# It’s About Time, Part III



## Asath (Mar 21, 2012)

Apologies, yet again, to those who think that theology is logical and orderly, and that a deconstruction of same ought to be similarly orderly – thus far I have touched upon free-will as a fact rather than a gift, and upon the constant and truthful and steady erosion of theological ‘givens’ by the progress of such mundane folks as the non-clerical.  

Here we will take on the motivation behind the arguments that have been postured against a free-will that WASN’T given as a gift, and against the idea that human law has eroded religious law to the point that it is religions that are found in full retreat, revising themselves to keep pace with the rest of us.

We’ll posit here that dreams may be far more pleasant than realities, but if the goal is happiness (on any level), it must be won by adapting ourselves to the realities, rather than by trying to adapt the realities to our dreams and wishes.

So let us speak of the Sin of Pride.

Have the gloomiest of pessimists ever tortured anyone with belief-based platitudes holding that pain is not an evil; that sickness is merely a blessing in disguise; or that death is not a separation, but merely a transition to a better reality?  Has anyone who has endured the sufferings of pain and sickness, and not actually encountered death, found anything other than the bitterest of mockeries in such glad-handed nonsense, however well-meant?  Does anyone else find a cutting satire in the part of the funeral service that refers to the “sure and certain hope of a blessed resurrection”?  

Setting aside the question of whether the Theists can prove their dogmas, we have to ask the next question of whether or not the dogmas, if we grant them legitimacy, have any meaning.  Do they actually answer us, in our doubts?  Or do they mock us with the appearance of having an answer?  

When these questions are asked the Theists reach into their kit-bag and pull out the accusation of the ‘Pride of Reason,’ and submit that holding such Pride is arrogant and sinful in and of itself.  They hold themselves above such accusations, by declaring that the ‘scientific’ reasoning sets limits to the faculty in which they, themselves trust, and that the ‘scientific’ reasoning denies the existence of any other faculty.  By this device, the Theists hold THEMSELVES to be humble, because they claim to tread in realms that the mere ‘scientist’ cannot access – this realm is accessible only to Believers, and is off-limits to everyone else.  

Have the ‘Believers’ truly found a basis for such complacency, and discovered a firm platform from which they can condemn and look down, with either compassion or contempt, without the weight of even a single passing doubt?  Or is the Sin of Pride, on our part, one that was authored entirely by the need to justify such Prideful and purely fictitious boasting on their own part?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2012)

No conincidence the Bible addresses this idea right off the bat with the story of the "fruit" which Eve tempted Adam with from the "Tree of Knowledge."  Seeking the highest levels of education, knowledge and reason is considered VERY prideful by some fundamentalists.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

Asath said:


> Apologies, yet again, to those who think that theology is logical and orderly, and that a deconstruction of same ought to be similarly orderly – thus far I have touched upon free-will as a fact rather than a gift, and upon the constant and truthful and steady erosion of theological ‘givens’ by the progress of such mundane folks as the non-clerical.
> 
> Here we will take on the motivation behind the arguments that have been postured against a free-will that WASN’T given as a gift, and against the idea that human law has eroded religious law to the point that it is religions that are found in full retreat, revising themselves to keep pace with the rest of us.
> 
> ...



Who told you that?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2012)

The concept of "Enlightenment."


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Who told you that?



I certainly hear it a lot.

For instance if i say i tried to talk to god but god never talked back, its because im not a true believer, or i havent given my self over enough or w.e. They might claim that they know god because of a connection with him that i dont have.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> No conincidence the Bible addresses this idea right off the bat with the story of the "fruit" which Eve tempted Adam with from the "Tree of Knowledge."  Seeking the highest levels of education, knowledge and reason is considered VERY prideful by some fundamentalists.



I never liked this part (less than i liked the others...)

I can totally see myself going "heck yea i want to know stuff!" ::while taking a bite of apple::

I was never big on nonsense authority.

"Don't do that"
"Why?"
"Because i said so"
::NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON!::
"Does that"


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

Four said:


> I never liked this part (less than i liked the others...)
> 
> I can totally see myself going "heck yea i want to know stuff!" ::while taking a bite of apple::
> 
> ...



It was not just the tree of knowledge, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam nor Eve had any right to eat from the tree, but nonetheless had the choice.

It was not nonsense authority, but a reason God had for them not to eat from the tree.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

Four said:


> I certainly hear it a lot.
> 
> For instance if i say i tried to talk to god but god never talked back, its because im not a true believer, or i havent given my self over enough or w.e. They might claim that they know god because of a connection with him that i dont have.



I would say that someone with a relationship with Christ does have something you do not, but I do believe you can have it, if you so choose. My point was that the relationship is not unobtainable by you or anyone else.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It was not just the tree of knowledge, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam nor Eve had any right to eat from the tree, but nonetheless had the choice.
> 
> It was not nonsense authority, but a reason God had for them not to eat from the tree.



Knowledge of good and evil is still knowledge. Knowledge is never evil.

As for adam & eve having rights... in the situation, they're slaves, or pets at best, and if we assume that before they ate from the tree they didn't know what good and evil was, they certainly couldn't understand about rights.

It was certainly nonsense authority. We I hope can assume, that god could have just as easily not have made the tree of good & evil, or just not have put it in the garden in the first place. Even if god had proper authority (being the creator in the story) Placing a dangerous tree in the same habitat with the humans, then saying "see this tree here? Don't eat the fruit" then leaving them to there devices is an exercise in nonsense authority. It's like leaving out a bag of dark chocolate and telling my dog "Don't eat the chocolate" then leave the room, then come back and beat the dog, and her puppies.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I would say that someone with a relationship with Christ does have something you do not, but I do believe you can have it, if you so choose. My point was that the relationship is not unobtainable by you or anyone else.



Here is a more complete version of what you quoted (below) So, are you saying that as a nonbeliever, I can have a relationship with god? (who i don't believe in?)



			
				Asath; said:
			
		

> this realm is accessible only to Believers, and is off-limits to everyone else.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

Four said:


> Here is a more complete version of what you quoted (below) So, are you saying that as a nonbeliever, I can have a relationship with god? (who i don't believe in?)



No, one can't have a relationship with God whom they don't believe in, for obvious reasons. Anyone who wishes to have a relationship with Him can.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, one can't have a relationship with God whom they don't believe in, for obvious reasons. Anyone who wishes to have a relationship with Him can.



So that's the problem we've identified.

I attempt to use logic / empiricism to convince you god doesn't exist, but you counter and say that you have a personal relationship with god, that i don't (and cant) have as a non believer.

But of course i don't believe because the logic / empiricism doesn't convince me.

So, i must believe, in order to "get" the evidence you have for your belief....

edit: the terms you and I are not you personally and me personally, its just a hypothetical believer vs. non believer.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 22, 2012)

Four said:


> So that's the problem we've identified.
> 
> I attempt to use logic / empiricism to convince you god doesn't exist, but you counter and say that you have a personal relationship with god, that i don't (and cant) have as a non believer.
> 
> ...



I would say that that pretty much sums it up well. You can't ride in a car if you don't get in it.


----------



## Four (Mar 22, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I would say that that pretty much sums it up well. You can't ride in a car if you don't get in it.



belief isn't an act of will... Belief isn't involuntary, you might figure out what you believe, but you cannot force yourself to believe something that you don't.

Could you belief a dog is a tree if you tried?

Requiring belief to have evidence to believe is circular logic. It's akin to saying "i know because i know"




stringmusic said:


> No, one can't have a relationship with God whom they don't believe in, for obvious reasons. Anyone who wishes to have a relationship with Him can.



How can you wish to have a relationship with something you don't acknowledge existing? Believing that something exists is a pre-requisite to wishing to have a relationship with it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 22, 2012)

Honestly, the problem for many of the regulars to this particular portion of the forum is that they aren't simply "unbelievers".

Whether they like it or not, many here are themselves religious
They follow the religion of atheism.  They study it.  They have standards of conduct.  And they preach.

So, for them, the details of comment #1 do more to describe their own religion rather than that of the believers of God.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Honestly, the problem for many of the regulars to this particular portion of the forum is that they aren't simply "unbelievers".
> 
> Whether they like it or not, many here are themselves religious
> They follow the religion of atheism.  They study it.  They have standards of conduct.  And they preach.
> ...




Not following any religious belief system is not a de-facto a religious belief system.  It is a simple rejection of them all.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Honestly, the problem for many of the regulars to this particular portion of the forum is that they aren't simply "unbelievers".
> 
> Whether they like it or not, many here are themselves religious
> They follow the religion of atheism.  They study it.  They have standards of conduct.  And they preach.
> ...


Do you see a difference between an Atheist and an unbeliever? Jesus said, He who is not with me is against me.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 22, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Circular.
> 
> Not following any religious belief system is not a de-facto a religious belief system.  It is a simple rejection of them all.



As I said earlier, many on this forum aren't JUST "not following any religious belief".

They've turned their "not following" into much more than just "not following".  For them, it's become a cause; a proclamation; a campaign; a religion.

I know more than one unbeliever, but none of them campaign against the believers...... you know, one religion against another!


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 22, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you see a difference between an Atheist and an unbeliever? Jesus said, He who is not with me is against me.



Yes, many times.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 22, 2012)

Asath said:


> Apologies, yet again, to those who think that theology is logical and orderly, and that a deconstruction of same ought to be similarly orderly – thus far I have touched upon free-will as a fact rather than a gift, and upon the constant and truthful and steady erosion of theological ‘givens’ by the progress of such mundane folks as the non-clerical.
> 
> Here we will take on the motivation behind the arguments that have been postured against a free-will that WASN’T given as a gift, and against the idea that human law has eroded religious law to the point that it is religions that are found in full retreat, revising themselves to keep pace with the rest of us.
> 
> ...



A trio of sightless rodents, a trio of sightless rodents; observe how they perambulate. Observe how the perambulate; they perambulated after the agriculturalists spouse. She severed their extremities with a kitchen utensil, have you ever observed such a spectacle in your existence, as a trio of sightless rodents.


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Honestly, the problem for many of the regulars to this particular portion of the forum is that they aren't simply "unbelievers".
> 
> Whether they like it or not, many here are themselves religious
> They follow the religion of atheism.  They study it.  They have standards of conduct.  And they preach.
> ...



Ok, so now we're calling any subject or interest that someone is passionate about and talks about with people a religion!

The religion of football, the religion of history, the religion of science, the religion of stamp-collecting.

Of course, you can change definitions to make your point... its just silly.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> Ok, so now we're calling any subject or interest that someone is passionate about and talks about with people a religion!
> 
> The religion of football, the religion of history, the religion of science, the religion of stamp-collecting.
> 
> Of course, you can change definitions to make your point... its just silly.



Not at all.  "We" aren't doing that at all.

Religion:

2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 

4 a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Atheism, in many people's lives, meets and exceeds definition number 2 and 4.

It has it's pulpits.  Just as God's people teach against evil, atheism teaches against everything of God.  Especially Christianity.
They have their doctrines, and their evangalists who spend much effort to proclaim their logic, and the lack of logic from their foe.

That's much different from being a footballaholic.

Amen?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Not at all.  "We" aren't doing that at all.
> 
> Religion:
> 
> ...



Can you show us where any atheist(if you can accurately point out WHO are the atheists) on this forum meets or exceeds #2 and #4 on your list(what happened to #1 and #3) with examples to back it up? Can you post a list of the doctrines and evangelists...not just who or what you think they are?


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Can you show us where any atheist(if you can accurately point out WHO are the atheists) on this forum meets or exceeds #2 and #4 on your list(what happened to #1 and #3) with examples to back it up? Can you post a list of the doctrines and evangelists...not just who or what you think they are?



Of course I could, but I'm not willing to spend a great deal of time trying to prove a point to individuals (you not included  ) who's basic foundation of religion is they they are right, and all other religions, specifically Christians, are wrong.
It would be one set of beliefs against another set of beliefs.
It would only waste my time; but, give them more opportunity to evangelize.
Our time is best spent in my being dedicated to my faith and beliefs, while they persue theirs.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Of course I could, but I'm not willing to spend a great deal of time trying to prove a point to individuals (you not included  ) who's basic foundation of religion is they they are right, and all other religions, specifically Christians, are wrong.
> It would be one set of beliefs against another set of beliefs.
> It would only waste my time; but, give them more opportunity to evangelize.
> Our time is best spent in my being dedicated to my faith and beliefs, while they persue theirs.



Then why the wasted time bringing it up at all when you could have devoted it to your faith and beliefs instead of making unfounded claims to a bunch of atheists? Don't you think the replies to your post will continue allowing the opposition to evangelize which would have not happened without your post?


----------



## Asath (Mar 23, 2012)

‘The Religion of Rejecting God and Religion.’  It has a nice ring to it.  Can we apply for tax-exempt status now?


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 23, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Of course I could, but I'm not willing to spend a great deal of time trying to prove a point to individuals (you not included  ) who's basic foundation of religion is they they are right, and all other religions, specifically Christians, are wrong.
> It would be one set of beliefs against another set of beliefs.
> It would only waste my time; but, give them more opportunity to evangelize.
> Our time is best spent in my being dedicated to my faith and beliefs, while they persue theirs.



So it's ok for Christians to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong?  Is that not the basis for Christianity?

Edit: I know the BASIS is accepting Jesus and rejecting sin, I am referring to the belief that all other religions are wrong.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 23, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> So it's ok for Christians to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong?  Is that not the basis for Christianity?
> 
> Edit: I know the BASIS is accepting Jesus and rejecting sin, I am referring to the belief that all other religions are wrong.



Any person has the right to believe whatever they want.
But when there are opposing views, someone has to be wrong.  Right?

An atheist, if he/she chooses, has the right to develop doctrinal issues, and truths of their beliefs, and a method (Bible) to help assemble all their historical documents they use to justify their beliefs.  You know, their teachers from days past.  The proofs of their belief system.  The things they use to justify and solidify their beliefs.

They need organization.  They need seminars that offer opportunity to teach and learn.  I'm not suggesting they don't need those things.  I'm just pointing it out.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> Here is a more complete version of what you quoted (below) So, are you saying that as a nonbeliever, I can have a relationship with god? (who i don't believe in?)









End of thread, imho.


----------



## Asath (Mar 23, 2012)

“But when there are opposing views, someone has to be wrong. Right?”

Wrong.  The actual history of the world, where religions are concerned, if one bothers to study a bit of it, indicates that BOTH can be wrong, and kill each other over who is the more wrong just the same . . . 

“An atheist, if he/she chooses, has the right to develop doctrinal issues, and truths of their beliefs, and a method (Bible) to help assemble all their historical documents they use to justify their beliefs. You know, their teachers from days past. The proofs of their belief system. The things they use to justify and solidify their beliefs.  They need organization . . . ”

Wow.  Here comes the original thought of the thread again – the Sin of Pride.  Can it really be so difficult to conceive of someone thinking – actually thinking – outside of the context of the supernatural, and find that idea of the rejection of your own religion so offensive that one must assign one’s own thought process to those of others?  Can one be so wholly absorbed into a system of brain-washing that was inculcated from childhood that any other idea or thought is identified as having been similarly, and wrongly, a result of ‘teachers’ who led us astray, but did not lead YOU astray?  Is this attitude, alone, not ‘Prideful’?

There is no organization.  There are no seminars to ‘teach.’  We do not demand any tithing or atonements or sacrifices; we do not go door-to-door seeking converts who will give us more money; we do not mobilize Inquisitions against the heathens, and we do not seek to punish and legislate against those who fail to see it our way --  you fellas do, and always have.  We merely ask you to prove it, or leave us alone with your nonsense.  You steadfastly refuse to do either one.  

So which of us suffers the Sin of Pride?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2012)

Asath said:


> “But when there are opposing views, someone has to be wrong. Right?”
> 
> Wrong.  The actual history of the world, where religions are concerned, if one bothers to study a bit of it, indicates that BOTH can be wrong, and kill each other over who is the more wrong just the same . . .
> 
> ...



We all suffer this sin. The truth of Grace is available to us all. Grace is illogical. Grace is beautiful. Grace is above every man. Grace comes from God. It does not seek converts, or money, or Inquisitions, or punishment, or legislation. These are rocks that humans are offered to fill our pockets in the stead of Grace. Grace does not adhere to what you have said here in this post. It IS supernatural, and illogical. We (as humans) have very little comprehension of what Grace truly is, because of our pride. Yes, we both may be wrong, but I do not desire to kill anyone over it. If you want to be left alone, then leave US alone, but I refuse to leave you alone with my nonsense because we all need Grace. All of us.


----------



## Asath (Mar 24, 2012)

Grace:  noun; Attractiveness; Beauty; Breeding; Charm; Compassion; Cultivation; Decency; Decorum; Elegance; Eloquence; Etiquette; Finesse; Graciousness; Manners; Poise; Refinement; Tact.

Just a few of the things I find as synonyms.  

Care to pursue that thought?  “Grace is above every man.” Really?

And originates from where, exactly?  

“It IS supernatural, and illogical.”  Well, THAT is hard to argue with.  So, then, no mere MAN can contain that ‘supernatural’ quality of Grace, can they?  So what is your point?  

It seems to be this:  “We (as humans) have very little comprehension of what Grace truly is, because of our pride. Yes, we both may be wrong, but I do not desire to kill anyone over it. If you want to be left alone, ( Repeat: We (as humans) have very little comprehension of what Grace truly is, because of our pride.)   Yes, we both may be wrong, but I do not desire to kill anyone over it. If you want to be left alone, then leave US alone, but I refuse to leave you alone with my nonsense because we all need Grace. All of us.”

So (WE, as humans) have no real comprehension of this concept of Grace, with the exception of a very few of you, in whose company you seem to include yourself, and perhaps because of this unnatural and incomprehensible ‘Gift,’ given to only the few of you, you ask: “ . . . , then leave US alone . . . ,”  but then in the same breath state – “ . . . but I refuse to leave you alone . . . “  -- 

We ARE, in context, still speaking of the Sin of Pride?


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 24, 2012)

Asath said:


> “But when there are opposing views, someone has to be wrong. Right?”
> 
> Wrong.  The actual history of the world, where religions are concerned, if one bothers to study a bit of it, indicates that BOTH can be wrong, and kill each other over who is the more wrong just the same . . .
> 
> ...



And therein lies the point.  "Atheist" are steadfast in their pursuit of proving that we believers cannot 'prove' it.
And you know you have your publications, and your 'leaders' or 'authorities' in backing up what you 'know' is truth, compared to our not knowing but only 'believing'.

As far as your comment "or leave us along"...  Buddy, I didn't go to an atheist forum seeking you out!  YOU CAME TO ME.  

I'm satisfied to leave you to your strong and hard purpose of debunking God.  But you came to me, to a spiritual forum.  So you're asking me to leave you alone is way off base.

Yes, there's a huge difference in an unbelievers and an atheist.  And unbeliever hasn't turned into their own personal religion.

Amen?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2012)

Asath said:


> Grace:  noun; Attractiveness; Beauty; Breeding; Charm; Compassion; Cultivation; Decency; Decorum; Elegance; Eloquence; Etiquette; Finesse; Graciousness; Manners; Poise; Refinement; Tact.
> 
> Just a few of the things I find as synonyms.
> 
> ...



I think compassion describes what I am talking about the best. Having someone give us something we do not deserve. We humans may achieve little nuggets of Grace, but why? It is illogical to be gracious.

Asath, I refuse to leave you alone because Grace is so wonderful, I want to share it with everyone.

I don't claim to comprehend God's Grace (I think it originates from God), I just know a little bit about it.

And yes, we are still talking about the sin of pride. Pride keeps us from accepting that we need Grace.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> And therein lies the point.  "Atheist" are steadfast in their pursuit of proving that we believers cannot 'prove' it.
> And you know you have your publications, and your 'leaders' or 'authorities' in backing up what you 'know' is truth, compared to our not knowing but only 'believing'.
> 
> As far as your comment "or leave us along"...  Buddy, I didn't go to an atheist forum seeking you out!  YOU CAME TO ME.
> ...



Seems to me he is posting in the RIGHT forum.
It is the Apologetics which enter here to refute.
Athiests know there is not a religious belief system in existance that provides proof of a supernatural deity.  They will always challenge everyone they meet to seek such evidence.
It is completely normal.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 24, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Seems to me he is posting in the RIGHT forum.
> It is the Apologetics which enter here to refute.
> Athiests know there is not a religious belief system in existance that provides proof of a supernatural deity.  They will always challenge everyone they meet to seek such evidence.
> It is completely normal.



I agree, he is posting in the RIGHT forum.  So he shouldn't be asking anyone not to state their point!!!!!!!!

And you back up my primary point.  
There's a huge difference in an unbeliever and an atheist.

Here's another point from your above comments... If an atheist has already made up their mind that no religion can prove the existance of God to them, why would they continue seeking out religious people just to attempt to prove them wrong??

What's in it for them and their religion?

For me, I could use that time to tell an unbeliever about God and hope that I might possibly have some impact on their future belief.  Right?

What is the atheist's purpose in coming to seek out people who believe in God?  What's the big payday in their religion?  What is it they hope to accomplish?

I'm not suggesting that they don't have that right.  I actually welcome them here.  Including you.  But what's the pay-day for them and you?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I agree, he is posting in the RIGHT forum.  So he shouldn't be asking anyone not to state their point!!!!!!!!
> 
> And you back up my primary point.
> There's a huge difference in an unbeliever and an atheist.
> ...



I'm sure if they ask themselves why they come here, they don't even have an answer. Why bother, like you say?
But I know why they come here, course they don't believe in spirits, so they'd never agree.  Some say they enjoy discussing religion, but all I ever see is condemnation, and belittleing not true dicussion or interest.


----------



## Asath (Mar 25, 2012)

“As far as your comment "or leave us along"... Buddy, I didn't go to an atheist forum seeking you out! YOU CAME TO ME.”

Um?  Sir?  I did not make the, “ . . . or leave us alone . . . “  comment – I was merely responding to it.  And, um BUDDY?  The title of this Forum, the last time I looked was: Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics.  Unless that has changed recently, then you DID come here seeking me out – I did not trespass on your sacred ground.  YOU CAME TO ME.

If you think that a post in a Forum that is designed for Atheists is somehow actively seeking out Believers to persecute, then perhaps you can explain why this ‘Atheists/Agnostics/Apologetics’ Forum seems to be constantly overrun by Believers who seek us out and wish only to shout us down?  Do you feel that you Believers have cornered the market on both Truth and Mockery, and deigned to set up this Forum as a feed lot so that you can hunt us without having to do any actual work?  Think again.

I do not think that I am off-base in any way by expressing my thoughts in a place that was specifically set aside for the expression of exactly those thoughts.

What is the Believer’s Purpose in coming to seek out people who DO NOT believe in God?  Where’s the Payday in that?  All of the Forums above this one are yours, and I do not go there, per the instructions of the management, who have respectfully asked that we keep our thoughts down here.  We do so.  You do not.

I don’t ask anyone not to state their point – I merely ask that their point be one that is resolvable with known facts; that their point be logically, reasonably, and intelligently made and argued; and that their point actually is a point rather than an emotional diatribe defending a bias that was provided to them in childhood before they even had the capability of understanding.  I do not think that is asking a lot. 

Perhaps, it appears, I am actually asking too much.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I agree, he is posting in the RIGHT forum.  So he shouldn't be asking anyone not to state their point!!!!!!!!  If he could only address Atheists here, similiar to how the forums above are set up, there would be no issues.  And you back up my primary point.  I wish I knew how?
> 
> There's a huge difference in an unbeliever and an atheist.
> I can admit there are differences in levels of disbelief.  There are differences between believers and fundamentalists/extremists too.  I do not see your point proving any "religion" of Atheism exists outside of your own opinion.  Yes, I know there are others who hold that same opinion.  I just do not see that the requirements are met to make disbelief a religion.  Religious belief systems are not mandatory for a happy life, which is proven by many cultures and people.  Some of those folks will always question why others devote so much of their lives to it.
> ...



The way the powers that be set up this very forum is the underlying cause of the active debate between believers and unbelievers/athiests.  Seems those who wish to discuss matters pertaining to Atheism and Agnosticism are unable to do that without the believer (regardless of religious belief system) jumping in and debating.  If that is what will continue, nobody should be suprised when they are refuted or asked to bring their evidence.  OR asked not to sidetrack the discussion, which is all too often the tactic used.

Maybe if there is a difference in myself and some others it would be that I am simply willing to openly state I will not condemn what is real to someone else, either emotionally or physically, as not existing to them.  They should not be suprised when I can not see what they see.  I'm not suprised when they can not see things the way I see them. 
I do stand strongly for the freedom to believe what one wishes to believe, and also for the freedom to respectfully discuss why one does not.  If I am EVER rude, slap me with a 2x4 because it goes against everything I represent as a US citizen, a former soldier, a husband and the son of a man whose shoes I can not fill.

I thank you and the other members of the Mod/Admin team for helping to keep the peace.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 25, 2012)

Let's face it.  Ninetynine percent of the things discussed on this area of the forum are opinions.  One takes my facts as opinions, and I might take theirs as opinion.

But this is the correct forum for believers and atheists to discuss their differences.

As there is a driving force in me that leads me to discussions concerning my faith in God, I believe there's a force that drives atheists to their discussion interests.

I just wonder what the drive is.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 25, 2012)

Everyone feels they have something to contribute or share I guess.  Otherwise they would not participate.
I can see some folks do not agree with the legitimacy of organized religion, and the accommodations which the .gov makes for them.
Others clearly follow the dogma of exclusivity, and yet others are open to religious freedom for all regardless.
It is an interesting meld.

I do not believe "the drive" is anything supernatural, regardless of stance.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Let's face it.  Ninetynine percent of the things discussed on this area of the forum are opinions.  One takes my facts as opinions, and I might take theirs as opinion.
> 
> But this is the correct forum for believers and atheists to discuss their differences.
> 
> ...



Ronnie, I know what drives us here.

We do try to explain who, what, where, when and why after someone asks (as if they are really interested) and then when you try to explain it they don't agree and say that they feel they are asking too much because they are looking for a 'real' answer.....right after they tell us how much we believe in fairy tales. What it is, is that we just can't give them the answers they want to hear, it's not because we are giving them the truth as we see it. They just can't accept that.  They have no proof any more than we don't have proof that suits them.  


I cannot explain how everything happened perfectly on this earth to make me able to live and breathe here, and see all the beautiful animals and beautiful plants and we can grow food and kill our own food......I can't explain how that happened, but neither can they, logically. I can't explain the perfect mix of oxygen or at least explain how it came about. I can't explain why plants put off oxygen that we need while using our 'exhaust' to survive. I know it exists, I just can't explain HOW it happened that suits them, and neither can they explain it or prove it.


----------



## Asath (Mar 26, 2012)

“As there is a driving force in me that leads me to discussions concerning my faith in God, I believe there's a force that drives atheists to their discussion interests.  I just wonder what the drive is.”

Sir, if I pushed back too hard, and made any offense, I apologize for that.  My intention was merely to demonstrate that there ARE, in fact, parallel ideas, and that the thought process proceeds not only in one direction, as is too often demanded, but in both directions just the same.  But let us be fair.

If you admit that there is a ‘driving force’ that leads you here, to this thread, and you cannot explain or define that force, but merely feel it within yourself – then by what means is it fair to ask what the motivation (driving force) behind the thread itself might be?  Am I responsible to answer your question when you say aloud that you are not responsible to answer mine?  You simply have a ‘driving force,’ and that is explanation enough?  Not down here.   (Joke alert  I’ve already been married, and didn’t like that sort of one-way-street logic even then.  

Speaking solely for myself (which, oddly enough is the plight of the non-believer, who lacks a hugely financed organization of slick-talking and well-dressed men in skirts speaking for them, collectively, and basking in the rewards of the fawning agreement), what drives ME to my discussion interests is the wonder over why MY life and MY laws are largely controlled and created by you fellas.  Abortions and Birth-control are STILL legislative issues, that STILL bleed our money and attention from actual, non-religious realities?  Do the Believers have such a poor grasp of human psychology and actual history to think that these things haven’t ALWAYS been in practice, and will go away if they simply snap their all-powerful fingers and hit enough people over the head with their Book?  Did Blue-Laws, and most of the other Prohibitions that we all suffer create themselves as a moral necessity, or are we being controlled and (again) being Legislated against by a group that aims to establish an evangelistic theocracy?  Does what other, private citizens choose to do, by the exercise of their own ‘free-will’ bother you folks so much that you can’t rest without stamping it out?  Understand that I don’t paint ALL believers with that brush, but you have to admit that is the reality that occupies our Supreme Court, and our Legislatures on all levels.  

AND – this is the SAME group that condemns and takes arms against a similar theocracy that we see taking root elsewhere?  Honestly?  Good for the Goose?  For myself – I wonder – what is the ‘drive.’  Certainly it is not a naturally resistance to tyranny, since the drive of any theological system is establishing exactly that sort of tyranny, and by force and by terror and by murder – as each and every ‘Belief’ system has already proven and cannot avoid or deny.  For my own part, I’d prefer living under a set of conditions where I’m not being pushed around by petty tyrants wearing skirts and begging for money on every street-corner, who justify themselves with an ancient mythology that has no more substance behind it than the assertion that it is ‘Believed.’  Not all of us wish to be coerced  by ancient fairy-tales --  we prefer to take our chances with hard facts.

So there is the answer – our drive is to resist, rather than to blindly obey.  Any red-blooded American ought to understand that instinct.

So what, then, is the drive to convert us poor, misguided, disobedient rebels into proper Book-wavers by whatever means necessary?  Truly?  Being the huge minority here, and worldwide, we are sort of forced to ask just what we’re doing to so seriously threaten the majority that we now see that same majority claiming that WE are somehow persecuting THEM??  You fellas have to be kidding.  If you are that insecure – and the increasing number of abandoned churches listed for sale on the MLS, indicates that you are – then can it be because you know we are right to rebel, but vote with your feet, silently, for fear of upsetting the status quo that you know as well as we do is trying to run your life for you?

Or is the Sin of Pride exactly as I have already described?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No, one can't have a relationship with God whom they don't believe in, for obvious reasons. Anyone who wishes to have a relationship with Him can.





>




End of thread, imho.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 26, 2012)

Christians are required to witness to nonbelievers. Should we give up on Atheist?
Perhaps they heve been elected to be Atheist. God has hardened their hearts.


----------



## Four (Mar 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> End of thread, imho.



i dont get it


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 26, 2012)

Asath;

[COLOR="Blue" said:
			
		

> For my own part, I’d prefer living under a set of conditions where I’m not being pushed around by petty tyrants wearing skirts and begging for money on every street-corner, who justify themselves with an ancient mythology that has no more substance behind it than the assertion that it is ‘Believed.’ [/COLOR] Not all of us wish to be coerced  by ancient fairy-tales --  we prefer to take our chances with hard facts.




I certainly see your point in that.  And personally, I don't think you should be.  I don't think my beliefs should infringe upon you or anyone else who doesn't share my beliefs, except to allow me to find fulfillment in my beliefs.
But a person doesn't have to believe in God to feel that abortion is wrong.  Or rape.  Or forced inhuman slavery.

One also has to realize that we live in a nation that was originally put together and held together by godly principles.  And those principles cannot be dissolved for the mind-sake of the minority.
Maybe the minority just need come over to those who strive (although laxly) to live by God's standards.


----------



## Four (Mar 26, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> One also has to realize that we live in a nation that was originally put together and held together by godly principles.



Yes, slavery, subjugation of women / minorities, as well as genocide of the native populations.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> One also has to realize that we live in a nation that was originally put together and held together by godly principles.  And those principles cannot be dissolved for the mind-sake of the minority.
> Maybe the minority just need come over to those who strive (although laxly) to live by God's standards.



Might want to look into that a little further.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 26, 2012)

Four said:


> Yes, slavery, subjugation of women / minorities, as well as genocide of the native populations.



Yep.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Might want to look into that a little further.



Already did.
Have studied it extensively.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Already did.
> Have studied it extensively.



How far back did you go?


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How far back did you go?



England.
Spain.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> England.
> Spain.



Go back about 15,000-30,000 years and further East into Asia.


----------



## Asath (Mar 28, 2012)

“Christians are required to witness to nonbelievers.”

Now this part, I get.  The only entity that ‘requires’ this sort of thing, honestly, is the fella in the bad toupee up in the pulpit, who is despairing that other preachers have a better car than he has, and needs to get the collections up through recruitment – if y’all took this ‘requirement’ to be anything other than that there wouldn’t still be literally billions of people on this planet who have never heard of the Gospels.  

Of, course, we understand that the sort of faith in that ‘requirement’ that is involved in doing something other than nagging your neighbors is a bit daunting, and it is easier to put a few bucks in the collection plate.  The preacher who thundered this ‘requirement’ from his pulpit knew that too . . .

However, this set of thoughts, from Ronnie, requires a bit more, and a rather more subtle, thought process:

“I don't think my beliefs should infringe upon you or anyone else who doesn't share my beliefs, except to allow me to find fulfillment in my beliefs.
But a person doesn't have to believe in God to feel that abortion is wrong. Or rape. Or forced inhuman slavery.”   

Agreed.  But the fulfillment of your beliefs must, in this context, be a personal fulfillment, and in admitting that a moral stance on the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ of certain practices is certainly not dependent on a belief in any God in particular, the thought needs to be completed to preclude such ‘fulfillment’ through preventing others, forcibly, from thinking otherwise.

“One also has to realize that we live in a nation that was originally put together and held together by godly principles. And those principles cannot be dissolved for the mind-sake of the minority.
Maybe the minority just need come over to those who strive (although laxly) to live by God's standards.”

Agreed, that the nation was originally formed by folks who were raised in largely Christian circumstances.  But the founders displayed in all circumstances, from the Federalist Papers, to the private correspondences between them, to the careful wording of the Constitution itself, a serious suspicion and mistrust of religious authority, rivaled only by their mistrust of singularity (kingship) in governmental authority.  They recognized, as should we all, that the problem with living “by God’s standards,” is that the proposition itself is rife with contradictions and has no clear meaning.  Who’s God?  And Which Standards?  The Shariah Law of the fundamental Islamists is derived directly from the God of Abraham, and is strictly enforced as God’s Standards, as they were written in the O.T.  At the moment, the Islamics are the majority, worldwide.  The currently local, majority, Christian view can’t be demonstrated to be much more reasonable, historically or currently.  

Those (religious) principles of any believer whatsoever have not been ‘dissolved’ for the sake of the minority – they have been largely abandoned and outlawed for the sake of the majority.  Morality never originated from the believers, and NOBODY, least of all the believers, wishes to live under a set of theocratic Laws determined solely by the ‘majority’ of believers.  The actual standards are, and need to be, a bit more empirical than all that.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 29, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Christians are required to witness to nonbelievers.”
> 
> Now this part, I get.  The only entity that ‘requires’ this sort of thing, honestly, is the fella in the bad toupee up in the pulpit, who is despairing that other preachers have a better car than he has, and needs to get the collections up through recruitment – if y’all took this ‘requirement’ to be anything other than that there wouldn’t still be literally billions of people on this planet who have never heard of the Gospels.
> 
> ...



You have officially gone off the deep end Bro.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Yes, slavery, subjugation of women / minorities, as well as genocide of the native populations.



Well actually that was 'men'....or so called men.  Men that thought whatever they believed was correct.  Men that could cheat on their wives or beat them, or vote and drink or smoke while women couldn't....you're talkin' about yourself. Obviously in your perception, women are stupid and weak.....I for one am not. And when you don't understand what I'm talkin' about and joke about it.....it's you that is ignorant of the rights of others, other than just yourself.  Was it women that wore out the rights of the slaves? was it the women that committed genocide of the native population? was it the women that committed atrosities against minorities? No it was not, it is the men of this country......so count yourself in that. I can tell by the way you talk to me, that you are prejudice towards women and what they believe to be true. Only you can state your position, and not a woman? eh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> You have officially gone off the deep end Bro.



Here we go 'round the mulberry bush...talk about confusion.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well actually that was 'men'....or so called men.  Men that thought whatever they believed was correct.  Men that could cheat on their wives or beat them, or vote and drink or smoke while women couldn't....you're talkin' about yourself. Obviously in your perception, women are stupid and weak.....I for one am not. And when you don't understand what I'm talkin' about and joke about it.....it's you that is ignorant of the rights of others, other than just yourself.  Was it women that wore out the rights of the slaves? was it the women that committed genocide of the native population? was it the women that committed atrosities against minorities? No it was not, it is the men of this country......so count yourself in that. I can tell by the way you talk to me, that you are prejudice towards women and what they believe to be true. Only you can state your position, and not a woman? eh?



You're absolutely right.  God fearing women of that time were not allowed to speak out against the man if they wanted to obey the Bible.  Now a days, women have got all uppity and have forgotten what it says in the good book.


----------



## Four (Mar 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well actually that was 'men'....or so called men.  Men that thought whatever they believed was correct.  Men that could cheat on their wives or beat them, or vote and drink or smoke while women couldn't....you're talkin' about yourself. Obviously in your perception, women are stupid and weak.....I for one am not. And when you don't understand what I'm talkin' about and joke about it.....it's you that is ignorant of the rights of others, other than just yourself.  Was it women that wore out the rights of the slaves? was it the women that committed genocide of the native population? was it the women that committed atrosities against minorities? No it was not, it is the men of this country......so count yourself in that. I can tell by the way you talk to me, that you are prejudice towards women and what they believe to be true. Only you can state your position, and not a woman? eh?



Are you saying that I personally am bigoted against women? If i joke about not knowing what you're talking about, that has nothing to do with rights.

In fact, you somehow want to try to draw a coorilation between a male /males from hundreds of years ago performing atocities with myself because I happen to share a chromosome? That, is the height of bigotry.

I personally detest bible verses like this



			
				1 Timothy 2:12 said:
			
		

> New International Version (NIV)
> 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.



My post that you replied to was merely a sarcastic response to the post about the country being founded on christian values, i just wanted to point out how immoral the founders values were at the time, when bigotry, slavery, and genocide were prevalent.


----------



## Asath (Mar 30, 2012)

"The Deep End."

I like that.  May I borrow that for a sig line?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> "The Deep End."
> 
> I like that.  May I borrow that for a sig line?



Absolutely. Sorry I was a bit snippy.


----------

