toldailytopic: Why do atheists spend so much time on Christian forums such as Theolog

[Silent Hunter]

I assume you caught it but just in case....I was being sarcastic.

I assumed . . .

I still have no idea what you meant.

Can't we have a discussion instead?

Except we've had this debate before so you should just let it slide.

You brought it up . . .

Do you have a quote of the day calendar or something?

It's my latest idiom.

"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one." - David Hume

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So you are literally accusing every single atheist of lying.

Of course I am. The Scriptures are clear.

Romans 3:

9 Well then, should we conclude that we Jews are better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are under the power of sin.

10 As the Scriptures say,

“No one is righteous—
not even one.

11 No one is truly wise;
no one is seeking God.

12 All have turned away;
all have become useless.
No one does good,
not a single one.”

13 “Their talk is foul, like the stench from an open grave.
Their tongues are filled with lies.”
“Snake venom drips from their lips.”

14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

15 “They rush to commit murder.

16 Destruction and misery always follow them.

17 They don’t know where to find peace.”

18 “They have no fear of God at all.”​

What is the point of me interacting with you if you're just going to assume that everything I do, and my own nature to your beliefs is nothing but treachery?

You have deceived yourself indeed!

Our interaction started by my post pointing out by implication the irrationality of your world view. :squint: But this is a topic for a separate thread. Your comments wrt to my initial post only continue to make my point. Carry on.

Washer on the Lost's Hatred of God

AMR

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hey TH, we haven’t “spoken” in a while . . . you always make me think (laugh, cry, etc. depending on the circumstances).

The “murder” of the medical “team” (they claimed to NOT be missionaries) is an example of the religious extremism to which my comment is aimed and all that need be done is replace a few words.

And there are examples of murder and deprivation done in the name of a secular state and often with the intent to rid that state of its religious element (see: China and/or the former Soviet Union under Stalin). Like I said to the late Dodo, the problem isn't religion or communism, whatever you may think of the ideas, but men who use them as a means to power. It's historically true on either side of that great division.

For the most part this is true but we might want to examine the Christian motives behind the Crusades, the expansion of European colonization into the Americas, Africa, and Asia, and the genocides in various European areas (to name a few). The murders of the communist regimes weren’t in the name of atheism as is so common among religions. And I think you will find far more examples of religious extremism than those in your exemplar.

The "new atheist" wants the RELIGION to be "destroyed." This is in stark contrast to the Muslim person who wants the CHRISTIAN to be destroyed (take the majority attitude of Muslim toward missionaries for example).

Wouldn't the better parallel be the zealous convert who wants atheism stamped out and every man brought into an understanding with God? It appears you've chosen a comparison that serves your purpose without being entirely fair in the selection.

As I pointed out, my comparison is an example. However, given the general attitude shown recently in other threads of “Christian” attitudes toward homosexuals I’d say you seek the exception rather than the rule.

Were these “missionaries” more willing to die to “spread the Gospel” or more willing to die to “provide medical care?”

I'm with Patton. Let the other fellow die for his cause. Live for yours.

My point was morality is relative to the situation. One person’s murderer is another person’s freedom fighter.

Did the Muslim militia “murder” the medical team or did they righteously kill heretics to keeping a false “doctrine” from the people they "loved?"

What they thought they were doing is far less important to me than what they accomplished, which was the intentional killing of defenseless men and women who were not attempting to physically harm them. That's murder no matter who does it or why.

Your opinion is noted and rejected by the Muslim militia.

Is it immoral to tell a lie?

Not if your premise is correct. And who gives a fig for morality absent an absolute standard and a means of correction? If there is no God and no moral absolute that relates to Him leave things to civil and criminal violation and penalty. Absent God morality is nothing more or less than peer pressure aimed at a social conformity to support this or that power structure.

Forgive me if I say, “I saw this coming.” Is rape immoral? If this is included in your “absolute standard” perhaps you can show me? Otherwise the immorality of rape is based on a standard apart from the invisible sky spirit.

You do indeed do so when you tell your children there is an invisible sky spirit who will punish them if they aren’t “good.” It, in fact, borders on child abuse.

First things first. Using that sort of descriptive only convinces people who aren't inclined to cheer you on that you lack maturity, so if your point is to move the margins or give anyone else pause it's a poor approach and runs contrary to your aim. And I don't know any Christian parents who approach the religious instruction of their children in that fashion, though I know a number of atheists who routinely run to the illustration. Lastly, a belief isn't a lie. It may or may not be true (though in this case you can't establish that either) but that's another matter. So you may declare and believe yourself a thing without being that thing in the least. It doesn't follow that you've lied.

I’m sure you can prove the invisible sky spirit really exists; yes? Would you tell your children something you couldn’t prove?

The worst atheist is far better than the best Christian imo.

See, when you suggest a standard by which Stalin can be considered a better man than, say, C.S. Lewis, you only end up looking like the sort of unreasoned fanatic you appear to be arguing against a bit too broadly. That, in turn, calls into question your judgments, process and conclusions. I think you'll grow out of it, but at present it's having an impact on how people see you and how seriously they take you...and before you declare your indifference (should your age move you to that) let me add that will only secure the impression and that it's a bit at odds with the point of posting on an internet forum.

When viewed out of the context in which it was applied my statement does seem extreme and isn’t really clear as to my intent. Given what I have said above my meaning should be a bit better illustrated.

"Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." - Bertrand Russell

 

[nicholsmom]

No one said you were "ignorant" of history in general. You do seem to be "ignorant" of Christian history which you either conveniently ignore or for which you make excuses.

. . . see what I mean?

No. I don't. You clearly see what you have chosen to see. There has been no excuse made for wicked men. They choose their weapons as they will. That Christianity is among the weapons that some have chosen is no criticism of Christianity. Unless you want to show me how it is...

This would be building a straw man because you're exaggerating.

No. I'm likening. If the choice of weapon makes the weapon itself wicked, then you will have to call wicked all things chosen as weapons. Those that I have listed are frequent choices. Maybe you'd be interested in a definition of "straw man." A straw man is "a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted." So you see, unless I have somehow altered your argument to make it easily attacked or refuted, then I have not set one up.

Did you or did you not post:

The "new atheist" wants the RELIGION to be "destroyed."

Maybe with "new atheist" you weren't referring to yourself. If so then the "you" in my response post ought to have been "they" but otherwise all's well. Show me the straw man. You said you (presumably, but maybe just "new atheist") "want RELIGION to be destroyed." Is there any room within that statement for anything other than that religion is bad?

Maybe we ought to start there: is religion bad?
If you say "yes," then all my arguments stand unaltered.
If "no," then you'll have to explain why you want an innocuous thing (religion here) to be destroyed.

I didn’t avoid anything.

You did not address my assertion that religion, for the religious person, is central to that person's being - to who they are and the decisions that person makes.

In your case this may be true. However, have you ever wondered why when things go right you “praise” the invisible sky spirit for allowing it to happen but when things go wrong it’s your fault or someone other than the invisible sky spirit is to blame?

I don't know what sort of Christians you know, but this in no way describes me. I praise God for all things because the He has told me that He is working all things to the good for me. I know, because it is a central theme to the Christianity described in the NT, that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth. I don't bother with the blame game. Nothing can happen to me that hasn't gotten through the "okay" of God because I am His, so I am free from worry.

You can believe any fool thing you want to believe. It’s your time you are wasting not mine.

Now that is the attitude I expect from an atheist. Not this "new atheist" who wants RELIGION to be destroyed.

If you are not among those who seek to destroy religion, then please read my posts with "they" and "them" to refer to those who are among the "new atheists" and you will more readily grasp my meaning. :e4e:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Thank you for the thoughful reply . . . your input is always appreciated . . . and considered . . .

No. I don't. You clearly see what you have chosen to see. There has been no excuse made for wicked men. They choose their weapons as they will. That Christianity is among the weapons that some have chosen is no criticism of Christianity. Unless you want to show me how it is...

No, you clearly made an excuse for Christianity NOT being to blame.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

No. I'm likening.

What is "likening?"

If the choice of weapon makes the weapon itself wicked, then you will have to call wicked all things chosen as weapons. Those that I have listed are frequent choices.

I seem to recall something about "swords into plowshares." More evil has been done in the name of religion than without.

Maybe you'd be interested in a definition of "straw man." A straw man is "a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted." So you see, unless I have somehow altered your argument to make it easily attacked or refuted, then I have not set one up.

Which is exactly what you did. A straw man is not always based on a direct attack on the "opponent's argument" and yours is an exaggeration none-the-less.

Did you or did you not post: "The "new atheist" wants the RELIGION to be "destroyed."

So? Without religion "good people will not do evil things" as illustrated above.

Maybe with "new atheist" you weren't referring to yourself. If so then the "you" in my response post ought to have been "they" but otherwise all's well. Show me the straw man. You said you (presumably, but maybe just "new atheist") "want RELIGION to be destroyed." Is there any room within that statement for anything other than that religion is bad?

Maybe we ought to start there: is religion bad?
If you say "yes," then all my arguments stand unaltered.
If "no," then you'll have to explain why you want an innocuous thing (religion here) to be destroyed.

Religion is the only thing (in my limited experience) that will cause good people to do evil. See above.

You did not address my assertion that religion, for the religious person, is central to that person's being - to who they are and the decisions that person makes.

I don't address assertions. Perhaps you can provide a small amount of evidence to support you assertion and we can work from there.

I don't know what sort of Christians you know, but this in no way describes me. I praise God for all things because the He has told me that He is working all things to the good for me. I know, because it is a central theme to the Christianity described in the NT, that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth. I don't bother with the blame game. Nothing can happen to me that hasn't gotten through the "okay" of God because I am His, so I am free from worry.

1. Do you hear voices? 2. To each his/her own method of coping with reality. 3. If it works for you . . .

Now that is the attitude I expect from an atheist. Not this "new atheist" who wants RELIGION to be destroyed.

Actually, it's the "attitude" of all atheists "new" and "old."

If you are not among those who seek to destroy religion, then please read my posts with "they" and "them" to refer to those who are among the "new atheists" and you will more readily grasp my meaning.

Check.




"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" - Clark Adams

 

[fool]

Why do we come here?
We come to argue about stuff and stay for all the friends we made.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hey TH, we haven’t “spoken” in a while . . . you always make me think (laugh, cry, etc. depending on the circumstances).For the most part this is true but we might want to examine the Christian motives behind the Crusades, the expansion of European colonization into the Americas, Africa, and Asia, and the genocides in various European areas (to name a few). The murders of the communist regimes weren’t in the name of atheism as is so common among religions. And I think you will find far more examples of religious extremism than those in your exemplar.

Depends on which numbers you find more compelling. Religion has had the upper hand as an expression of political power for most of man's history. But examining that number is as misleading as suggesting that Michael Jackson giving a million dollars to charity is a greater individual expression of virtue than a fellow giving his last ten spot...it's all about context. Now if Mao kills thousands of Buddhists in an attempt to purge them from the lands claimed by communist China or if Stalin or Pol Pot establish states that as the bedrock of their foundation reject God and the absolute moral value that accompanies Him and then go on to murder millions of their own people for one reason or another, it makes a statement about where the real danger to humanity lies and where it essentially doesn't.

As I said to Dodo, Pogo had it right decades ago.

As I pointed out, my comparison is an example. However, given the general attitude shown recently in other threads of “Christian” attitudes toward homosexuals I’d say you seek the exception rather than the rule.

And you'd get what you deserve for attempting a rule to govern millions based on exposure to fringe elements in a minority opinion, if you're referring to some who favor treating the practice as a crime punishable by death.

My point was morality is relative to the situation. One person’s murderer is another person’s freedom fighter.

Rather, it is if there's no absolute standard and you're right back at square one.

Your opinion is noted and rejected by the Muslim militia.

I came into that point with no other conclusion. It doesn't alter it, however. Either I'm right and there is an absolute moral good, the violation of which is inexcusable, or I'm wrong and it hardly matters.

Forgive me if I say...

I can forgive you for the saying, but it doesn't follow that I'll seriously entertain a thing wrapped in insult. A shame to leave a point , but I've said my bit on that practice. I can't stop you, but I won't encourage you in that sort of conduct.

I’m sure you can prove...

Same principle then.

Would you tell your children something you couldn’t prove?

Of course I would and so will you the moment you say anything about the origin of being...or teach a value in relation that isn't a hard measurement of quantity or observable quality. Is love greater than justice? Is tennis actually a man's sport?

"Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." - Bertrand Russell

Except that if Russel is right man is the culprit then it's unreasonable to suggest he will do out of the goodness of his heart what he could not be compelled to do for fear of consequence or in support of the eternal fate of his immortal soul.

But why on earth should the thoughts of Russel constrain me? As well to quote Newton, who was smarter, or Augustine, who was wiser and hang your faith on their thinking. As for science, well, it can teach us the measurement of things, but cannot teach us their value.

 

[Nang]

As for science, well, it can teach us the measurement of things, but cannot teach us their value.

Amen and amen!!!

 

[Silent Hunter]

Why do we come here?
We come to argue about stuff and stay for all the friends we made.

I thought we came here to insult everyone then stay for all the friends we made :kiss:.






"I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States." - Thomas Edison

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hey TH, we haven’t “spoken” in a while . . . you always make me think (laugh, cry, etc. depending on the circumstances).For the most part this is true but we might want to examine the Christian motives behind the Crusades, the expansion of European colonization into the Americas, Africa, and Asia, and the genocides in various European areas (to name a few). The murders of the communist regimes weren’t in the name of atheism as is so common among religions. And I think you will find far more examples of religious extremism than those in your exemplar.

Depends on which numbers you find more compelling. Religion has had the upper hand as an expression of political power for most of man's history. But examining that number is as misleading as suggesting that Michael Jackson giving a million dollars to charity is a greater individual expression of virtue than a fellow giving his last ten spot...it's all about context. Now if Mao kills thousands of Buddhists in an attempt to purge them from the lands claimed by communist China or if Stalin or Pol Pot establish states that as the bedrock of their foundation reject God and the absolute moral value that accompanies Him and then go on to murder millions of their own people for one reason or another, it makes a statement about where the real danger to humanity lies and where it essentially doesn't.

As I said to Dodo, Pogo had it right decades ago.

You're right, let's ignore the "sins" of Christianity :rotfl:.

As I pointed out, my comparison is an example. However, given the general attitude shown recently in other threads of “Christian” attitudes toward homosexuals I’d say you seek the exception rather than the rule.

And you'd get what you deserve for attempting a rule to govern millions based on exposure to fringe elements in a minority opinion, if you're referring to some who favor treating the practice as a crime punishable by death.

Yet the Christian attitude against homosexuals seems to be the majority opinion . . . and is it “moral” to do so?

My point was morality is relative to the situation. One person’s murderer is another person’s freedom fighter.

Rather, it is if there's no absolute standard and you're right back at square one.

There is no “absolute standard.” To prove that such a standard exists involves more and more contradictions as the “proof” evolves.

Your opinion is noted and rejected by the Muslim militia.

I came into that point with no other conclusion. It doesn't alter it, however. Either I'm right and there is an absolute moral good, the violation of which is inexcusable, or I'm wrong and it hardly matters.

As in the example the moral “goodness” or “badness” of a behavior is relative to the observer.

Forgive me if I say...

I can forgive you for the saying, but it doesn't follow that I'll seriously entertain a thing wrapped in insult. A shame to leave a point , but I've said my bit on that practice. I can't stop you, but I won't encourage you in that sort of conduct.

I don’t know where you see an insult I simply asked where you derive the moral standard to say rape is immoral. If you cannot show where rape is condemned in your handbook of morality then the source of your condemnation of rape is apart from your handbook of morality.

I’m sure you can prove...

Same principle then.

Didn’t think you could/would. It’s always nice to not be disappointed.

Would you tell your children something you couldn’t prove?

Of course I would and so will you the moment you say anything about the origin of being...or teach a value in relation that isn't a hard measurement of quantity or observable quality. Is love greater than justice? Is tennis actually a man's sport?

You’re wrong . . . football is a man’s sport . . .










"Christian faith is a habit of flouting reason in forming and maintaining one's answer to the question whether there is a god. Its essence is the determination to believe that there is a god no matter what the evidence may be." - Richard Robinson

 

[Skavau]

Of course I am. The Scriptures are clear.

Romans 3:

9 Well then, should we conclude that we Jews are better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are under the power of sin.

10 As the Scriptures say,

“No one is righteous—
not even one.

11 No one is truly wise;
no one is seeking God.

12 All have turned away;
all have become useless.
No one does good,
not a single one.”

13 “Their talk is foul, like the stench from an open grave.
Their tongues are filled with lies.”
“Snake venom drips from their lips.”

14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

15 “They rush to commit murder.

16 Destruction and misery always follow them.

17 They don’t know where to find peace.”

18 “They have no fear of God at all.”​

Thank you for demonstrating the bigotry that scriptural adherence can hold. You believe that a documentation that you assume is holy in nature is more accurate than what someone might actually say.

You have deceived yourself indeed!

Our interaction started by my post pointing out by implication the irrationality of your world view. :squint: But this is a topic for a separate thread. Your comments wrt to my initial post only continue to make my point. Carry on.

I'm lost on what point of yours you think my comments demonstrate.

 

[nicholsmom]

Thank you for the thoughful reply . . . your input is always appreciated . . . and considered . . .
No, you clearly made an excuse for Christianity NOT being to blame.

I think you also need a definition of the word "excuse"

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

When? What good people doing evil? You'll have to give me an example, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

What is "likening?"

dictionary.com is pretty useful - they even have a grammar section. Look up "excuse" while you're there.

Concerning weapons themselves being seen as evil...

I seem to recall something about "swords into plowshares."

What??? What on earth does that have to do with calling religion evil because power-mongers use it to do their wicked deeds? Consider this: if a greedy man uses his telephone to bilk old ladies out of their pensions, is the telephone therefore guilty of wrongdoing? Of course not! It's absurd. Claiming that all religion is worthy of destruction simply because a few selfish men used it to arrive at their wicked purpose is equally absurd. (There's an example of "likening" for you )

More evil has been done in the name of religion than without.

Tell that to the people terrorized by Stalin (Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political "offences". At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.), Mao Tse-Tung (14 to 20 million deaths from starvation during the 'Great Leap Forward'. Tens of thousands killed and millions of lives ruined during the 'Cultural Revolution'. ), and Pol Pot (One to three million (or between a quarter and a third of the country's population). And that is quite apart from the work of abortionists right here in the USA. (numbers there are from http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers)
There are, of course, many other examples.

You can see pretty quickly that horrid atrocities are quite possible absent religion. So that knocks down any argument that religion is responsible for the evil that men will do.

Concerning your accusation that I somehow misrepresented your argument:

Which is exactly what you did.

What was your argument, and how did I misrepresent it?

A straw man is not always based on a direct attack on the "opponent's argument"

It never is - it is always an attack on a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument. So how did I misrepresent your argument?

and yours is an exaggeration none-the-less.

It is called likening one thing to another. That I gave many examples of what is like religion (in that they are commonly used by greedy, power mongers as weapons to do their evil deeds) might be a bit of over-kill, but it is not exaggeration - unless you want to show me how the examples I gave were NOT like religion in that regard.

So? Without religion "good people will not do evil things" as illustrated above.

What illustration? I'm still waiting for that illustration. You asserted as much, but no illustration, no evidence, no foundation, no example - not even a hypothetical example - was given. Com'on, dish.

Religion is the only thing (in my limited experience) that will cause good people to do evil. See above.

You crack me up :crackup:

I don't address assertions.

No, you just make them.

1. Do you hear voices?

No. Do you?

2. To each his/her own method of coping with reality.
3. If it works for you . . .

So you aren't interested in the destruction of religion?

"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" - Clark Adams

Absent the ability to know, there lies belief.

I believe that there is a Creator; you believe that there isn't. Neither can be proved. Neither can be known, so either way, it's a choice of belief - religion, if you will.

 

[Skavau]

When? What good people doing evil? You'll have to give me an example, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

One of the most example is one right under most people's noses. Many theists (both Christian and Muslim) are told that torture, a concept so universally rephrensible on earth is not only acceptable from or by God's hand, but is actually desirable for the unsaved. Similarly, the notion of eternal torture for literally thought-crime is also treated as divine retribution. I can think of nothing less than looking down on the supposed 'lost' to see them burn in eternal agony and shrug your shoulders and merely comment that they should have known better. I can think of no greater enabler to atrocity than the notion that all those not in agreement with God deserve what is coming to them.

It is of note that most people who perpetuate these ideals as wonderful, and as 'good news' live in free countries where they are free from both torture and from thought-crime and is a very direct example of how religious influence can directly skew the notion of morality to mean obedience to authority.

Absent the ability to know, there lies belief.

I believe that there is a Creator; you believe that there isn't. Neither can be proved. Neither can be known, so either way, it's a choice of belief - religion, if you will.

A belief, or lack of belief cannot in any meaningful way be described as a 'religion'. We do not describe simply irreligious deists or pantheists as religious and similarly, we do not describe atheists as religious. However we might describe some sects of Buddhism that are atheistic as religious.

 

[Lovejoy]

Were these “missionaries” more willing to die to “spread the Gospel” or more willing to die to “provide medical care?”

Christ Himself was a healer, and told us to love our neighbors, our enemies, basically anyone that we could get our hands on. They went out of love, and they went to heal. It is all part and parcel.

Is it immoral to tell a lie? You do indeed do so when you tell your children there is an invisible sky spirit who will punish them if they aren’t “good.” It, in fact, borders on child abuse.

And you accuse others of strawmen? My belief is of grace, not this awful caricature. As to the abuse, I have been told that it is, indeed, abuse and the equivalent of rape. But no one will tell me what the punishment should be if that is true?

Cite the “new atheist” who advocates death for such beliefs as opposed to Christians (Muslims) who do.

I am unaware of any. I assume that they find such an approach ineffective and unproductive. How would such a stance be helpful?

The worst atheist is far better than the best Christian imo.

I know others have addressed this, and you distanced yourself from the statement. Still, though, such a statement makes me wonder what the point is of attempting discussion with you? If I am to be regarded as morally inferior to any atheist (including yourself) as a matter of presupposition, what gain is there to be had for me? How can there be respect, or any sense of equality?

My approach, just so we are clear, is based on what some are calling 'hot cognitions.' I know doctrine and all the propositional aspects of orthodox christianity, and they are important. But I act out of the ones that I can actually feel, most of us do (imo). I feel God loves me, I feel that I love God. I, personally, feel love for people. I act on that. I do not use doctrine to justify hate, to treat others as inferior, or to refuse to care for people.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Thank you for the thoughful reply . . . your input is always appreciated . . . and considered . . .
No, you clearly made an excuse for Christianity NOT being to blame.

I think you also need a definition of the word "excuse."

I’m not going to “define” something you obviously know so well.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

When? What good people doing evil? You'll have to give me an example, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

A clear and excellent example presented recently in other threads is the way many Christians want to treat homosexuals.

What is "likening?"

dictionary.com is pretty useful - they even have a grammar section. Look up "excuse" while you're there.

LOL, never knew that was a word . . . unlike “excuse” which you should be familiar. And please consult the grammar section . . . yours is in need of help.

Concerning weapons themselves being seen as evil...

I seem to recall something about "swords into plowshares."

What??? What on earth does that have to do with calling religion evil because power-mongers use it to do their wicked deeds? Consider this: if a greedy man uses his telephone to bilk old ladies out of their pensions, is the telephone therefore guilty of wrongdoing? Of course not! It's absurd. Claiming that all religion is worthy of destruction simply because a few selfish men used it to arrive at their wicked purpose is equally absurd. (There's an example of "likening" for you )

I think I made this quite clear . . . absent religion no one uses it for their “wicked purpose.” And your example is still straw because I have made no such comparison. Red herring would probably be more appropriate.

More evil has been done in the name of religion than without.

Tell that to the people terrorized by Stalin (Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political "offences". At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.), Mao Tse-Tung (14 to 20 million deaths from starvation during the 'Great Leap Forward'. Tens of thousands killed and millions of lives ruined during the 'Cultural Revolution'. ), and Pol Pot (One to three million (or between a quarter and a third of the country's population). And that is quite apart from the work of abortionists right here in the USA. (numbers there are from http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers)
There are, of course, many other examples.

You can see pretty quickly that horrid atrocities are quite possible absent religion. So that knocks down any argument that religion is responsible for the evil that men will do.

Lots of straw here . . . lots. I never said any such thing as you describe. Evil people will do evil things, that much is clear and something I have never denied.

For good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Concerning your accusation that I somehow misrepresented your argument:

Which is exactly what you did.

What was your argument, and how did I misrepresent it?

See above.

A straw man is not always based on a direct attack on the "opponent's argument"

It never is - it is always an attack on a misrepresentation of the opponent's argument. So how did I misrepresent your argument?

See above, and you might want to re-familiarize yourself with the definition of a straw man.

and yours is an exaggeration none-the-less.

It is called likening one thing to another. That I gave many examples of what is like religion (in that they are commonly used by greedy, power mongers as weapons to do their evil deeds) might be a bit of over-kill, but it is not exaggeration - unless you want to show me how the examples I gave were NOT like religion in that regard.

. . . not when the “likening” is an exaggeration of the argument of your “opponent.”

So? Without religion "good people will not do evil things" as illustrated above.

What illustration? I'm still waiting for that illustration. You asserted as much, but no illustration, no evidence, no foundation, no example - not even a hypothetical example - was given. Com'on, dish.

I gave a perfect example concerning the “evil” of Christianity to TH and how these “good Christian people” would (and do) choose to treat homosexuals.

Religion is the only thing (in my limited experience) that will cause good people to do evil. See above.

You crack me up

. . . as do you . . .

I don't address assertions.

No, you just make them.

Pot, let me introduce you to kettle . . .

1. Do you hear voices?

No. Do you?

I was just wondering because you said, “I praise God for all things because the He has told me that He is working all things to the good for me.”

2. To each his/her own method of coping with reality.
3. If it works for you . . .

So you aren't interested in the destruction of religion?

I think the world would be better off without it . . . but no, I don’t have to . . . religion is in the process of destroying itself.

"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" - Clark Adams

Absent the ability to know, there lies belief.

I believe that there is a Creator; you believe that there isn't. Neither can be proved. Neither can be known, so either way, it's a choice of belief - religion, if you will.

I’m amused as to why people feel a need to respond to my “second” signature.











"It is possible to pay another man's debts on his behalf, but it is not possible to make a guilty man innocent by suffering in his place." - Carl Lofmark

 

[Silent Hunter]

Were these “missionaries” more willing to die to “spread the Gospel” or more willing to die to “provide medical care?”

Christ Himself was a healer, and told us to love our neighbors, our enemies, basically anyone that we could get our hands on. They went out of love, and they went to heal. It is all part and parcel.

Does your “love” extend to homosexuals? Do they deserve to “burn in hell” for being who they are?

Is it immoral to tell a lie? You do indeed do so when you tell your children there is an invisible sky spirit who will punish them if they aren’t “good.” It, in fact, borders on child abuse.

And you accuse others of strawmen? My belief is of grace, not this awful caricature. As to the abuse, I have been told that it is, indeed, abuse and the equivalent of rape. But no one will tell me what the punishment should be if that is true?

What straw man? Perhaps you will look in your standard book of morals and tell me where “rape” is a “sin.” If you can’t find it you might be deriving this moral standard from somewhere else.

Cite the “new atheist” who advocates death for such beliefs as opposed to Christians (Muslims) who do.

I am unaware of any. I assume that they find such an approach ineffective and unproductive. How would such a stance be helpful?

So I am NOT wrong as you asserted earlier.

The worst atheist is far better than the best Christian imo.

I know others have addressed this, and you distanced yourself from the statement.

I have not "distanced" myself from this statement at all. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Still, though, such a statement makes me wonder what the point is of attempting discussion with you? If I am to be regarded as morally inferior to any atheist (including yourself) as a matter of presupposition, what gain is there to be had for me? How can there be respect, or any sense of equality?

Do you claim to have a book with a “superior” set of morals to mine? Do you advocate the execution of homosexuals because your standard book of morals says to? If you don’t then you can tell me why.

My approach, just so we are clear, is based on what some are calling 'hot cognitions.' I know doctrine and all the propositional aspects of orthodox christianity, and they are important. But I act out of the ones that I can actually feel, most of us do (imo). I feel God loves me, I feel that I love God. I, personally, feel love for people. I act on that. I do not use doctrine to justify hate, to treat others as inferior, or to refuse to care for people.

You might want to change your religious position to something other than Christian because you directly contradict the orthodoxy.













"A Roman Catholic worships a god who speaks through the Pope, while a Baptist worships a god who does not. They cannot be worshipping the same god." - Judith Hayes

 

[Arthur Brain]

SH....

How do you define a 'good' person? Why is it only religion that could cause such a person to commit 'evil' as oppose to politics or corruption through other aspects of humanity? How about power? Greed? That really isn't a strong argument. You'd need to clarify what 'good' is and just how that's invulnerable to anything besides your view of religion.

Regarding your 'rape' argument. How about "Love your neighbour as yourself"?
If you're familiar with the biblical definition of love then violent sexual assault doesn't tie in with it....

 

[Lovejoy]

Does your “love” extend to homosexuals? Do they deserve to “burn in hell” for being who they are?

Find me a gay person, here on TOL or anywhere else, who will say that I have been unloving to them.

What straw man? Perhaps you will look in your standard book of morals and tell me where “rape” is a “sin.” If you can’t find it you might be deriving this moral standard from somewhere else.

Deuteronomy 22:25-28 says rape is a sin. However, I find it inherently unloving (the opposite of love, really), and therefore condemned under any number of Christs sentiments.

So I am NOT wrong as you asserted earlier.

Did I say that new atheists wanted christians dead? Can you show me were I said this? I stated, as far as I can tell, that new atheists attack something in Christians that we value more than our lives.

I have not "distanced" myself from this statement at all. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

But an evil atheist doing evil things still trumps me?

Do you claim to have a book with a “superior” set of morals to mine? Do you advocate the execution of homosexuals because your standard book of morals says to? If you don’t then you can tell me why.

You might want to change your religious position to something other than Christian because you directly contradict the orthodoxy.

I can be an unorthodox Christian if I want to, there are no orthodoxy police. My book, btw, has no morals of its own. I claim that God has a superior set of morals than both of us, and I seek after those.

Whatever the reason for the OT rules regarding the death of man lying with mankind, Jesus has set a higher standard for us all. It is a standard of Grace, and I choose to interpret it (as it is written in His Word) with my heart. If that is unorthodox, than so be it. It has served me well.

 

[nicholsmom]

I’m not going to “define” something you obviously know so well.

From thefreedictionary.com
ex·cuse (k-skyz)
tr.v. ex·cused, ex·cus·ing, ex·cus·es
1. An explanation offered to justify or obtain forgiveness.
2. A reason or grounds for excusing: Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.
3. The act of excusing.
4. A note explaining an absence.
5. Informal An inferior example: a poor excuse for a poet; a sorry excuse for a car.

Of which do you accuse me?
In case you pick 3, let's look at the verb form:

1.
a. To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood: He arrived late and excused his tardiness in a flimsy manner.
b. To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.
2.
a. To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.
b. To make allowance for; overlook: Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience.
3. To serve as justification for: Brilliance does not excuse bad manners.
4. To free, as from an obligation or duty; exempt: In my state, physicians and lawyers are excused from jury duty.
5. To give permission to leave; release: The child ate quickly and asked to be excused.

A clear and excellent example presented recently in other threads is the way many Christians want to treat homosexuals.

Why not make the argument? Flesh it out a bit. So far it's just an assertion.

LOL, never knew that was a word

You have got to be kidding me. Where did you grow up? Is English your first language?

I think I made this quite clear . . . absent religion no one uses it for their “wicked purpose.”

Tell me, how can anyone use a thing in the absence of that thing?

I have shown that absent religion, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name just three) accomplished a great deal of evil - who are you to say that they were not good men?

Lots of straw here . . . lots. I never said any such thing as you describe.

I'm going to have to start multi-quoting...

You posted: "More evil has been done in the name of religion than without." (emphasis added)

So, I did not misrepresent anything. You made an assertion that I refuted with evidence. I suppose we could run the numbers to find out really which evil has been done in the name of religion and which has not, but I'm pretty sure I made the point that it would be at least a tight race, if not a slam dunk on the part of atheistic evil-doing.

For good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Again with the unfounded assertion. I'll help you out here.
Name for me a good person.
Tell me who decided that this person was good and upon what standard that decision was made.
Name for me evil things that good person did.
Tell me who decided that those things are evil and upon what standard that decision was made.
Then show me how Christianity, specifically, has caused those people to do that evil - that is, show me how, absent Christianity, those people would not have done that evil.

. . . not when the “likening” is an exaggeration of the argument of your “opponent.”

Did you or did you not post that the "new atheist wants to destroy religion?" In what possible way can that be exaggerated?

I gave a perfect example concerning the “evil” of Christianity to TH and how these “good Christian people” would (and do) choose to treat homosexuals.

I'll have a look at that conversation - I love to watch TH at work

I was just wondering because you said, “I praise God for all things because the He has told me that He is working all things to the good for me.”

Maybe you've never heard of a book called the Bible... best seller, you know. Shall I quote chapter and verse for you?

I think the world would be better off without it . . . but no, I don’t have to . . . religion is in the process of destroying itself.

So you are not among the "new atheists" then? Good.

I’m amused as to why people feel a need to respond to my “second” signature.

This little bit of pomposity is not at all pleasant :nono:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're right, let's ignore the "sins" of Christianity :rotfl:.

Imagine how amazing that would be if it was actually a counter argument.

Yet the Christian attitude against homosexuals seems to be the majority opinion . . . and is it “moral” to do so?

Attitude? :chuckle: Seriously, is there an actual argument here?

There is no “absolute standard.”

That's one perspective. And that's really all it is...

To prove that such a standard exists involves more and more contradictions as the “proof” evolves.

You can't prove the standard. That's just a placeholder for the actual argument of the seat/authority that establishes the absolute and there's no way to address the question objectively, no criteria that if met would satisfy the challenge. A rather meaningless objection then.

As in the example the moral “goodness” or “badness” of a behavior is relative to the observer.

That's one position, again. And that's all it is.

I don’t know where you see an insult I simply asked where you derive the moral standard to say rape is immoral.

No, you did more than that in your ongoing address of God. But you aren't unaware of that, given I made the same objection to another point that had only the one thing in common.

If you cannot show where rape is condemned in your handbook of morality then the source of your condemnation of rape is apart from your handbook of morality.

Now the same prohibition against volitional sex outside of marriage should be understood to include involuntary congress...and then there's the command to abstain from sexual immorality found in Acts 15:20, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians. The only sexual relations sanctioned by scripture is between a husband and wife. Hebrews 13:4

Didn’t think you could/would. It’s always nice to not be disappointed.

Given the lack of consideration you're presenting in light of the demands your making I'm utterly unsurprised by this. But it isn't an inability to answer you, as I stated at the time. Address the Holy disrespectfully and I'm going to ignore the question on principle. Approach it another way and you'll be answered, as you were above.

You’re wrong . . . football is a man’s sport . . .

No, you're wrong. Squash is a vegetable. lain:

"Christian faith is a habit of flouting reason in forming and maintaining one's answer to the question whether there is a god. Its essence is the determination to believe that there is a god no matter what the evidence may be." - Richard Robinson

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

Francis Bacon

We really proved something with that quote off, didn't we. :nono: