Anything But An Atheist. How come?

[Galileo]

Are we surprised that xtians don't understand atheism when it's evident that so many of them haven't even taken the time to read and understand their own shitty book of "morals"?

well I'm not.

the idea of being all alone in the universe, uncared for by this higher power scared the shit out of me at first, but it was the only logical conclusion to a decade of unanswered pleas.

I wanted to believe so badly that there was something more, a bigger point to all our existances, and letting go of that was never easy.
so in approaching the faith of others I always try and remember how I felt having my own faith stripped away.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Here's an interesting video on reality that might compliment the second video mentioned in this thread (if indeed, this thread isn't dead yet).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...O7tGOr2NU0

[Epimethean]

He's fantastic. I thoroughly enjoyed the Illuminatus series.

[Ziploc Surprise]

He's fantastic. I thoroughly enjoyed the Illuminatus series.

I just discovered him today. Along with this video which is totally not relevant to this thread but it's still funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnyS2fiHm20

[Willpower]

The Word of God is very specific about how Christians are to conduct themselves towards non-Christians.
“Let your word be always in grace, having been seasoned with salt, to know how it is necessary for each one of you to answer.” (Col. 4:6)
Hate speech is not speaking with grace.

“Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable...” (1 Peter 2:12)
“It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.” (1 Corinthians 5:12 )
---

How are Christians to act towards unbelievers? Jesus gives us Christians the answer to that and it is far different from the shunning, rejection, and self-righteous attitude that is so often practiced by contemporary Christians. When we see Jesus engaging pagans and tax-collectors, or any group of unbeliever or sinners, we see someone who gives them huge amounts of time, attention, and grace. So much so that the religious leaders accuse him of being one of those pagans. In Matthew 11:19 Jesus says that they accused him of being a drunkard because he spent so much time with such groups.

Jesus showed unending love and respect to the “pagans and tax-collectors”. He treated them with the dignity that was due someone created in the image of God. What he did was only love them. Are Christians not to do the same?

Aren’t we supposed to love everyone? If so in what way is our treatment of someone who is a tax collector or pagan different from how we treat a brother or sister in Christ?

I agree that it is unfortunate that many Christians have let the vices of arrogance, ignorance, and pride take over them. Christ demanded that we live lives of virtue and love, as he exemplified himself.

[Mister Agenda]

e. The Quran speaks about not questioning God, often enough. I've yet to find a verse in the Bible where God doesn't ask us to test and question what we believe. Although there are many verse supporting introspection. Rebut with mainstream Christian dogmatic belief please. If not it’s an Islamic belief not Christian.

I'm thinking Deuteronomy 6:16, which I believe Jesus refers to a couple of times. 'Thou shalt not test the Lord your God'. Of course you specified 'mainstream Christian dogmatic belief', which I have no idea how to substantiate to your satisfaction given the fuzziness of the requirement. However, if you feel justified in putting that on Islam based on your reading of the Qur'an, I think you should be able to accept a similar judgement based on my reading of the Bible.

I picked this bit out because I ddn't see where anybody addressed it, if it was already covered, my apologies.

[tackattack]

It wasn't but ty Mister Agenda. That verse references Moses and the water f om the rock story in Exodus 17. If you read it, it's about people quarreling with each other. In it's broader sense, both verses state not to test whether God is there or not. I must admit to not following the Bible on this every time, as I'm very stubborn and inquisitive. I believe Jesus used it in rebutting Satan for asking him to cast himself to see if the angel's would save him. Not putting God into a forced promise, especially for selfish gain, I would say is the overarching point. It doesn't say to go about ignorantly smelling flowers and being blissfully ignorant and stupid, which is often the tact this argument takes (Not saying it is here, just an observation).

[Angrboda]

The Word of God is very specific about how Christians are to conduct themselves towards non-Christians.
“Let your word be always in grace, having been seasoned with salt, to know how it is necessary for each one of you to answer.” (Col. 4:6)
Hate speech is not speaking with grace.

“Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable...” (1 Peter 2:12)
“It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.” (1 Corinthians 5:12 )

“If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.”
John 15:6

Picking and choosing that which profits you and ignoring the rest is the essence of cafeteria faith. It is also a lie: the claim to believe the whole while only accepting the parts. It is well known both within and without, yet it is continually recurring. The bible was used both to support and oppose slavery, etc., etc., ad nauseum. This is akin to the creationist tack of reusing refuted arguments, not because they have something new to offer, but because those who are unaware of the refutation are vulnerable in their ignorance. The appeal is not to truth, but to opportunity -- the attack of those who do not care whether or not they are right, nor whether you are harmed by being persuaded of a falsehood intentionally. There is a chapter in the Tao Te Ching which analogizes the Tao to a ruler, for a ruler treats his subjects as dummies, and alike, the Tao is ruthless in its treatment of the ten thousand things. The theist is similarly ruthless, for the aim is to satisfy needs that the theist has, whether or not this is to the detriment of the needs of the person, child or nation they wish to convert.


This is jumping around, but I disagree with darkmatter2525, largely because I think his thesis is not true. But also, it's worth noting that darkmatter2525 doesn't really provide any evidence for his claim, aside from some folk psychological reasonings and pretty words. No science, psychology, or real philosophy involved. (And, I just now note, he also leans heavily on the "science" of folk etymology.) But, for simplicity and expedience, I will fall back on Christopher Hitchens' maxim that, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Until a better demonstration is made, I consign it to the flames.

(ETA: referring to the first darkmatter2525 video, about rejection and self-love being the reality of God.)

---

e. The Quran speaks about not questioning God, often enough. I've yet to find a verse in the Bible where God doesn't ask us to test and question what we believe. Although there are many verse supporting introspection. Rebut with mainstream Christian dogmatic belief please. If not it’s an Islamic belief not Christian.

I'm thinking Deuteronomy 6:16, which I believe Jesus refers to a couple of times. 'Thou shalt not test the Lord your God'. Of course you specified 'mainstream Christian dogmatic belief', which I have no idea how to substantiate to your satisfaction given the fuzziness of the requirement. However, if you feel justified in putting that on Islam based on your reading of the Qur'an, I think you should be able to accept a similar judgement based on my reading of the Bible.

I picked this bit out because I ddn't see where anybody addressed it, if it was already covered, my apologies.

I think a better passage is John 20:24-29, where Jesus castigates Thomas for his skepticism and Thomas' demands for evidence, and explicitly raises up those who believe without evidence or investigation, saying, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

[tackattack]

I've seen that passage a lot. In many places Jesus takes a common phrase or pharsitical interpretation from physical to the spiritual, or from the law of condemnation to the new covenant. I would interpret that scripture contextually, in the light of his recent crucifixion and ressurection, was that many will not have to opportunity to see Jesus in the flesh, and their belief (without seeing) will bless them as much as Thomas has been blessed. It doesn't say they are more or less blessed than anyone else, just that they can be just as blessed without sticking their fingers in the wounds (faith). Faith doesn't preclude, logic or reason as you imply. I doesn't raise up those who believe with faith over evidence, just simply notes that not everyone needs to touch to believe.

[Epimethean]

Faith doesn't necessarily (or even often, in the case of religion) include logic, either.