Anti-Theism in America

[top gun]

Andy;57695]So asking people if they know where they will go after death, is worth shouting at them and accusing them of mass slaughter? Now granted, I'll be honest, I don't know what some of these groups do. Maybe it is so incredibility horrible that it requires a near violent reaction and broad accusations of causing world wars.

Of course not... didn't you hear what I said. I said I try to tell them something I think they might want to hear and try to get away from them smoooothly. I must be seeing different people than you as well. What I always see is the Rollers get pretty patronizing pretty quick. Some people don't take well to being patronized (looked at as less). But I think it's better to just try and get away... they'll be no convincing them with science, geology or impossible Biblical time-lines... so why put yourself through that IMO.

I had a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door a few times. Now, I don't agree with their teaching. I think they distort the Bible. But they were the nicest people I've had the pleasure to meet. I've had high school students selling magazines that were 20 times more rude and pushy.

You highlight exactly the problem with any religion when it comes to it intermingling with government. They feel EXACTLY the same way about you. Neither should have more governmental clout over the other. These are personal beliefs and personal beliefs alone.

I don't get the joke. Sorry. The only Jehovah's Witness girl I know is... very... very... um... cute. So... I guess I just don't get joke. And no, she was not cute enough for me to buy Jehovah's Witness. That would require intoxication

The guy at the door is gently palm bumping her in the chest off of his porch... GET! OFF! MY! PORCH!

It's just an old joke I heard years ago when the Jehovah's Witnesses were the latest popular religious thing going around.

I completely agree with that statement. So, what do you mean by pushy? Do they track you down and corner you? Or when the topic comes up they are insistent? If someones asks me, I'm going to say what they told you. You must be born again. But... if you don't ask, I'm not going to follow you around about it.

I'm not saying you're pushy. You very well may be like the kindest person I know.

Let me tell you about the kindest best person I know. My little old 86 year old Aunt. Never got married stayed on the farm her whole life taking care of my Grandparents so they never had to go to a Nursing Home. Has went to the same little country church every Sunday probably since she was born. Volunteers and does all the church events. If you walked up and asked her... What's you take on religion? She'd say I'm a Christian I believe in Jesus.

That's it. No trying to convert you. No proselytizing. She leads as an understated nonthreatening (I mean that as noncondescending) example.

Can't be helped I suppose. Jesus Christ is the one who taught you must be born again. A Christian really isn't a Christian if you are not following the teachings of Christ.... right? I'm a Christian who doesn't believe what Christ taught. See a problem with that statement?

The being saved thing as it is now being portrayed by some church groups is an interpretation that came up (historically) only recently.

This really slays me because it's the EXACT SAME THING religious groups have done since the dawn of the first person that came up with the idea. WE HAVE TO BE THE ONES... WE HAVE TO BE THE ONLY GROUP DOING IT THAT REAL CORRECT WAY. It's a one up game and nothing more, absolutely nothing more.

You are aware I'm sure that the Catholics think your interpretation is wack. The Catholics and the other religious sects that were around a lot closer to the source than your group have no such requirement. Again it's a matter of interpretation of man made stuff anyway so to me it's a moot point. But that's just my opinion as someone who's both believed at one point but also has studied science, geology and many differing & battling theologies.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No I do not. Only Greek, Hebrew and Arimaic are the three langs in which the Bible was written, and Arimaic is a variation of Hebrew. That said, it is possible to discover the truth without getting a time machine and going back to 37 AD and watching them write the letters.

The MASORETIC TEXT, the oldest modern accepted text, from which we get our present day Bible is dated 980 A.D. For hundreds of years this was considered questionable by scholars since there were over 1700 years of coping to be accounted for.

Never the less, in 1947 the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dated 200 B.C., revealed a complete copy of Isaiah, as well as nearly all of the Hebrew bible.

In comparing Masoretic text to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the two documents matched word for word, letter for letter, with 95% accuracy. Of the 5% errors, a few where different spellings of the exact same word, one was a reference to light being a "great light" instead of "a bright light". However without question there was not one single example of a doctrinal difference.

The same was discovered for nearly the entire Hebrew Bible. Word for word, letter for letter, nearly identical in every way. And 100% identical in doctrine.

The Bible we have today, is authentic.



I would wager that like most people, if you already disbelieve something, then one proclaiming a view you already hold would come across as believable. One of the reasons I am here, is because by reading what the other side says, it challenges me to a view point I don't hold. Have you read a book by someone who is a staunch believer?



Honestly, I don't know for certain. What I do know is, I was treated differently after the confrontation, even though I only answered the question the other person asked me. And though I was not let go alone, the other person, who was shouting and yelling, did not lose his job. So I find it a bit odd.



Just curious, do they actually follow you around and call you names? Do they yell at you and shout that you are going to hell?

It seems crazy to me since I have never done that. Now if they ask me, what happens if I die without know Jesus, yeah, you choose your destination. Those that choose to reject the son of God will be separated from God as they have chosen. That's hell. But I have never gone around telling people they are immoral or that they'll burn forever. It's hard for me to imagine a Christian even doing that.

No... actually most of the people I run into are not religious, or are of a faith that hates mine. We have a very high population of Muslims here, and they don't like Christianity. I was actually warned for having a Bible at work by a manager who had a copy of the Qu'ran on his desk. Other than that, most of the people I meet are shocked I'm a Christian and think I'm nutz.

no I have no not read one by a beliver, in that a beliver that the english copy is the 100% same as the ver first one written...but just logic tells me given the way things where copied in that time, it is not.The hands of man where on it for 2000 years, I dont trust man to be error free and never put its own spin on it. And as I stated the errors he talked a talked about, he stated the majority are just spelling and errors that dont change contect, just wrote down wrong,...but the few talked about to me, made more sense logicicly and cleared up contridictions in stories...He is a man of faith, and it is not a book written to say dont belive in teh bible or anything like that, but rather to clear up things belived to be wrong in the some current texts.
to realy get into it all I am sure I would need to do alot more study then I care to, as a non christian, devoting years to study of it would not realy do much for me. all I knew was that some of what I had seen form the bible did not add up to me , and to me this explains it to me in parts at least.

as for runing around chasing me yelling..no normaly its just said while I stand there....them having no idea that what they ar saying would be insulting to others...often just guessing that I am Christian. to me I would almost rather have them just be a jerk abot it, but normaly its more insulting that they seem to have no idea what they just said was insuting. Guy who tried to convert me at work for exmple, we where talking current events and history books , as thats why he was getting so i suggested a few others based on what he had..and we where talking and then out of the blue...said are you a christian, or have you found jesus or something...I was like no, I am not christian...im agnostic....and he said realy im surprised you seem like a nice smart guy....im sure he ment it as good...but all to me I hear is , your ncie smart and not christian? thats shocking....as if the only way I could be nice was to be chriitan.. clearly I have had worse insults, but that is a example of how this guy, who was a very nice guy and I am sure did not mean offense....could still be offense..( and that he tried to convert me at work when I cant say much, sucked as well...)

It is hard though to be freinds with someone, when you know they belive you are going to burn in hell , and I think thas one of the things that makes it hard for belivers and non belivers to get along well

worst I have meet is the Christian Malia as we called them that came to our school each year, with there kids holding pics of dead fetus.. ( the ones that often are of fetus that where not even aborted and older then any general aborion would be legal anyway) and get up screaming we will all burn in hell , we all sinners, God hates fags , woman should serve men and men are better....all that Bull... its funny becuse not only did I and some non christians get up and question them, some christians where in tehre face as well, with there bibles...it was a mixed bag...2 chicks started making out just to piss them off ....and then he read some quote from the bible to make a point....of course his point was deffeted by the next verse...who a christian got up when he would not read it, and read it to all...the guy just turned his back on him ..Cops came but just sat back. The idea of cracking some of those dudes over the head with a bad was appealing but not my style....

 

[Dr.Who]

the reason I asked about it, was becuse you happened to mention the bible as the word of god, and it just happen to be something i was reading at the time, the book "misquoting Jesus" and just though I would get your view on it.

What typically happens with books like this is that they overwhelm you with the sheer weight of evidence that they provide. How can one not come away agreeing with the author when they provide so much to support their view. What does not happen is that people recognize that a large volume of poor evidence does not make a good substitute for a smaller amount of good evidence.

just seems hard to belive its the word of god to me, when we dont even know what was originaly said, given that even the oldest copys we had are many many years after it all was first recorded...

The oldest copies were written within the lifetimes of people who were around during the writing of the originals. Some of these people became the fathers of the early church and testified that the copies were accurate. Additionally, while the oldest copies we have were as you said written somewhat later we also have letters written by contemporaries that contain quotes from the original letters. It has been said that if we had no copy of the bible at all we could reconstruct it almost in it's entirety just from the quotes.

and with the many copies of letters that never where added for some reason or another ..I belive was it 3rd century that the first book called the new testament was actuly put together from the various works.

You are correct that the letters were compiled into one book much later. If you want to you are welcome to read them individually as if they were not bound together. You are also welcome to read letters not included. It matters not.

having never read the bible myself, I ask , why does it put those areas in then, if it then footnotes that it was not suppose to be there most likey?

I don't know. Hold on. I'll see if I can find out.

Ok near as I can tell: people have been trying to piece together the correct version of the letters for a long time. Early on this section may have been removed as an attempt to take out things that should not have been included. But this attempt at correction may have itself been wrong. IN the 16th century more exacting scholarly approaches were taken to discover what should or should not have been included. At that time the scholars decided not to rely just on the Vulgate Latin translation as the source for their bibles and went in search of older versions. The older versions did not include this passage yet, some early church fathers have said that it was included in versions even earlier than those. It seems that this is one of those cases where, unless an even earlier mss shows up, (perhaps after the dead sea scrolls are completed) we may never know. To exclude it and then include a footnote that a part was left out would not allow people to see the left out part. But to include it with a footnote allows people to see it but hold onto it in reserve.

while like I said, a agnostic who leans Atheist, I have over the last year or so been reading more and more about the jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths, trying to get a better understanding of them. I view them more as hisorical and social text, and I dont exect to me moved and called to faith or anyhthing , I just find it still a interesting area, and one I lacked great knowlage in.[/QUOTE]

I suggest that if you keep reading about them but don't actually read them you will not have a complete education. Meanwhile if you read them but do not explore areas you don't understand will also lead to an incomplete education.

 

[Andy]

no I have no not read one by a beliver, in that a beliver that the english copy is the 100% same as the ver first one written...

So you have only hard one side of an argument. It's not surprising that you would then buy into the only side of the argument you've heard.

but just logic tells me given the way things where copied in that time, it is not.The hands of man where on it for 2000 years, I dont trust man to be error free and never put its own spin on it. And as I stated the errors he talked a talked about, he stated the majority are just spelling and errors that dont change contect, just wrote down wrong,...but the few talked about to me, made more sense logicicly and cleared up contridictions in stories...He is a man of faith, and it is not a book written to say dont belive in teh bible or anything like that, but rather to clear up things belived to be wrong in the some current texts.
to realy get into it all I am sure I would need to do alot more study then I care to, as a non christian, devoting years to study of it would not realy do much for me. all I knew was that some of what I had seen form the bible did not add up to me , and to me this explains it to me in parts at least.

I must have missed something. Sounds to me like he cleared up supposed contradictions (not hard), and explained the minor irrelevant differences between older Bibles and new, most of which are due to evolution of the language, and basically proved that the old english bible was contextually and doctrinally the same as our current bible. So how did you get from that to, it must have changed?

You are just assuming it must have, because it must have, and therefore it surely did?

Perhaps we mean different ideas of 'change'? Change in my mind, means substantive differences in doctrine. If that is what you mean, then I can confidently state, this has not been the case. You can look at a very old Bible, like my great grand father had, and it may use different words, but has the exact same meaning. You can look at the Greek LXX Bible, or the Gutenburg Bible, and they match. You can compare that with the Masoretic texts, which are 7th century. And those compare with the dead sea scrolls from 200 BC. They all match.

In other words, I have no question that the Bible I have is as accurate a translation as possible to the original text from over 2000 years ago.

On the other hand, if you mean 'change' as in spelling differences, or replaceable words, like 'great' light, or 'bright' light. Well you have a point. Since it makes no difference to the meaning, I still trust it completely.

as for runing around chasing me yelling..no normaly its just said while I stand there....them having no idea that what they ar saying would be insulting to others...often just guessing that I am Christian. to me I would almost rather have them just be a jerk abot it, but normaly its more insulting that they seem to have no idea what they just said was insuting. Guy who tried to convert me at work for exmple, we where talking current events and history books , as thats why he was getting so i suggested a few others based on what he had..and we where talking and then out of the blue...said are you a christian, or have you found jesus or something...I was like no, I am not christian...im agnostic....and he said realy im surprised you seem like a nice smart guy....im sure he ment it as good...but all to me I hear is , your ncie smart and not christian? thats shocking....as if the only way I could be nice was to be chriitan.. clearly I have had worse insults, but that is a example of how this guy, who was a very nice guy and I am sure did not mean offense....could still be offense..( and that he tried to convert me at work when I cant say much, sucked as well...)

I find this mystifying. Here is a guy concerned for your eternal soul. He cared enough to risk asking you about it, knowing you might cuss him out, or have problems with a co-worker for the rest of his career there. Yet you were insulted by this. I simply do not understand why.

Especially since, clearly you don't believe. If you don't believe, then every thing he says on the topic is absolutely meaningless, and why would anyone get bent over meaningless words? If you believe there is no hell, why do you care what anyone says on the topic? You don't believe. It shouldn't matter at all.

Not trying to be inconsiderate, but some Muslims have said since I don't do all their things with Muhammad and all, that I will go to Hell. Since I know for a fact that I am not, and that my eternal home is heaven, this doesn't bother me in the slightest. I had many Muslims tell me this. Since I know for certain they are wrong, I am not offended in any way. Some tried to convert me. They meant well I'm sure, but they simply don't understand I've already found the one true God.

Point is, some didn't like me, some wanted to convert me. But none really offended me, because I know they are wrong. Why be bothered by something you know is wrong?

It is hard though to be freinds with someone, when you know they belive you are going to burn in hell , and I think thas one of the things that makes it hard for belivers and non belivers to get along well

Hmm.. my closest friends have been non-believers. One is a Muslim. Another is a Jehovah's Witness. They know where I stand, and I know where they stand. One was an Atheist. We completely disagree. Nevertheless we're still friends.

worst I have meet is the Christian Malia as we called them that came to our school each year, with there kids holding pics of dead fetus.. ( the ones that often are of fetus that where not even aborted and older then any general aborion would be legal anyway) and get up screaming we will all burn in hell , we all sinners, God hates fags , woman should serve men and men are better....all that Bull... its funny becuse not only did I and some non christians get up and question them, some christians where in tehre face as well, with there bibles...it was a mixed bag...2 chicks started making out just to piss them off ....and then he read some quote from the bible to make a point....of course his point was deffeted by the next verse...who a christian got up when he would not read it, and read it to all...the guy just turned his back on him ..Cops came but just sat back. The idea of cracking some of those dudes over the head with a bad was appealing but not my style....

This is something I have heard but never seen. Not in person or on video. I have no idea where people like that get off thinking that's the way to reach out to people, but... Well I can't speak to that. I was never taught that, nor would it be accepted in any church I've been too.

 

[Andy]

Of course not... didn't you hear what I said. I said I try to tell them something I think they might want to hear and try to get away from them smoooothly. I must be seeing different people than you as well. What I always see is the Rollers get pretty patronizing pretty quick. Some people don't take well to being patronized (looked at as less). But I think it's better to just try and get away... they'll be no convincing them with science, geology or impossible Biblical time-lines... so why put yourself through that IMO.

No, likely not. Thus far, science, geology both support the Biblical perspective. I've seen those supposed impossible biblical time-lines, and they always fall flat after any research. But beyond that, when people find the one true God, he is as real as me talking to you. So you might be able to stump them, or confuse them, but you'll never convince them that the living God isn't real, when they have met him.

I wager you're plan of action is best. Just avoid them or ignore them.

You highlight exactly the problem with any religion when it comes to it intermingling with government. They feel EXACTLY the same way about you. Neither should have more governmental clout over the other. These are personal beliefs and personal beliefs alone.

Well, this is inherently impossible. Every single person on the planet has a 'religious' view. I call it, a world view. It is absolutely impossible to be in government, and not have your (religious) world view have some affect on your policy. For example, I believe murder is wrong. Why? Because God said, Thou shalt not commit murder. So if I support a bill that levies penalties on murder... my religion is intermingling with government. Everything I believe and support would be influenced from my world view.

The same goes for McCain and Obama with his Church of Hate-America. The same goes for Hitler who crushed churches, and Stalin who put believers in Gulags.

I'm not saying you're pushy. You very well may be like the kindest person I know.

Thanks. I've been really working on cutting out my former harsh edges. I'm not always successful, but thankfully the moderators remind me. It's a goal of mine.

Let me tell you about the kindest best person I know. My little old 86 year old Aunt. Never got married stayed on the farm her whole life taking care of my Grandparents so they never had to go to a Nursing Home. Has went to the same little country church every Sunday probably since she was born. Volunteers and does all the church events. If you walked up and asked her... What's you take on religion? She'd say I'm a Christian I believe in Jesus.

That's it. No trying to convert you. No proselytizing. She leads as an understated nonthreatening (I mean that as noncondescending) example.

Sounds like she has peace from knowing her eternal future.

The being saved thing as it is now being portrayed by some church groups is an interpretation that came up (historically) only recently.

This really slays me because it's the EXACT SAME THING religious groups have done since the dawn of the first person that came up with the idea. WE HAVE TO BE THE ONES... WE HAVE TO BE THE ONLY GROUP DOING IT THAT REAL CORRECT WAY. It's a one up game and nothing more, absolutely nothing more.

You are aware I'm sure that the Catholics think your interpretation is wack. The Catholics and the other religious sects that were around a lot closer to the source than your group have no such requirement. Again it's a matter of interpretation of man made stuff anyway so to me it's a moot point. But that's just my opinion as someone who's both believed at one point but also has studied science, geology and many differing & battling theologies.

Oh yes. I've had much fun chatting with Catholics. However, I would disagree with one statement. People were following Christ and his apostles before Catholicism existed. Nero killed "christians" (a derogatory term at the time) as a matter of public policy.

That said, I don't know how you could say it was a recent thing. "You must be born again" is a quote straight from Jesus the Christ. In John 3, he details how a person might have 'religion' and yet not know the one true God. This is not a new thing. That passage has been in the Christian Bible since the letter was written.

 

[top gun]

Andy;57897]No, likely not. Thus far, science, geology both support the Biblical perspective. I've seen those supposed impossible biblical time-lines, and they always fall flat after any research. But beyond that, when people find the one true God, he is as real as me talking to you. So you might be able to stump them, or confuse them, but you'll never convince them that the living God isn't real, when they have met him.

I wager you're plan of action is best. Just avoid them or ignore them.

Actually that's why they call if "faith" or believing in something unprovable.

Science on the other hand is able to be tested but they refute it. The fact that none of the time-lines line up by millions of years on things like dinosaurs, and carbon testing and on and on makes no difference to them either.

And I totally understand that... I was the exact same way when the older kids told me there was no Santa Claus.

Well, this is inherently impossible. Every single person on the planet has a 'religious' view. I call it, a world view. It is absolutely impossible to be in government, and not have your (religious) world view have some affect on your policy. For example, I believe murder is wrong. Why? Because God said, Thou shalt not commit murder. So if I support a bill that levies penalties on murder... my religion is intermingling with government. Everything I believe and support would be influenced from my world view.

Untrue... One can have zero religious view and they still know murder is wrong by simple deduction. Would I like to be murdered? Would I like it if someone I loved was murdered? Has nothing to do with "God" unless you assign that reason to it yourself.

The same goes for McCain and Obama with his Church of Hate-America. The same goes for Hitler who crushed churches, and Stalin who put believers in Gulags.

I truly don't know what McCain's take on Evangelists is today. He's Flip back & forth soooo much. First they were carriers of intolerance... then he got some endorsements and they were OK... then back to crazy and out of touch after they said some more weird things.

Senator Obama is a Christian who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ... I know he's never said anything negative about Christianity.

Hitler and the Catholic Church were pretty good buddies for quite a while.

Stalin did run a non religious state.

Oh yes. I've had much fun chatting with Catholics. However, I would disagree with one statement. People were following Christ and his apostles before Catholicism existed. Nero killed "christians" (a derogatory term at the time) as a matter of public policy.

That said, I don't know how you could say it was a recent thing. "You must be born again" is a quote straight from Jesus the Christ. In John 3, he details how a person might have 'religion' and yet not know the one true God. This is not a new thing. That passage has been in the Christian Bible since the letter was written.

Catholics believe strongly that you are not recognizing the basic tenets of the church.

There are may things one could find in the Bible that you could say had to be part of a religion to make it valid. One could say since Polygamy was allowed maybe that would be a good "must have".

The key word you cite there is "might"... also "might not". Might be perfectly in tune with Jesus/God all along. Don't need some other people to come along and tell you what to do to get there.

It's all silly anyway. I personally like the Aliens version in Scientology. It offends fewer people when I LOL at it.

 

[Andy]

Actually that's why they call if "faith" or believing in something unprovable.

Science on the other hand is able to be tested but they refute it. The fact that none of the time-lines line up by millions of years on things like dinosaurs, and carbon testing and on and on makes no difference to them either.

That would be because carbon dating is not an exact science. In fact, it's nothing more than people interpreting the data based on preconceived notions. For example, a group went to the Grand Canyon, and extracted 3 samples from 4 different rocks along the river bed. They sent 1 sample from each rock, to 3 different carbon dating companies. Not one single result matched with that of any other sample. Some being off by hundreds of trillions of years.

How? Because the data collected must be interpreted. There is no 'each ring equals one year' exact measurement. It's 'this likely means xxxxxx'.

In Australia, a teacher at a school, painted rocks with Aboriginal art to decorate her back yard. A few years later, the rocks were stolen. They ended up at a university that believed them to be authentic. A sample of the paint was sent to be carbon dated. The results were that the paint was tens of thousands of years old.

In 1997 a special team of scientists was collected, and formed the "RATE" group. Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. The their purpose was to determine the age of the earth, via radiocarbon dating. (as the name suggest). All of their effort lead instead to the conclusion that:

The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.

In plain terms, Carbon-14 dating doesn't support billions of years. In fact is supports a very short span.

Untrue... One can have zero religious view and they still know murder is wrong by simple deduction. Would I like to be murdered? Would I like it if someone I loved was murdered? Has nothing to do with "God" unless you assign that reason to it yourself.

So it is only wrong because you would not like to be murdered? There are thousands that commit suicide, more that provoke people to kill them. Further, there are many in jail right now that would 'like' to murder others. If all that matters is what you specifically like, than you must respect others who would like to do things too. Why is what you like "right", and what others like "wrong"?

I truly don't know what McCain's take on Evangelists is today. He's Flip back & forth soooo much. First they were carriers of intolerance... then he got some endorsements and they were OK... then back to crazy and out of touch after they said some more weird things.

Senator Obama is a Christian who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ... I know he's never said anything negative about Christianity.

Hitler and the Catholic Church were pretty good buddies for quite a while.

Stalin did run a non religious state.[/COLOR]

Hitler persecuted the church. Stalin tossed many minority religious groups into gulags. Whether it is the official position of the government or not, actions speak louder than words.

Senator Obama believes that homosexuality is a sin? That marriage is defined by God and not man? That the Jews are God's chosen people? That murder is wrong no matter the age? The only those that believe and accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior are saved?

Obama's views and actions are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible. If Obama is a "Christian", than I could be an Atheist.

Catholics believe strongly that you are not recognizing the basic tenets of the church.

There are may things one could find in the Bible that you could say had to be part of a religion to make it valid. One could say since Polygamy was allowed maybe that would be a good "must have".

The key word you cite there is "might"... also "might not". Might be perfectly in tune with Jesus/God all along. Don't need some other people to come along and tell you what to do to get there.

And they are correct. I don't support their tenets of the church

Right, that's the whole point. Who says you have to have it? Man? Exactly. religion is mans rules. Instead of looking through the Bible and saying "oh well that looks like something you need...". How about reading the Bible and seeing what God says you need.

But Jesus is saying he wasn't in tune. He did have religion, mans way to God. But he wasn't born of the spirit, God's way to God. You can have all the religion you want. You can bang your head against the floor 5 times a day facing the west. You can go put your butt in a seat at a building with a bunch of lights and people singing every Sunday. You can even makeup your own rules... every Saturday you must buy a pizza, and every Thursday you must ware a purple suit with matching tie or whatever other rules you want to invent.

What Jesus stated clearly is, you can follow whatever man made rules you chose, but until you are born again, born in the spirit of God, and have a personal relationship with the God of the Universe... then you don't have it.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” -Jesus

 

[GenSeneca]

Dr.Who posted my OP at another forum and one of the responses included this link:

Atheism & Anti-Theism: What's the Difference?

The author did an excellent job of drawing the line between Atheism and Anti-Theism... His explanation is simpler than mine so I think its easier to understand. My explanation was complicated by trying to juxtapose the line of bigotry over the two similar views.

Here are some excerpts:

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all.

Just as we were discussing, ones passive while the other is active.

People who are indifferent to the existence of alleged gods are atheists because they don't believe in the existence of any gods, but at the same time this indifference prevents them from being anti-theists as well.

This is where I see Atheism as being a tolerant viewpoint but its close to the line of intolerance due to Anti-Theism being so closely related. As the author points out, a tolerant Atheist will not be an Anti-Theist.

Atheistic indifference towards not only theism but also religion is relatively common and would probably be standard if religious theists weren't so active in proselytizing and expecting privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their institutions.

The author uses the word indifference where I would use tolerance. We also differ where he points out Theist wanting special privileges... Not saying SOME Theists don't advocate special rights but the author NEVER points out the Anti-Theists who also expect special rights... This is where I see the two diametrically opposed positions fighting between themselves and canceling each other out.

Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be anti-theists who work against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it.

People who are honest with themselves will recognize if they do hold such viewpoints. Anti-Theism requires a Belief System, same as the Theists they oppose - Both require Faith in the unknowable.

Rational anti-theism may be based on a belief in one of many possible harms which theism could do; it cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is false. Not all false beliefs are necessarily harmful and even those that are aren't necessarily worth fighting.

Here the author has gone on to explain, in his opinion, what rules apply to following Atheism and Anti-Theism in order to be Rational viewpoints. I don't like the authors "rationalization" of Anti-Theism because it fails to address the intolerance inherent in such a belief system... Which is why I underscored the line of demarcation with the charge of Bigotry. I'm sure an Anti-Theist would prefer to be considered rational but that doesn't excuse intolerance.
-------------------------

I have been pleasantly surprised by the reaction to my post... Usually Anti-Theists find being called bigots objectionable and have passionate reactions. However, its precisely because I don't care to paint with a broad brush that its important to draw distinctions - separating the tolerant views from the intolerant ones.

Perhaps there is an additional line separating Anti-Theism into two categories... One side being the "Rational" or Tolerant and the other being the Intolerant or Bigoted side of the group. If there is such a line, seems to be a lopsided majority on the side of Intolerance.

What do you think... Is it possible for an Anti-Theist who actively opposes religion, to do so in a way that's tolerant to Theists?

 

[Dr.Who]

From my perspective as one who was once an atheist, I fit neither of the definitions well.

I was not an agnostic who believes that proof of God is unknowable because I thought that it could be known - just that it was not yet (and by faith thought it never would be) known.

I was not an atheist who thought that for sure God did not exist. I just thought that based on what we knew that the likelihood of His existence was more remote than my being hit by lightning.

I have since learned things that changed my mind both on the likelihood of being hit by lightning and of the existence of God.

 

[top gun]

In plain terms, Carbon-14 dating doesn't support billions of years. In fact is supports a very short span.

What carbon testing does is it it recognized by all to be an absolutely provable gauge up to the perceived time the Bible says their world was created. Then the religious folks fall off . We can that objects that we know without a doubt by other corroborative records were of a certain very antique age and done in a blind study professionally they will carbon very accurately.

What your doing is no different than the "Creationist" suddenly cramping dinosaurs and man together at the same time on earth to fit obvious gaps of time in scripture because fossilized remains weren't discovered when the scripture was written.

They are what was Know at the time man made writings nothing more. We new scientific discoveries people of faith will always come up with some faith based reason to explain it.

When your base argument is God always was and time has no meaning you can do that. Doesn't make it logical or true... but it's a great open ended non provable speech.

So it is only wrong because you would not like to be murdered? There are thousands that commit suicide, more that provoke people to kill them. Further, there are many in jail right now that would 'like' to murder others. If all that matters is what you specifically like, than you must respect others who would like to do things too. Why is what you like "right", and what others like "wrong"?

It's a overall society thing. Society decides. The vast number I'd guess 99.9 of people think murder is wrong and regardless of "religious" view would also agree with they can understand the pain murder causes. So as a group we know murder is wrong and create laws accordingly.

And we do allow killing as a society. The Death penalty is killing. War is killing. I could go on... It's all a matter of what society deems as acceptable killing.

Hitler persecuted the church. Stalin tossed many minority religious groups into gulags. Whether it is the official position of the government or not, actions speak louder than words.

I could post pics of Catholic Bishops intermingling in many Nazi events. The Catholic Church as even officially apologized for such acts and not trying to stop the Holocaust.

Stalin however did try to eliminate all religion.

Senator Obama believes that homosexuality is a sin? That marriage is defined by God and not man? That the Jews are God's chosen people? That murder is wrong no matter the age? The only those that believe and accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior are saved?

Obama's views and actions are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible. If Obama is a "Christian", than I could be an Atheist.

I am not Senator Obama. I have differing views. But I have no doubt that he believes in the King James version of the Bible. The problem is that our government can allow no religious test in our public officials or our laws. That would in the eyes of our founders be discrimination to all those who are just as American but hold different beliefs.

The problem is it is very easy to be blinded by ones own personal religious beliefs not allowing you to see that if you ever could get a country governed strictly by "quote: Gods Law" we would have nothing more than a completely intolerant Christian Tailban type government. Until some other religion gained in numbers... and then we'd have that. That is not and will never be America.

And they are correct. I don't support their tenets of the church

Ah... but they believe it with the utmost spirituality and believe it to be the whole truth just as much as you believe in yours. Hence the great thing about or set up of government. In America you are both equally right... or wrong as the case may be.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Being anti-theist is silly. There is no obligation to disprove the existence of anything including fairies and father xmas.

In a rational world the subject of god would not exist as there is no evidence to support a hypothesis.

 

[Andy]

In plain terms, Carbon-14 dating doesn't support billions of years. In fact is supports a very short span.

What carbon testing does is it it recognized by all to be an absolutely provable gauge up to the perceived time the Bible says their world was created. Then the religious folks fall off . We can that objects that we know without a doubt by other corroborative records were of a certain very antique age and done in a blind study professionally they will carbon very accurately.

What your doing is no different than the "Creationist" suddenly cramping dinosaurs and man together at the same time on earth to fit obvious gaps of time in scripture because fossilized remains weren't discovered when the scripture was written.

They are what was Know at the time man made writings nothing more. We new scientific discoveries people of faith will always come up with some faith based reason to explain it.

When your base argument is God always was and time has no meaning you can do that. Doesn't make it logical or true... but it's a great open ended non provable speech.

First, it is not what "I am doing", it is what the leading scientists of our day have done. They came to that conclusion, not me.

I'm not seeing that this responds to the evidence given. Perhaps I should explain the RATE scientist report. Carbon-14 has a short half-life. Roughtly 5,000 years. What this means is, by about 55,000 years (some say around 60K years), 11 half-lifes, the amount of Carbon-14 in a given object would be undetectable.

The problem is, Carbon-14 has been found in samples supposedly billions of years old.

Oil, theoretically millions and billions of year old, consistently has detectable amount of Carbon-14. Thus far, scientist that still hold onto the 'oil is old' theory, claim it must have been tainted or there is an unknown source of Carbon-14. (I still believe oil is constantly being created)

Diamonds, universally excepted as 1 billion to 3.3 billion years old, have now been found to have carbon-14 in them. Limiting their age to around 55,000 years old.

10 Coal samples extracted from Cenozoic (65.5 million years old), Mesozoic
(65.5 - 251 million years ago), and Paleozoic (251 - 542 million years ago). In every single sample, all ten, they discovered measurable amounts of carbon-14, indicating about 55 thousand year old at the most.

In all cases, Carbon-dating does not support the theory that the earth is billions of years old, based on scientific evidence.

It's a overall society thing. Society decides. The vast number I'd guess 99.9 of people think murder is wrong and regardless of "religious" view would also agree with they can understand the pain murder causes. So as a group we know murder is wrong and create laws accordingly.

And we do allow killing as a society. The Death penalty is killing. War is killing. I could go on... It's all a matter of what society deems as acceptable killing.

That sorta makes my point. Black slavery and lynch mobs were societal accepted norms. We simply have decided they are no longer the norms, but we could go back to that any time we chose to because there was nothing inherently wrong with it to begin with... am I correct?

For example. A man in Canada, killed his teenage daughter by strangling her to death. This was accepted by the community as an "honor killing". Do you support this action as being societal norm, and it's their right to practice what they believe is right?

I could post pics of Catholic Bishops intermingling in many Nazi events. The Catholic Church as even officially apologized for such acts and not trying to stop the Holocaust.

Stalin however did try to eliminate all religion.

Yes I know this. Catholicism has been used by many governments for political purposes. Even Castro invited the pope over gain political clout. Remember, the Catholic church persecuted Christians, so again, not a surprise.

I am not Senator Obama. I have differing views. But I have no doubt that he believes in the King James version of the Bible. The problem is that our government can allow no religious test in our public officials or our laws. That would in the eyes of our founders be discrimination to all those who are just as American but hold different beliefs.

The problem is it is very easy to be blinded by ones own personal religious beliefs not allowing you to see that if you ever could get a country governed strictly by "quote: Gods Law" we would have nothing more than a completely intolerant Christian Tailban type government. Until some other religion gained in numbers... and then we'd have that. That is not and will never be America.

I see nothing in the teachings of Christ to suggest what you claim. Again, I'm having some trouble understanding the claim that Senator Obama believes in the Bible, while supporting views opposed to the Bible. You are not a Christian because you carry a Bible, or go put your butt in a pew, or because you happen to say "I am a christian". You are a Christian when you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, AND Lord of your life, and follow the teachings of Christ. Thus far Obama has not done this.

Ah... but they believe it with the utmost spirituality and believe it to be the whole truth just as much as you believe in yours. Hence the great thing about or set up of government. In America you are both equally right... or wrong as the case may be.

Being right or wrong is not based on whether you believe something. Being right or wrong has to do with fact. I do not believe the Bible because of some random desire to believe. I believe because I can see that it is true. Because science supports it. Because history supports it. Because I can see God at work in the world around us. Because I know God, and have seen him work.

 

[Andy]

Being anti-theist is silly. There is no obligation to disprove the existence of anything including fairies and father xmas.

In a rational world the subject of god would not exist as there is no evidence to support a hypothesis.

Good heavens, there tons of evidence to support this. Rationally speaking, we know that DNA itself is an impossibility without God. DNA is a code. How does a code exist without.. a coder? Someone who created the code to begin with.

So let's review. All life exists because of DNA. DNA is a code. A code can not exist without an intelligence behind it. Right there is rational evidence for a creator God.

 

[top gun]

Andy;58501]First, it is not what "I am doing", it is what the leading scientists of our day have done. They came to that conclusion, not me.

I'm not seeing that this responds to the evidence given. Perhaps I should explain the RATE scientist report. Carbon-14 has a short half-life. Roughtly 5,000 years. What this means is, by about 55,000 years (some say around 60K years), 11 half-lifes, the amount of Carbon-14 in a given object would be undetectable.

Not that you're correct but as a matter of time saving and since I'm not trying to change your mind let's go by your number and say 55,000 years. Biblical time-line gone!

That sorta makes my point. Black slavery and lynch mobs were societal accepted norms. We simply have decided they are no longer the norms, but we could go back to that any time we chose to because there was nothing inherently wrong with it to begin with... am I correct?

No you are not. As human beings one of our most valuable traits is our continuing ability to evolve. There's nothing "religious" about evolving. It's trial & error learning along with newly discovered scientific discovery as you move from generation to generation that gets us to where we are today.

For example. A man in Canada, killed his teenage daughter by strangling her to death. This was accepted by the community as an "honor killing". Do you support this action as being societal norm, and it's their right to practice what they believe is right?

Whether "I" accept it is not the point. What it is from a legal perspective is whatever the governing law of the land provides. Again... nothing to do with religion. If I don't like it I would try to change the law under legal grounds... the act barbaric... the act violates the rights of the strangled person etc.

It wouldn't be because I think "God" is against it. For instance I believe euthanasia for the severely suffering and seeking it or people left in a total vegetative state is not a crime but an act of compassion. We will not let our animals go through half the pain we sometimes subject our fellow man to.

Yes I know this. Catholicism has been used by many governments for political purposes. Even Castro invited the pope over gain political clout. Remember, the Catholic church persecuted Christians, so again, not a surprise.

You're the one that cited Hitler as not allowing religion... not me.

I see nothing in the teachings of Christ to suggest what you claim. Again, I'm having some trouble understanding the claim that Senator Obama believes in the Bible, while supporting views opposed to the Bible. You are not a Christian because you carry a Bible, or go put your butt in a pew, or because you happen to say "I am a christian". You are a Christian when you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, AND Lord of your life, and follow the teachings of Christ. Thus far Obama has not done this.

You can believe anything you like. Senator Obama is a Christian. In government there would be no taxes and the poor would be well taken care of by every man if we were to really follow scripture.

Christianity is a good guide. I'm fine with someone who follows his own religious path to God as he sees it and doesn't kiss the ring of some often hypocritical snake oil salesman Evangelist or "born again" group.

 

[Andy]

Not that you're correct but as a matter of time saving and since I'm not trying to change your mind let's go by your number and say 55,000 years. Biblical time-line gone!

Actually no. The point I was making was that science disproves evolution and the 'long-age' theory of earth's origin. This must be done before one will be open to explore the scientific evidence with Biblical possibilities.

Carbon dating is all based on one fundamental assumption, that the amount of Carbon-14 naturally occurring has not changed. Is this true? Carbon-14 is created by cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere. So from a secular perspective yes, it hasn't changed for billions of years, but then from that same perspective, we've disproved billions of years, and evolution, by showing carbon-14 is in rock layers that are supposedly billions of years old.

The Bible on the other hand teaches that there was a great flood, and prior to the flood, the Earth was surrounded by atmospheric water. This atmospheric water would filter out the cosmic rays that creates Carbon-14. Thus, the amount of Carbon-14 would logically be lower in the early years just after God created the earth.

Further, the magnetic field the Earth creates, also draws away cosmic rays, that create Carbon-14. This field is decaying. This indicates that Carbon-14 would be lower in prior years when the field was stronger. Not to mention that science shows that at the rate of decay, the max magnetic field would have been roughly 10,000 years ago. Not surprising from a biblical view point.

Finely, both the Biblical view, and the amount of coal and fosils, both indicate there was vastly more plant life prior to the great flood. Since the amount of C14 created would be, relatively speaking, static compared to the amount of life that the C14 would be in, the greater amount of plant life would dilute the amount of C14 found in any one thing, resulting in lower readings.

When these three additional factors are accounted for, unsurprisingly, the carbon dating method comes to roughly 5,000 thousand years, more or less depending on the specifics. But it falls right in line with what one would expect, viewing the evidence from a biblical perspective.

No you are not. As human beings one of our most valuable traits is our continuing ability to evolve. There's nothing "religious" about evolving. It's trial & error learning along with newly discovered scientific discovery as you move from generation to generation that gets us to where we are today.

This is not a response. You made the point that the only reason something is right or wrong is based on societal norms. If so, then the only reason something is wrong is based on how we feel about it at the time. At the time, slavery and lynch mobs were the societal norms. Based on your own words, there was nothing wrong with this, yes or no?

If yes, then everything has no moral basis, and anyone can justify any action, even murder, as long as it's a societal norm.

If no, then on what basis do you claim your view that something is wrong, is better than their view that it was right?

Whether "I" accept it is not the point. What it is from a legal perspective is whatever the governing law of the land provides. Again... nothing to do with religion. If I don't like it I would try to change the law under legal grounds... the act barbaric... the act violates the rights of the strangled person etc.

It wouldn't be because I think "God" is against it. For instance I believe euthanasia for the severely suffering and seeking it or people left in a total vegetative state is not a crime but an act of compassion. We will not let our animals go through half the pain we sometimes subject our fellow man to.

But see, according to their law, it doesn't violate the rights of the strangled person. Just like according to our law, slaves didn't have rights. You can't use the law to justify changing the law. That is circular logic.

You would be fighting to change the law just because of wanting to impose your world view on others. That's wrong.

You're the one that cited Hitler as not allowing religion... not me.

He did persecute the church. Need evidence?

You can believe anything you like. Senator Obama is a Christian. In government there would be no taxes and the poor would be well taken care of by every man if we were to really follow scripture.

Christianity is a good guide. I'm fine with someone who follows his own religious path to God as he sees it and doesn't kiss the ring of some often hypocritical snake oil salesman Evangelist or "born again" group.

So in your view, you can completely ignore what Christ said, not follow a single command, support views completely contrary to Biblical teaching... and still be a "christian"?

Well then, I'm a liberal democrat. Prove me wrong.