Landover Baptist Pastor Preaches To Atheists

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Hey Im all for teaching myths too....we dont disagree on that point at all. Great things can be learned from stories...but only if thats the way they are taught. Aesops isnt taught as a fact....Peter and the Wolf isnt taught as fact.

Hmmm... well this is where we differ. I suppose because of the context I have to fall into some scientific speak. If you want to examine myth in the light of Dawkin's projection of a meme or the older definition of myth being the social fabric or accumulated wisdom of the path, than some myths have more meaning than others.

Religious myths of all kinds seem to project the most meaning onto the human consciousness and indeed have had the most impact upon the cultural tapestry of the world. I recognize their relevance and wouldn't want them to be lumped in with "Peter and the Wolf". You may choose to see those myths as a survival mechanism, I would agree in part, but I am also interested as to why these myths have such an impact that extends outside of being a "crutch to life".

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wrong! You believe there is no God. You believe that all religions are wrong. You hold these beliefs with a very limited understanding of the universe around you and what lies beyond. You've never seen beyond death but, believe there is nothing. Your understanding of the millions of religions in this world is so limited that you couldn't even name most of them but, because of your atheistic beliefs condemn them as folly much in the same way as I do because of my belief system.

Next to Atheism probably the only other religion you would have an intimate understanding of is Catholicism because of your background. Your understanding of scriptures is so limited you can't even differentiate between Catholic beliefs and New Testament beliefs. Nor can you differentiate between the old covenant and the new covenant. But ignorance doesn't stop you from defining and condemning my beliefs. In this you are more of a zealot than me.

Talking to you is like talking to...well you get it...everyone has explained this to you multitudes of times.

Atheism is not a belief system; if atheism were a belief system, it would consist of an integrated system of doctrines, beliefs, and ideas that would be used to provide guidance and stability in people's lives. Since it obviously does none of that, those who say that atheism is a belief system can't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about.

Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

An ideology is any "body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." There are two key elements necessary for an ideology: it must be a group of ideas or beliefs and this group must provide guidance. Neither is true of atheism. First, atheism is by itself just the absence of belief in gods; it's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Second, atheism by itself offers no guidance on moral, social, or political matters. Atheism, like theism, can be part of an ideology, but neither can be an ideology by themselves.

[peter12]

I actually wrote a paper that is sort of a preamble to my Master's thesis that compared the language of atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens to the language of millenarian fundamentalists. It was amazingly similar. Put me in the camp that says atheists might not be consciously religious, but easily fall into the religious talk and iconography that they claim to hate so much.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

False to you after the fact in view of the Christianity that won, the followers of those teachers and literature didn't view them as false. Especially since they based their beliefs on their information on the life of Jesus. Boy it would suck to go to hell just because you followed and believed a teacher who used religious writings in circulation that ended up not getting into the canon.

Again, none of it was false.

Their information and writings were based more on the physical, everyday life of Jesus Christ, rather than his teachings, and spiritual side.

THAT is why those writings weren't put into the Bible.

Sure, some of them may have been refused based on not exactly knowing who wrote it, but for the most part the people who put the Bible together, stuck to the common message.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by peter12

Dangerous thinking there. A professed belief in a complete transformation of human nature is more fundamentalist than almost anything.

You can believe in something without being religious, here's an idea, how about believe in science and common sense

I get a kick out of religious people, it's like their ears/eyes and brains stop working when you bring up facts that disprove their religion.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hmmm... well this is where we differ. I suppose because of the context I have to fall into some scientific speak. If you want to examine myth in the light of Dawkin's projection of a meme or the older definition of myth being the social fabric or accumulated wisdom of the path, than some myths have more meaning than others.

Religious myths of all kinds seem to project the most meaning onto the human consciousness and indeed have had the most impact upon the cultural tapestry of the world. I recognize their relevance and wouldn't want them to be lumped in with "Peter and the Wolf". You may choose to see those myths as a survival mechanism, I would agree in part, but I am also interested as to why these myths have such an impact that extends outside of being a "crutch to life".

Again Im going to simplify. Do you suppose that the control of the church had anything to do with the dominance of the myths? Do you suppose that IF people were free to disagree with the church 500 years ago that some of the myths might be different if not eliminated? I dont think we are talking a different language here...you keep saying "Religious myths, I agree, thats what they are. But they arent being taught as myths...they are being taught as fact. Thats the parallel I was talking about in regards to Aesops et al. The relevance of myths is great. Stories are a great way to get messages through to children....as long as its not about Bears killing and maiming children.

He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of The Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys." (2 Kings 2:22-24 RSV)

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually because Atheism is embraced by such a small number of people I still might be able to claim victory on a per capital basis.

"Non-religion" is the 3rd largest religion in the world. So much for that part of your world view.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

So by that by capita I still win a dumb competition which doesn't mean anything.

But what I was trying to communicate is the fact that hostility towards Christianity is central to your religious camp.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't read what people write and really have no interest in anything other than hearing yourself talk.

Where have I EVER said I was an atheist? EVER? You are completely willing to assume so, classify me in your world view, and launch the attack. That's a pretty good example of intolerance isn't it?

Show me atheists who have web sites that don't attack Christianity.

Show me a Christian website that doesn't attack sin. What's the point? What's wrong with attacking any religious belief? Are beliefs so fragile that they cannot withstand any scrutiny? Or can religious beliefs only be attacked by those who hold different religious beliefs?

If you can there number would be far less than the I hate Christian sites you've found.

Ah yes, truth by poll of number of websites again.

Hatred of Christianity is a preoccupation of atheists.

I could say hatred of Islam is a preoccupation of Christianity since all Christians think Islam is the path to darkness then right?

Some people think Christianity is good for people and they think atheism is bad for people. They think this strongly enough that they do something about it. Some try to convert the atheists, some speak out against atheism, some write about the pitfalls of atheism, some of this goes on websites. You are doing this right now. Most do none of this, most simply go about their lives living their life.

Some people think Atheism is good for people and they think religion is bad for people. They think this strongly enough that they do something about it. Some try to deconvert the religious, some speak out against religion, some write about the pitfalls of religion, some of this goes on websites. Others are doing this right now in this thread. Most do none of this, most simply go about their lives living their life.

So what you are trying to say is that the first group of some people is smaller than the second, so that makes what the second does intolerant but the first is tolerant? Is that about it?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm accountable to something far greater--my own sense of what is right and what is wrong. I'm answerable only to myself for my actions--shall I do good and be a good, kind, considerate person, or shall I do evil and be an unkind, ungenerous person? Shall I fill my thoughts with love and fellow feeling or hatred and judgment? Shall I treat others with dignity and respect, even if they don't return the favour?

I like to think I do all of these things, most of the time. Certainly I do them more often than some people who call themselves "religious," though by no means am I special--many people who are religious do them too, for the same reasons.

The point? You don't need accountability to a deity to guide you towards a moral life. If you do, then you're not actually behaving morally--you're just avoiding immoral behavior for fear of punishment by a more powerful being.

The first doctrine is responsibility and self-reliance. The second is submission to authority. I know which one I prefer.

Do you not believe your sense of right and wrong and that of our society has been influenced by Christianity? I mean where do we get our sense of justice? I think we are born with a conscience but, environment must play a role or all society and all religions would have the same standards.

I believe Jesus was the first to suggest that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. A teaching that is far removed from an eye for an eye(although that was spoken in the context of a nation's legal system). Religious freedom is a American invention that came out of necessity because each of your original colonies had their own state religions and they needed every-ones support to beat the British. That model including the separation of church and State was already being modeled in Rhode Island and it worked there. Rhode Islands model because of their biblical belief that one had to freely receive.

I think your sense of morality has been influenced by Christianity more than you think. As for this nonsense about doing good because of a fear of God or hell: I am forgiven. I am saved. This was a gift from God. I didn't earn it by my own righteousness and it didn't come with are return policy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

You can believe in something without being religious, here's an idea, how about believe in science and common sense

I get a kick out of religious people, it's like their ears/eyes and brains stop working when you bring up facts that disprove their religion.

There are no such things as 'facts' when it comes to religion.

Ignorance is bliss.

...apparently on both sides.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Do you not believe your sense of right and wrong and that of our society has been influenced by Christianity? I mean where do we get our sense of justice? I think we are born with a conscience but, environment must play a role or all society and all religions would have the same standards.

I believe Jesus was the first to suggest that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. A teaching that is far removed from an eye for an eye(although that was spoken in the context of a nation's legal system). Religious freedom is a American invention that came out of necessity because each of your original colonies had their own state religions and they needed every-ones support to beat the British. That model including the separation of church and State was already being modeled in Rhode Island and it worked there. Rhode Islands model because of their biblical belief that one had to freely receive.

I think your sense of morality has been influenced by Christianity more than you think. As for this nonsense about doing good because of a fear of God or hell: I am forgiven. I am saved. This was a gift from God. I didn't earn it by my own righteousness and it didn't come with are return policy.

Cmon CalgaryBorn...do you seriously buy this? Do you sincerely buy that right and wrong started with Jesus and Christianity?
How about you read a book that doesnt start with a B and end with an E.
Try the Code of Hammurabi...written 1780 BC.

Heres others:
Thou shall love they neighbor as thyself (Leviticus 19:18, Judaism)
Hurt not others with that which pains yourself (Udanavarga 5:18, Buddhism)
What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others (Analects, Confucianism)

Chrisitianity and Judaism KNEW of Babylonian law(s) and incorporated large parts into their traditions and verses.
Do you think that before Jesus (IF he ever lived) all people were immoral and never had codes to live by? Do you think up to the minute Jesus said those words people didnt realize that if they did good things good things might happen to them?


The real facts are..Christianity stole large parts of their doctrine from other religions preceding them.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm accountable to something far greater--my own sense of what is right and what is wrong. I'm answerable only to myself for my actions--shall I do good and be a good, kind, considerate person, or shall I do evil and be an unkind, ungenerous person? Shall I fill my thoughts with love and fellow feeling or hatred and judgment? Shall I treat others with dignity and respect, even if they don't return the favour?

I like to think I do all of these things, most of the time. Certainly I do them more often than some people who call themselves "religious," though by no means am I special--many people who are religious do them too, for the same reasons.

The point? You don't need accountability to a deity to guide you towards a moral life. If you do, then you're not actually behaving morally--you're just avoiding immoral behavior for fear of punishment by a more powerful being.

The first doctrine is responsibility and self-reliance. The second is submission to authority. I know which one I prefer.

Yes, but if that authority subscribes to the same things that you aspire to in your first paragraph, and in the end, accomplishes the same thing whether by fear or otherwise, then what's the difference?

Do you not see the benefit of having a moral code with which you can periodically recalibrate your behavior towards others?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by T@T

You can believe in something without being religious, here's an idea, how about believe in science and common sense

I get a kick out of religious people, it's like their ears/eyes and brains stop working when you bring up facts that disprove their religion.

How does one "disprove" a religion?

In fact, what exactly does that mean?

You can disprove peoples faith and belief systems?

Talk about being a bit high and mighty.

[transplant99]

Also, I seem to get a sense throughout this thread, that although many use the term religion, they are actually meaning Christianity specifically as is evidenced throughout.

I think if one is to discount one religion in the name of "there is no proof of god", then one should discount them all.......no?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Also, I seem to get a sense throughout this thread, that although many use the term religion, they are actually meaning Christianity specifically as is evidenced throughout.

I think if one is to discount one religion in the name of "there is no proof of god", then one should discount them all.......no?

We talk Christianity because in the northern hemisphere that is the predominant religion. If we were in the Middle East the flavor would be different. One takes the flavor they are born with or around for most of their lives.
Religion as a label encompasses far more than Christianity.

Religion

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are no such things as 'facts' when it comes to religion.

Ignorance is bliss.

...apparently on both sides.

Fact - earth is older than 5 million years
Fact - Adam and Eve never happened
Fact - Man isn't the most successfull creature the earth has known

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, none of it was false.

Their information and writings were based more on the physical, everyday life of Jesus Christ, rather than his teachings, and spiritual side.

THAT is why those writings weren't put into the Bible.

Sure, some of them may have been refused based on not exactly knowing who wrote it, but for the most part the people who put the Bible together, stuck to the common message.

Not at all, some of the writings had content that clearly went against the doctrines that eventually became Christianty.

The Gospel of Thomas is one that clearly had a gnostic slant, doesn't teach a physical resurrection, etc..

There's others too, that book link I posted has info on a number of them.

Not knowing who wrote a book didn't stop books from being in the canon, the 4 gospels are all anonymous.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by T@T

Fact - earth is older than 5 million years
Fact - Adam and Eve never happened
Fact - Man isn't the most successfull creature the earth has known

Alright. Thanks, Dwight.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by transplant99

How does one "disprove" a religion?

In fact, what exactly does that mean?

You can disprove peoples faith and belief systems?

Talk about being a bit high and mighty.

How about showing more holes in it than swiss cheese?

Religion is a crutch for the weak, if that statement makes me seem high and mighty...too bad

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I mean where do we get our sense of justice?

Do you think we get it from the Bible? From Christianity?

Chimpanzees have a sense of justice. Where did they get it?

Human beings had "a sense of justice" long before Jesus was around.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I believe Jesus was the first to suggest that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

No he wasn't. I don't know who it was, but it was a long time before Jesus.

There were civilizations long before Jesus and if they didn't ascribe to some version of "do unto others" they wouldn't have become civilizations in the first place.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by T@T

How about showing more holes in it than swiss cheese?

Religion is a crutch for the weak, if that statement makes me seem high and mighty...too bad

That's a funny statement. I'm quite educated, working towards an MA in Poli Sci, with grades in the top 10% in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. I have a very good job, for which I'm grateful for, and I'm in a great relationship. I don't feel that weak.

I'm also guessing that if you asked a lot of the poor and disadvantaged, they wouldn't take too kindly to you calling them weak or pathetic.