• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Why is it that Christians are so quick to judge Athiest/Agnostic individuals?

treezy z said:
No repenting means actually doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
i see you posting anti-semitic messages on the board. i also see you quite frequently insulting and abusing people. how do you reconcile that with repenting and christ's teaching?

alasdair
 
^ I couldnt help myself but have a skim thru treezys recent post history. Antisemitic posts are a strange kettle of fish, just getting involved in any discussion about Israel in particular can get anyone branded an antisemite and some world leaders get branded antisemitic if they dont publically back Israel when they have made the headlines.


People are not perfect, anyone who follows a religion and are aware of the commandments etc would also have their own set of morals.


These religions just seem to give people who commit horrible crimes in their life without facing consequences or with no real remorse get a pardon if they repent to God.


I thought part of that repention was asking for forgiveness to those you damaged. If perps had the moral fiber at some point to realise they had fucked up and caused pain to others then the burden of shame and guilt would actually mean they are sorry for what they did and would try to make up for their sins.


Just asking forgiveness to enter heaven would not be sincere but who knows if it would work.

Those who had assaulted killed or raped without remorse might not care anyway
 
alasdairm said:
i see you posting anti-semitic messages on the board. i also see you quite frequently insulting and abusing people. how do you reconcile that with repenting and christ's teaching?
Click to expand...
second time of asking treezy. interested in your answer.

alasdair
 
I will not be baited by this question I will be banned.

Well the second part I will answer.

I don't recall constant insults, I've done it for sure posting fucked up. I'm trying to do less drugs (just weed) to avoid intoxicated shitposts and you are correct it is sinful.
 
I grew up christian. It's obvious to me that Christians attack non believers of any kind due to insecurities about the validity of their own beliefs.
 
I was watching a Marilyn Manson interview and was asked "You're stopping my daughter from having a religious belief in God". I think it's more of a wish that you and your family will be reunited after death. In the same way that I promise my kids that they will get a present on their birthdays. Why should my kid come back and say to me "I don't deserve a gift from you on my birthday"? No one would like to think that of any of their family members. It's a wish to be recognized as important, which bleeds into the very deeds themselves. This confuses the point when religious people wonder what it would be like to be Godless. Your deeds have no merits, you will not continue on after death. It's depressing. However if you turned that around and said your God said stone women who don't bleed after being married do you believe that is a just deed? They'd come back saying no it's the Spirit of the letter and not the literal interpretation. Atheism and Religion both have the same thing in common, that they view themselves as being important in their sense of understanding, in being secure in their deeds, even if it means disagreeing with the sacred texts. Even atheists have to reassure themselves by saying, "Well I can't prove that a God doesn't exist". Leaving a little room out of gloom.
 
Im always amazed how many people think that everyone secretly wants to live forever. When I used to panhandle I'd have religious types come up to me all the time telling me that if I have faith I could live forever. They just can't seem to grasp that someone might honestly not want to live forever. Not out of depression or being suicidal but just not wanting to exist for eternity. I don't. They never seemed to understand that their promise of the possibility of eternal life actually made me more want to disbelieve.
 
Shrooms00087 said:
Even atheists have to reassure themselves by saying, "Well I can't prove that a God doesn't exist".
Click to expand...

Well, they don't have to. Burden of proof lies on the one making the assertion. You don't have to disprove unicorns if I declare my belief in them. That's not how it works.
 
It takes a lot more faith to believe in nothing, than to believe in God.
 
belligerent drunk said:
How much faith exactly does it take to believe that blue fairies aren't the ones responsible for the 3 fundamental forces + gravity in nature?
Click to expand...

How much faith does it take to believe that blue fairy's are not responsible for the psychics of earth?

I guess less than believing in nothing lol.
 
belligerent drunk said:
Well, they don't have to. Burden of proof lies on the one making the assertion. You don't have to disprove unicorns if I declare my belief in them. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

Well their interpretation of the world is that there is no creator of creation and that we live in a mechanistic world. They cannot prove that the Totality is the Totality. They end the argument at being born saying that only your parents created you from nothing and they go no higher.

Ironically Dawkins says, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Meaning their God is the non-entity that explains the Whole which would be hydrogen and helium. Except we cannot create infinite denseness and neither can we explode hydrogen and helium and get a universe -- thus excluding it from its own understanding.
 
ashwolf22101 said:
How much faith does it take to believe that blue fairy's are not responsible for the psychics of earth?

I guess less than believing in nothing lol.
Click to expand...

Assuming psychics are real. Which is yet to be proved in a scientific and consequently peer-reviewed manner.

As far as real-world evidence goes, Neptune has as much going for him as does Allah. So why does (funnily enough, only after a certain point in time) believing in the latter seem absurd among other things to keen believers while in the case of the former it doesn't? The comment in the parentheses for the reason that same judgement would be applied to one if they expressed the same agnostic or atheist views back in the hayday of Greek deism.
 
belligerent drunk said:
Assuming psychics are real. Which is yet to be proved in a scientific and consequently peer-reviewed manner.

As far as real-world evidence goes, Neptune has as much going for him as does Allah. So why does (funnily enough, only after a certain point in time) believing in the latter seem absurd among other things to keen believers while in the case of the former it doesn't? The comment in the parentheses for the reason that same judgement would be applied to one if they expressed the same agnostic or atheist views back in the hayday of Greek deism.
Click to expand...

History repeats itself, just in different fashions (believing in Greek deism, paganism, etc.).

I think certain religions (or whatever you may call them) become criticized by two 'social' criteria:

1. Social controversy (what is accepted in the culture we live in and what is not)
Ex. Mayan sacrifice was acceptable, but in America today the general public find it ethically unacceptable.

2. The popularity of that religion (underdogs receive the most sympathy, but not necessarily the most followers)
Ex. Christianity is very widespread due to the universal Catholic church.

Good discussion!
 
Shrooms00087 said:
Ironically Dawkins says, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Meaning their God is the non-entity that explains the Whole which would be hydrogen and helium.
Click to expand...

Not sure I completely understand. Universe isn't just hydrogen and helium, although they make up the most of it...

Except we cannot create infinite denseness and neither can we explode hydrogen and helium and get a universe -- thus excluding it from its own understanding.
Click to expand...


"Exploding" hydrogen and/or helium doesn't necessarily create a new universe. Thermonuclear fusion goes on in every star and actually humans are very capable of doing it as well. However, the Big Bang theory is something completely different, and is not about "creating" infinite denseness whatsoever. One of current models proposes that the universe could have arisen as a sort of quantum fluctuation - the like we can detect in any point in space, the like that actually define most of what happens in reality. Just as particles can arise from nothing due to them, a whole universe can as well. If you want to claim that the probability is miniscule, the anthropic principle provides the solution - we don't really know what goes on outside our universe (assuming multiverse or the like), and how often such fluctuation events take place. There is no known limit on "time", so however unlikely the event, it can arise, and if it does, then we would find ourselves within such a universe, because... we couldn't exist in a different one. Pretty simple logic.

I mean, to me it makes much more sense than "skydaddy made us, end of story", and moreover it is based on principles that we have observed and proven.

If you want to go deeper, then some hypotheses claim that universes are created by pretty much all happenings within our universe, and they may as well be right, although I personally don't subscribe to them due to lack of sound proof and/or logic stemming from current proven models. Too much of a conjecture for me.
 
belligerent drunk said:
Not sure I completely understand. Universe isn't just hydrogen and helium, although they make up the most of it...



"Exploding" hydrogen and/or helium doesn't necessarily create a new universe. Thermonuclear fusion goes on in every star and actually humans are very capable of doing it as well. However, the Big Bang theory is something completely different, and is not about "creating" infinite denseness whatsoever. One of current models proposes that the universe could have arisen as a sort of quantum fluctuation - the like we can detect in any point in space, the like that actually define most of what happens in reality. Just as particles can arise from nothing due to them, a whole universe can as well. If you want to claim that the probability is miniscule, the anthropic principle provides the solution - we don't really know what goes on outside our universe (assuming multiverse or the like), and how often such fluctuation events take place. There is no known limit on "time", so however unlikely the event, it can arise, and if it does, then we would find ourselves within such a universe, because... we couldn't exist in a different one. Pretty simple logic.

I mean, to me it makes much more sense than "skydaddy made us, end of story", and moreover it is based on principles that we have observed and proven.

If you want to go deeper, then some hypotheses claim that universes are created by pretty much all happenings within our universe, and they may as well be right, although I personally don't subscribe to them due to lack of sound proof and/or logic stemming from current proven models. Too much of a conjecture for me.
Click to expand...


It's not simple logic though. It's a leap of faith to take these reasons as Truth. Skydaddy or quantum goop or flying interdimensional membranes accidentally bumping uglies and creating a pan dimensional 99.9% 'nothing' imbetween "I don't know lets call it atoms, even though we can't see it". Both ask ridiculous questions and come up with ridiculous answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top