Isn't that a pretty small sample size? I mean if your boyhood church lacked authenticity why sit there. Why didn't you look for a different one?
I certainly didn't spend my entire youth and adult life in one church, I attended quite a few different ones, tough most were Protestant denominations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Perhaps you haven't but, it is a very familiar refrain amongst atheists on this site.
If you're going to stop putting words in my mouth (by accepting that I haven't said something), I think it's also fair to stop lumping the rest of the atheists here in the same boat.
Instead take each person individually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
This thread was started because a survey of christians found that they have little trust of atheists. I contend that is mostly because of the hostility atheists often show towards christians. Sure it is a general observation and not true for every atheist, but it is generally true.
Or it could be that Christians overgenralize and overreact, projecting the hostility of a few atheists to all atheists, and misinterpreting challenging of ideas and questioning of conclusions as hostility. I see that from Christians in forums all the time.
We can both contend, but it doesn't make either of us right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
As for you, I don't believe your mind is completely closed but, I'm not convinced you are seeking either. Having said that, I realize I only know you from a few posts and could easily be way off base.
I'm certainly seeking less currently, partly because of time, partly because the number of questions that I have that would "break the logjam" so to speak is much smaller currently.
But it doesn't stop, just today I read one small thing that made me bookmark like 5 different pieces to read at some point, all relevant to the topic.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Couldn't resist. I will forever regret venturing out of FOI last year to lurk in OT, and unfortunately this time I'm already registered so even a registration-hiatus can't stop me.
Calgaryborn - I just want to know: what is it about the concept of Atheism that offends you so? Is it the lack of belief in gods, or the lack of belief in YOUR God?
In my experience when discussing this subject matter with Christians, Catholics, etc...I find it is often the latter, rather than the former that is the ultimate source of dislike.
Now before this turns into another opinion circle about perceived hostilities and the whole "which 'side' started attacking first" debate...am I to believe that if Atheists were not vocal about their beliefs and did not actively "attack" Christianity as you suggest - that your opinion of them would be any different? That the participants in the OP's study would view them differently? Or when it comes down to it, do Atheists already have a negative connotation irrespective of how they behave, just because their beliefs oppose yours?
If the answer is no, then I would like to know if an Atheist decided one day to 'pick' a religion that is not yours, or perhaps even create one of his/her own that worships some sort of deity, that you would then suddenly put this person into higher moral standing? That the respondents in this survey would suddenly perceive the former Atheist as now being as trustworthy as the other categorized groups and no longer equivalent to rapists?
^btw, I know I directed that at Calgaryborn, but other anti-Atheists are welcome to respond, as I genuinely want to know the answer to my questions from the Anti-Atheist POV
I don't think the "name some villains from history" game is one that religious people, and Christians in particular, really want to play.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Last edited by Makarov; 12-08-2011 at 08:03 AM.
Reason: typo
For example, the "suicide bombing" community is entirely theistic.
As are the "crusading" and "inquisitioning" communities.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Nonstampcollector sums up my frustrations with claims that Christians get their morals from the Bible.
As someone who believes in God, I completely agree with this position being stupid. From where I sit divine command (i.e. things are right because God has decreed it so) has been dead for 2000 years since the Euthyphro (which can be read here if anyone is curious - http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html). It does not follow logically that the moral edicts of the Bible should be rejected out of hand, it merely shows that the Bible is not the ultimate basis as to whether those edicts are "right" or "wrong".
It has always seemed to me that anyone who accepts that any moral proposition is correct, i.e. torturing this innocent baby is wrong, must also accept that there is some underlying objective standard out there by which that assessment can be made.* Once we have that, it should follow that a universal standard exists. Whether we know what the standard is or not or how it applies to a particular scenario which may be more shades of gray than torturing an innocent baby, it must at the very least be taken to exist. In other words, there is always an objective right or wrong, whether or not we know what it is. That may not be useful because it cannot direct action, but it does strike me as inevitable.
*Relativism fudges this question but I would say that relativist moral standards equivocate the meaning of "right" and "wrong". And there are enough nails in the coffin of ethical relativism that it's hardly worth hashing them out.
Last edited by AR_Six; 12-08-2011 at 09:29 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AR_Six For This Useful Post:
I'm a WWII buff and have read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (big job that was, but I want to do it again one day) and parts of Mein Kampf. His mother was Catholic and his father, as I recall, was probably agnostic (maybe athiest). I wouldn't call him a Catholic in the 1930s during his rise to power.
The video you attached called Hitler an athiest. He was a believer. The words Gott Mit Uns (God be with us) was a motto and appeared on all kinds of Nazi stuff, belt buckles, propoganda. He also felt he was divinely chosen for this important calling of his.
Last edited by MoneyGuy; 12-08-2011 at 01:00 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
Whether or not Hitler was Christian or an atheist is such a silly and pointless argument. It doesn't matter what Hitler believed. Regardless of his personal beliefs (or lack thereof), the vast majority of the people who enabled the Holocaust and followed out the orders to commit genocide were Christians (the population of Germany was predominantly Christian during the Third Reich). Indeed, anti-Semitism would not have been so prevalent in Europe were it not for Christians who blamed the Jews for killing Jesus.
And no, Calgaryborn, I'm not interested in hearing you try to explain how they weren't "real" Christians. That's as stupid as saying the rioters in Vancouver weren't "real" Canucks fans.
Its also such craziness to suggest any of those men killed in the name of atheism. While this is a common idea pushed by many believers, none of them can explain what exactly caused these men to kill in the name of atheism... logic, reasoning, secularist values?
As for the idea of playing the numbers game, lets not forget what the crusades would have looked like had they the weapons of the 20th century.
An atheist state isn't communist North Korea, the closest we have to one is Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, etc..
