But seriously . . . atheism?

[Kat Kanning]

30 days...wow!  That's great

[Braddogg]

Perhaps God has put on the planet people and situations to "challenge" people in their life learning so that they may learn about compassion and acceptance.

Interesting theory.  Any way we could go about proving it?

I was brought up in a family with Christian beliefs, and many of them were tolerance and acceptance of others.

You're lucky that they didn't teach teach you 2 John 10, Romans 16:17, or Deuteronomy 17:2-7, 12-13.

I think it is a beautiful thing that we are all different: different gender, religion, age, likes and dislikes...

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words [as you preach the salvation message of Jesus Christ], shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.  I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.  (Matthew 10:14-15).  I don't think Jesus of Nazareth valued difference in religion, nor would he have called it "a beautiful thing" . . . .

It has filled something within your beliefs. Just the same way as religion(s) do(es) for people.

I disagree.  Anarcho-capitalism doesn't "fill a need to believe" or something like that.  It's a moral theory for how humans should interact.  Religion has that component as well, but they also have the fantasy component -- that there is an invisible outside force involved.  (No matter how much physical evidence the theists compile for their beliefs, they believe their evidence points toward an outside force.)

Instead of working against each other, you should all unite and practice tolerance and acceptance. I think it would make this world a much greater place to live in.

Getting rid of religion would be a great place to start.  After all, Jesus talks a lot about dividing the sheep and the goats . . . .

We are not here to judge other people, as we do not have the power to do this in my opinion as we cannot feel what another human being is feeling since we are limited to the confinement of our own physical state

Is murder bad?  Are those that murder bad?  Is there virtue apart from actions?  That is, can a person commit evils and still be considered good (without trying to make amends in this life for his evil)?

[stitcherman]

Lets see......people that consider themselves atheists actually may have very good perception of human human religion today inside the matrix.

   As for as the bible the teachings of Paul  (romans 13 is a great example).

   It is paramount to observe that the people who have been controlling society wrote the bible and edited the bible for control of the general population.

   Imagine today if GEORGE BUSH came out with a new religion for the people and exposed the truth. Would you follow that religion?

   The King James version of the bible was rewritten by his Majestys command and is still contolling society today.

   The writings of Paul if analized objectivly is the best example of mind and society control.  his work was inset for obvious reasons.

  Human  history is not what the masses have been taught.

   The truth of our intelligent design has been withheld; but there for everyone to see if you know where to look for it.

    The people that run our society look at things every differently than the controlled outlook of reality that we are fed.

the existence of christ is not unbelievable ..his work and life is truth,it has been stolen , hijacked ripped off and twisted.

Please examine the pic below.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Amethyste]

Well Braddog, I am not even going to reply to your post and I sensed that you missed my point.
I DID say I do not have any scientific proof for what I have written, but it comes from my heart. I don't care if you try to point out or dissect what I said to prove me wrong or whatever your intent is. I was just saying that people need to be more tolerant of each other regardless of difference. That's where being different is a beautiful thing. There is so much to learn from each other. Keeping your eyes open and your heart warm is where you'll find greatness in learning from these people. That's all I was trying to say.

[Braddogg]

Well Braddog, I am not even going to reply to your post and I sensed that you missed my point.
I DID say I do not have any scientific proof for what I have written, but it comes from my heart. I don't care if you try to point out or dissect what I said to prove me wrong or whatever your intent is. I was just saying that people need to be more tolerant of each other regardless of difference. That's where being different is a beautiful thing. There is so much to learn from each other. Keeping your eyes open and your heart warm is where you'll find greatness in learning from these people. That's all I was trying to say.

Oh, I appreciate the sentiment, as far as it goes.  I was trying to point out that that point of view is totally incompatible with Christianity: the teachings of Jesus, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the writings of the apostles (not to mention the history of the Church).

If I may ask a question without seeming (too) bombastic: What would be your opinion of someone who believes that Elvis is alive and well and may have impregnated them?

[Caleb]

If I may ask a question without seeming (too) bombastic: What would be your opinion of someone who believes that Elvis is alive and well and may have impregnated them?

Probably higher than it would be of someone whose life mission was to go around harassing those poor women who believed Elvis was the father of her baby. 

Your very question is an attempt to ridicule the beliefs of others. And hence ridiculous itself, in a pathetic sort of way.

[Russell Kanning]

The King lives!

[Braddogg]

If I may ask a question without seeming (too) bombastic: What would be your opinion of someone who believes that Elvis is alive and well and may have impregnated them?

Probably higher than it would be of someone whose life mission was to go around harassing those poor women who believed Elvis was the father of her baby. 

Your very question is an attempt to ridicule the beliefs of others. And hence ridiculous itself, in a pathetic sort of way.

Not quite.  Amethyste said that we have so much to learn from each other, that tolerance of ideas should be a high virtue.  But, are we really supposed to be supportive and take seriously every truth claim someone makes?  I (obviously) think not, and I think using the (drawn from real life) Elvis example is a great one.  I do my fair share of ridiculing religious fantasies, but the Elvis comparison wasn't meant to ridicule.

But I'll bite and ask the question anyway: Is it more ridiculous to believe that your neighbor (who you have seen) was impregnated yesterday by Elvis (who definitely existed at some point), or to believe that Mary (who probably existed) was impregnated as a virgin 2,000 years ago (before artificial insemination would have made such a thing plausible) by a supreme being (whose existence contradicts logic and observation)?

And I'm curious, what do you think the Bible has to say about tolerance and diversity?  How about those Bible passages I quoted earlier?

[Caleb]

Not quite.  Amethyste said that we have so much to learn from each other, that tolerance of ideas should be a high virtue.  But, are we really supposed to be supportive and take seriously every truth claim someone makes?  I (obviously) think not, and I think using the (drawn from real life) Elvis example is a great one.  I do my fair share of ridiculing religious fantasies, but the Elvis comparison wasn't meant to ridicule.

No, you don't have to accept every truth claim someone makes.  I obviously don't accept your particular truth claims.  But it helps to be respectful and not ridicule, that is ... if you want to get along with people.

But I'll bite and ask the question anyway: Is it more ridiculous to believe that your neighbor (who you have seen) was impregnated yesterday by Elvis (who definitely existed at some point), or to believe that Mary (who probably existed) was impregnated as a virgin 2,000 years ago (before artificial insemination would have made such a thing plausible) by a supreme being (whose existence contradicts logic and observation)?

Not all Christians believe the virgin birth.  I myself am not sure, and frankly don't think it makes a difference one whit to the story.

It is interesting, though, that St. John did believe it.  We know from his biographer who told the story of John fleeing from a public place when a person who denied the virgin birth entered.  John apparently didn't want to be in the same room with such an "opponent of truth." 

For me, it clearly doesn't have such import.

And I'm curious, what do you think the Bible has to say about tolerance and diversity?  How about those Bible passages I quoted earlier?

Bible writers, like all people, have their own various opinions and weaknesses.  The ideal for a Christian is to not execute judgment, but Christians are not prohibited from making a mental assent to truth.  In fact, a truth claim necessitates a certain judgment (or mental assent).  Christians are not allowed to spew venom at others who do not accept the truth (or not supposed to, at any rate.  If you judge Christianity by the hypocrisy of its adherents, you will have a very negative view of it.)

As to Jesus' quote, I think you have taken it out of its Jubileean context.  Jesus attitude towards those who refused his messianic jubilee message was one of sadness, not condemnation.  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... how often I wanted to gather you together as chicks beneath my wings ..."  He realized, however, the catastrophic consequences that would befall those who rejected his message.  In 70 a.d., his prediction was fulfilled.

[Amethyste]

If I may ask a question without seeming (too) bombastic: What would be your opinion of someone who believes that Elvis is alive and well and may have impregnated them?

Probably higher than it would be of someone whose life mission was to go around harassing those poor women who believed Elvis was the father of her baby. 

Your very question is an attempt to ridicule the beliefs of others. And hence ridiculous itself, in a pathetic sort of way.

Not quite.  Amethyste said that we have so much to learn from each other, that tolerance of ideas should be a high virtue.  But, are we really supposed to be supportive and take seriously every truth claim someone makes?  I (obviously) think not, and I think using the (drawn from real life) Elvis example is a great one.  I do my fair share of ridiculing religious fantasies, but the Elvis comparison wasn't meant to ridicule.

Well, that's quite ridiculous that you are taking my sentence and stretch its meaning to what you just said. Don't you just understand what I am trying it say or are you just really looking straight without peripheral vision? I am not even talking about being a christian and the bible or the fact what Mary conceived Jesus without the "help" of Joseph. I said I was raised Christian. I said that my father has raised me with tolerance and acceptance of others. I accept the fact that others are Muslim, Buddhist, pagans... I accept their difference to mine and try to learn from them. That's all I said.

[Braddogg]

Not quite.  Amethyste said that we have so much to learn from each other, that tolerance of ideas should be a high virtue.  But, are we really supposed to be supportive and take seriously every truth claim someone makes?  I (obviously) think not, and I think using the (drawn from real life) Elvis example is a great one.  I do my fair share of ridiculing religious fantasies, but the Elvis comparison wasn't meant to ridicule.

No, you don't have to accept every truth claim someone makes.  I obviously don't accept your particular truth claims.  But it helps to be respectful and not ridicule, that is ... if you want to get along with people.

I don't think I ridiculed Amethyste . . . .  I was having a conversation with Amethyste when you stepped in.  SHE was (among other things) asserting the value of tolerance.  The questions were aimed toward her.  I know you don't accept my truth claims, and you don't call me names.  And I don't think I've called you names, even though I think your truth claims are as credible as those of the Flat Earth Society.

Not all Christians believe the virgin birth.  I myself am not sure, and frankly don't think it makes a difference one whit to the story.

Not to the progression of the story, but to the credibility of the story.  It betrays the bias of the writers of the Gospels -- that they wanted to fulfill Hebrew Scripture prophecy (and got it wrong due to a translation problem!).

And I'm curious, what do you think the Bible has to say about tolerance and diversity?  How about those Bible passages I quoted earlier?

Bible writers, like all people, have their own various opinions and weaknesses.

As to Jesus' quote, I think you have taken it out of its Jubileean context.  Jesus attitude towards those who refused his messianic jubilee message was one of sadness, not condemnation.  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... how often I wanted to gather you together as chicks beneath my wings ..."  He realized, however, the catastrophic consequences that would befall those who rejected his message.  In 70 a.d., his prediction was fulfilled.

I definitely get that same feeling of sadness you're talking about when I read the woe over Jerusalem.  I was What do you think is the significance of Jesus asking his disciples in Matthew 10:14 to wipe the dirt from their shoes? 

I don't think that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE was worse than Soddom and Gohmorrah.  I think it was all about the eschaton, the end of the world.  It's interesting to compare the Deutero-Pauline writings about the eschaton versus the authentic Pauline epistles.  The authentic Pauline letters treat it as imminent, but then it becomes further into the distance.  I don't think it's accurate to say that Jesus as predicting the Destruction of the Second Temple.

[Braddogg]

Well, that's quite ridiculous that you are taking my sentence and stretch its meaning to what you just said. Don't you just understand what I am trying it say or are you just really looking straight without peripheral vision? I am not even talking about being a christian and the bible or the fact what Mary conceived Jesus without the "help" of Joseph. I said I was raised Christian. I said that my father has raised me with tolerance and acceptance of others. I accept the fact that others are Muslim, Buddhist, pagans... I accept their difference to mine and try to learn from them. That's all I said.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.  Can I ask you a few questions for clarification?  Do you think we should be tolerant of others?  What does "tolerance" mean (I mean, how does a tolerant person differ from an intolerant person?)?  And a quick comment: If your parents raised you to really be a Bible-believing Christian, I doubt you would have been raised to value tolerance.  That's what I was getting at.  I'm not doubting you were raised calling yourself a Christian, I'm just saying that the evidence points to you not being a Bible-believing one.

[Amethyste]

yup... I guess you can call it that way. I don't thump the bible on my head. My dad made me go through communion, baptism etc... But he also tried to give me and my brother a broader sense of life. Accepting religion in our life ( whatever it may be, he said that after 18, we are free to decide our spiritual direction ) and also to look at what is going on on this planet and to learn to accept differences in other people for a better understanding of the world. I was raised with christian beliefs, but we didnt do go to church every sunday and we didn't practice lent. What I mean by tolerance... Have you ever had someone telling you that you will go to hell if you don't accept Christ in your heart? Well, I have been told that before, and by people close to me... Let me tell you that it's quite disturbing to me at least,  knowing that someone has stopped associating with you b/c you do not believe in the same religion as they do. They have been blinded by that instead of looking for the good inside of me. Tolerance is a broad word I would say, since it's more "accepting" others for their differences. Lets say that your neighbor is jewish and you are Wiccan. Well I am sure there could be a possible situation for conflicts, but since you live next to each other and that the Jewish man has to look at the wiccan woman doing a celebration for the Summer Equinox in her backyard on a sunday afternoon with candles and a cauldron, I think the man might think that she is a crazy and weird person for beleiving in this non-sense. But he remembers her taking good care of his dog and returned it to his home when it was wondering down the street b/c one of his kids left the door open and ran away. He sees the good in her eventhough she is not from the same faith. He's being accepting and tolerant of her practice and for being different than him...

[Braddogg]

Thank you for that, Amethyste.  That clears it up a bit.  I hope you'll indulge me again as I try to reframe what you said.  It seems to me that what you're talking about when you say "tolerance" and "acceptance" isn't accepting their beliefs as true so much as accepting the fact that they believe it as true.  Furthermore, that these beliefs should only be tolerated so long as they cause no negative effect on you.  For example, if the Wiccan was having huge parties for a week surrounding the Equinoxes with loud music, or if the Jew was recreating the Temple sacrifices and the blood from the animals got on his neighbors lawn, that stuff doesn't need to be tolerated.

What about the guy who believes that you're going to hell for not believing?  Should that person's belief be tolerated?  Or argued against?  Or ignored?  Actually, a more fundamental question, what's the difference between ignoring something and tolerating it (in this context)?

[PinoX7]

If you are an Atheist, it is because you think irrationaly.
Rational thought has a key importance i rember reading about. It states that belive something is true untill it is proven un-true. Beliving something that has no proof of being true, but no proof of being false is rational because i remember this one story about a southern indian tribe women. Her brother went out on a 2 year journey and when he returned he told his sister about bandits, and towns and the other types of culture. But then he told her that when it gets really cold, water turns into a solid. The indian women, could not belive this of all things, because according to everything she knew and experienced, she has never seen water turn solid, or even heard of such things.

Alot of times with religion books like the bible try to explain things that simply cannot be explained, or even translated by man. Some things are beyond our comprehension or understanding. I mean, it would be irrational to belive god looks like a father figure, or even a man. Or there is a cloudy city where all good people go. I dont think god takes any physical form, or is even at any location, rather it is the energy that harnesses every atom. Not the small physical part of an atom, the 1%, but the 99% of the atom that is energy and has no physical limitations. Your brain can only process what is necessary for your bodies survival, but what you see though your senses is just a narrow box of what is acctually happening around you, there is all sorts of entities around you that you cant see because your physical brain makes it impossible, like Gamma rays and infraid light, but is does exist, obviously. My point is, just because something cant be explaind, does not mean it cannot exist.