fundamental Christian Extremism, you had damn well be prepared to accept all their religious bigotries in Jesus' name, or be proclaimed to be a HEATHEN who has it all WRONG! They have a one-track-mind. You must accept Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God who died to pay for your sins, and you must "Obey" the commands of Jesus, which THEY then proceed to dictate precisely what that supposedly means. They are as far removed from what Jesus was about as a person can possibly be, IMHO. So Christianity actually PREVENTS me from teaching the TRUTH of Jesus, because it is Christianity that has it all WRONG. I understand the TRUTHS that Jesus spoke of. There's no need to demand that anyone accept him as their personal 'sacrificial lamb' to appease a God who would otherwise cast them into a place of everlasting punishment. That's totally uncalled for. No there is no need to accept Jesus as a personal "sacrificial lamb". Jesus is lord, Jesus is the truth, Jesus is the pathway to God who art in heaven.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 03/29/11 07:21 AM
Miles wrote: Abra I get mixed up on how to make the link direct without copying and pasting.. would you posted it the right way Thanks Abra http://www.facebook.com/home.php?react=1301171655%3A723a47ffc726fa72752549cd9743bf5d#!/profile.php?id=597370211 Sure, I hope this works. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?react=1301171655%3A723a47ffc726fa72752549cd9743bf5d#!/profile.php?id=597370211 Miles wrote: Matt 6:33-34 3 But seek first the kingdom of Yahweh and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. NKJV Matt 22:37-40 37 Yahshua said to him, "'You shall love Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." NKJV I agree with the spiritual essence of these ideals. Just keep in mind that words like "Yahweh and Elohim" simply meant "God", and did not specifically mean to imply that the Torah itself should be accepted as the "Word of God". In other words, if you allow for abstraction here, I totally accept the spiritual teachings of Jesus, just as I accept the spiritual teachings of Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and many others, even including modern day Buddha's like Deepak Chopra. I don't discount spirituality. What I argue against is Fundamental Christian Extremism. I understand the TRUTHS that Jesus spoke of. There's no need to demand that anyone accept him as their personal 'sacrificial lamb' to appease a God who would otherwise cast them into a place of everlasting punishment. That's totally uncalled for. It's one thing to understand the spiritual teachings of Jesus, and a totally different thing to support Fundamental Christian Extremism. As I often say, I agree with the famous quote of Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." It's one thing to teach the teachings of Jesus. It's a totally different thing to support Fundamental Christian Extremism. I see no reason to support the Old Testament. I see no reason to support the idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God sent to pay for the "sins" of man. None of that is key to the moral values that Jesus taught. The problem is that I cannot "Spread the word of Jesus" without CLASHING head-on with Fundamental Christian Extremists! They absolutely refuse to allow me to "Spread the word of Jesus" because they are in total opposition to what that even MEANS! As soon as you mention Jesus to a Fundamental Christian Extremism, you had damn well be prepared to accept all their religious bigotries in Jesus' name, or be proclaimed to be a HEATHEN who has it all WRONG! They have a one-track-mind. You must accept Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God who died to pay for your sins, and you must "Obey" the commands of Jesus, which THEY then proceed to dictate precisely what that supposedly means. They are as far removed from what Jesus was about as a person can possibly be, IMHO. So Christianity actually PREVENTS me from teaching the TRUTH of Jesus, because it is Christianity that has it all WRONG. I understand the TRUTHS that Jesus spoke of. There's no need to demand that anyone accept him as their personal 'sacrificial lamb' to appease a God who would otherwise cast them into a place of everlasting punishment. That's totally uncalled for. No there is no need to accept Jesus as a personal "sacrificial lamb". Jesus is lord, Jesus is the truth, Jesus is the pathway to God who art in heaven. As soon as you mention Jesus to a Fundamental Christian Extremism, you had damn well be prepared to accept all their religious bigotries in Jesus' name, or be proclaimed to be a HEATHEN who has it all WRONG! That is incorrect my friend. I've showed you this on this very forum. In a "discussion" BOTH sides get to say what they feel as true. 1. You state what you believe/how you feel about certain things. Your knowledge of this specific subject in discussion. 2. Then someone else states how they see it. 3. If it's not in lines with what YOU think, you totally fly off calling people paper popes and saying they are "renouncing" what you are saying. That's how a discussion works my friend, you say what you believe then another says what they believe. We're not here to make the other believe what another believes. We're having a DISCUSSION. Not a debate. Nor is anyone trying to change the other person's outlook on anything, again we're having a DISCUSSION.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 03/29/11 12:05 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Tue 03/29/11 12:17 PM
COWBOY SAID: That is incorrect my friend. I've showed you this on this very forum. In a "discussion" BOTH sides get to say what they feel as true. What is the point in that? That's how a discussion works my friend, you say what you believe then another says what they believe. We're not here to make the other believe what another believes. We're having a DISCUSSION. Not a debate. Nor is anyone trying to change the other person's outlook on anything, again we're having a DISCUSSION. Again, then what is the point of the discussion? You state what you believe. He states what he believes. blah blah blah blah. All that is a waste of time. Here's a news flash. Nobody cares what you believe. People only care about what they believe. So there is no reason to discuss any of that whatsoever. ESPECIALLY if you are not trying to convince anyone of anything as you claim. AGAIN: Nobody cares what you believe. They only care about what THEY BELIEVE. There is no need or reason for any discussion unless you are actually willing to consider an alternative. If you are not willing to do that, then you are just blah blah blah preaching. If you are preaching, then you are hoping that someone will agree with you or you are hoping to convince someone of something. If you are not, then you are wasting your time. If you just want to state what you believe you can do that on the Christian Forum and you can find a lot of people that might agree with you. But even Christians disagree a lot on what they believe, so that is not a given. At least Jehovah witnesses are trained to listen and pretend to be interested in what other people believe. (They don't but they are very convincing..) Then after they listen to your 'stupid' brain farts about what you believe, they expect you to shut up and listen to theirs. But they have an agenda. They want to convince you of believing as they do.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 03/29/11 12:14 PM
COWBOY SAID: That is incorrect my friend. I've showed you this on this very forum. In a "discussion" BOTH sides get to say what they feel as true. What is the point in that? That's how a discussion works my friend, you say what you believe then another says what they believe. We're not here to make the other believe what another believes. We're having a DISCUSSION. Not a debate. Nor is anyone trying to change the other person's outlook on anything, again we're having a DISCUSSION. Again, then what is the point of the discussion? You state what you believe. He states what he believes. blah blah blah blah. All that is a waste of time. Here's a news flash. Nobody cares what you believe. People only care about what they believe. So there is no reason to discuss any of that whatsoever. ESPECIALLY if you are not trying to convince anyone of anything as you claim. AGAIN: Nobody cares what you believe. They only care about what THEY BELIEVE. There is no need or reason for any discussion unless you are actually willing to consider an alternative. If you are not willing to do that, then you are just blah blah blah preaching. If you are preaching, then you are hoping that someone will agree with you or you are hoping to convince someone of something. If you are not, then you are wasting your time. Well if that's the way you see it, I would suggest going else where to preach. For we are here to have a discussion. You don't understand discussion I reckon. A discussion isn't done for altering another's beliefs or anything. It's for LEARNING. It's one thing to learn about Christianity, Buddhism, Catholics, ect, then to learn about a person's beliefs and why they have chosen that belief. It's purely for enlightenment and gaining knowledge of other's beliefs. It is for having a civil discussion and SHARING one's beliefs.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 03/29/11 12:23 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Tue 03/29/11 12:23 PM
Well if that's the way you see it, I would suggest going else where to preach. For we are here to have a discussion. You don't understand discussion I reckon. A discussion isn't done for altering another's beliefs or anything. It's for LEARNING. It's one thing to learn about Christianity, Buddhism, Catholics, ect, then to learn about a person's beliefs and why they have chosen that belief. It's purely for enlightenment and gaining knowledge of other's beliefs. It is for having a civil discussion and SHARING one's beliefs. DISCUSSIONS should have some kind of purpose or function. Yours does not. If I wanted to "learn" about Christianity in general, I don't think I would be picking you to teach it to me. As far as what you believe or why, I'm not really all that interested. So, what have you learned from your discussions? Have you learned anything new? I am interested to know.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 03/29/11 12:24 PM
Also, what is the point of "sharing" one's beliefs?

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 03/29/11 12:28 PM
Well if that's the way you see it, I would suggest going else where to preach. For we are here to have a discussion. You don't understand discussion I reckon. A discussion isn't done for altering another's beliefs or anything. It's for LEARNING. It's one thing to learn about Christianity, Buddhism, Catholics, ect, then to learn about a person's beliefs and why they have chosen that belief. It's purely for enlightenment and gaining knowledge of other's beliefs. It is for having a civil discussion and SHARING one's beliefs. DISCUSSIONS should have some kind of purpose or function. Yours does not. If I wanted to "learn" about Christianity in general, I don't think I would be picking you to teach it to me. As far as what you believe or why, I'm not really all that interested. So, what have you learned from your discussions? Have you learned anything new? I am interested to know. Yes they do have purpose and function. A civil discussion of sharing one's beliefs is an enlightening feeling.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 03/29/11 12:30 PM
So, what have you learned from your discussions? Have you learned anything new? I am interested to know.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 03/29/11 12:30 PM
Also, what is the point of "sharing" one's beliefs? What's the point in not sharing one's beliefs? Does sharing one's beliefs not grow a community closer? Even if the beliefs are not "shared" amongst one another? Just the communication and bonding between the two from sharing with one another their hopes and desires?

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 03/29/11 12:31 PM
So, what have you learned from your discussions? Have you learned anything new? I am interested to know. I have learned a lot. The biggest and most alienated thing I've learned is just how many people are out there to try to end the Christian faith and or try to renounce it. It's one thing to just not believe then it is to totally try to renounce a belief.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 03/29/11 12:34 PM
Also, what is the point of "sharing" one's beliefs? What's the point in not sharing one's beliefs? Does sharing one's beliefs not grow a community closer? Even if the beliefs are not "shared" amongst one another? Just the communication and bonding between the two from sharing with one another their hopes and desires? Opposing beliefs will not grow a community closer if there are strong disagreements. Hopes and desires are not religious beliefs, or beliefs at all. The point in NOT sharing one's beliefs where God or religion is concerned, is that this often will tear people apart rather than bond them closer. Besides, religious beliefs are very personal and should not be shared with just anyone. You are asking for big problems if you do.

CowboyGH Joined Mon 10/05/09 Posts: 13651	Tue 03/29/11 12:34 PM
Also, what is the point of "sharing" one's beliefs? What's the point in not sharing one's beliefs? Does sharing one's beliefs not grow a community closer? Even if the beliefs are not "shared" amongst one another? Just the communication and bonding between the two from sharing with one another their hopes and desires? If just sharing one's beliefs have no real purpose, then what purpose does sharing one's personal experiences in life have? Religion to people is the deepest most passionate part one someone. Weather that be Atheism, Christianity, ect. One's beliefs are the closest thing to that one. And the things that happened to cause them to have that belief.