Typical theists versus typical atheists

[KerimF]

You both have an interesting remark.

When I personally talk to a theist, he usually quotes certain verses written on his religious references/books. This lets an atheist think that all theists knew their Creator based on faith, not reason; the logical reasoning applied in scientific researches.

On the other hand, when I talk to an atheist, he usually quotes (as evidence) certain statements said/approved by his trusted sources which may be related to philosophy and/or science. This gives the impression that an atheist knew life and the world also based on faith mostly in whatever is called scientific.

In reality, it doesn't matter if someone becomes theist or atheist. What matters is: Does a person trust fully his personal logical reasoning (which he also uses in his scientific studies and work) more than of any other sources or not? If he (theist or atheist) does, he can't, even if he wants to, build his personal set of knowledge based on faith. But this doesn't imply that the personal set of knowledge of a rational atheist and of a rational theist have to be similar (even their basics). But I expect that most people in the world, theists and atheists, don't agree on my previous statement because, in general, men tend to believe that all human beings have to be made of the same nature (same structure).

But what use is faith in either a theistic or atheistic worldview, can't you believe anything by faith. The reason atheists probably talk about science more is because it has a method that demonstrably works.

You are right.
But, to me in the least, the most important 'device/system' I got in life is 'my being'.

Now, should the results I got from my Device Under Test (my being) be similar to the results of any other one?
And, in case they are different, should I believe what some others say about my being more than what I personally discovered/perceived about it?

If I ignored/denied my personal methods that I have applied on my being, I would have no choice but following some others based on faith as a theist or atheist.

[JackRussell]

But what use is faith in either a theistic or atheistic worldview, can't you believe anything by faith. The reason atheists probably talk about science more is because it has a method that demonstrably works.

You are right.
But, to me in the least, the most important 'device/system' I got in life is 'my being'.

Now, should the results I got from my Device Under Test (my being) be similar to the results of any other one?
And, in case they are different, should I believe what some others say about my being more than what I personally discovered/perceived about it?

If I ignored/denied my personal methods that I have applied on my being, I would have no choice but following some others based on faith as a theist or atheist.

Sorry KerimF, I am really not following your argument. Can you give me an example of something you would have no choice but to take on faith because of your personal experience? I am saying that faith is the cop out. It's better to take no position on faith but sometimes just admit that you don't know.

[GUBU]

Fringe theories.

Finally Steve has come out and admitted it. The bible, according to his own words is a fringe theory.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[1]: Darwin kept his theory secret until near his death. It was not received well by the elite. Einstein toiled in obscurity until experiments revealed his genius.
[/quote]

Yeah, not so much. Darwin published 'On The Origin of Species' 23 years before his death (his impetus was mainly that Wallace was going to beat him to it) and Einstein didn't 'toil in obscurity' for very long - he was widely known (among other physicists, at least) by the time he was 26.

Boru

[KerimF]

Yes, and by me telling somebody I am an atheist it's often funny to see the many things they will then assume about me and my other beliefs. My atheism jut tells you I don't believe in gods, it doesn't tell you squat about anything else I believe, disbelieve or my worldview or any ideology I may or may not hold. That all requires a whole host of further discussion the is too often assumed.

But when somebody say, tells me they are  Christian, I am quite happy to take them at their word and discuss beliefs, the funny times is when you meet another one who tells you that what the first one had said means they are not a really a Christian. Does anybody have a reliable "Credible Member of their Faith" detector?

Nope. The definition of Christian is clearly fluid. And that fluidity seems to be specifically so they can label other people as "not really Christian"


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

I guess, one just needs to ask the person who is presenting himself as Christian:
"Are you always ready to (and/or allowed to, in case he is a politician, soldier, lawyer... etc.) love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you".

If his answer is a clear YES then he is a real independent disciple of Jesus Christ; otherwise he is just a follower of a certain Christian organization/system (called a denomination or Church in general) created by men in the name of Jesus..

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nope. The definition of Christian is clearly fluid. And that fluidity seems to be specifically so they can label other people as "not really Christian"


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

I guess, one just needs to ask the person who is presenting himself as Christian:
"Are you always ready to (and/or allowed to, in case he is a politician, soldier, lawyer... etc.) love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you".

If his answer is a clear YES then he is a real independent disciple of Jesus Christ; otherwise he is just a follower of a certain Christian organization/system (called a denomination or Church in general) created by men in the name of Jesus..

Let's me out, then.

Boru

[KerimF]

---

Yeah, because repressed people have never struck out in surprising ways just to piss off the authorities, and a lie that promises better life is never alluring.

Communism=bad check
Christianity=I am uneducated and this sounds better than my present situation. check

Educated to a level to address these claims rationally -- WAH WAH MAJOR FAIL

---

---

You are taking your bias and applying to an entire people group and telling us WHY they become Christians by the tens of millions. That is highly condescending and vacuous.

---

---

Well i know that's not true. Have spoken to NT Christians that have disagreed upon that. I have spoken to a NT Christian about my works as a decent monkey and he gave me a pass, sincerely. Another said, sorry but no free pass, despite doing good. Both backed with scripture.

It really isn't difficult to ascertain that one does not get a free pass on works alone. It is literally in just about every chapter of the NT.
[/Hide]

---

---

Well i know that's not true. Have spoken to NT Christians that have disagreed upon that. I have spoken to a NT Christian about my works as a decent monkey and he gave me a pass, sincerely. Another said, sorry but no free pass, despite doing good. Both backed with scripture.

---

---

It does not follow (ever) that if you got two different answers to the same question then there are two different answers to the same question. It is decidedly unchristian (in a very big way) to think you can get salvation through works alone and is not a belief held by any knowledgeable person.

---

[/quote]

So, you are told, that Jesus Christ came to the world not to teach the truth only (to those who might be born of the Spirit too), but to also provide a new tool of Magic by which men can be saved. This reminds me my Muslim friends who are told to believe/repeat certain magical expressions to get Allah's virgins in paradise.

---

I guess, one just needs to ask the person who is presenting himself as Christian:
"Are you always ready to (and/or allowed to, in case he is a politician, soldier, lawyer... etc.) love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you".

If his answer is a clear YES then he is a real independent disciple of Jesus Christ; otherwise he is just a follower of a certain Christian organization/system (called a denomination or Church in general) created by men in the name of Jesus..

Let's me out, then.

Boru

After all, you certainly play an important role in life without the need to love anyone; excluding perhaps the sexual love which is much like the carrot that encourage men/women to work continuously

---

You are right.
But, to me in the least, the most important 'device/system' I got in life is 'my being'.

Now, should the results I got from my Device Under Test (my being) be similar to the results of any other one?
And, in case they are different, should I believe what some others say about my being more than what I personally discovered/perceived about it?

If I ignored/denied my personal methods that I have applied on my being, I would have no choice but following some others based on faith as a theist or atheist.

Sorry KerimF, I am really not following your argument. Can you give me an example of something you would have no choice but to take on faith because of your personal experience? I am saying that faith is the cop out. It's better to take no position on faith but sometimes just admit that you don't know.

Of course you couldn't follow what I tried to say if you think I have analysed my being (DUT; done actually from many angles and under many experiences) based on faith and not as I use doing with any other device of interest at work, as a designer in electronic.
So, for example, even if the entire world (theists and atheists) will reject the teachings/hints of Jesus, I won't do it because it happens that Jesus already agreed with me, since about 2000 years, on all what I have discovered about my being and the 'real' world. In other words, if I do it, I would be the naïve person who rejects himself to please some other men

[KerimF]

You are right the way you understood my word 'Elite'.
I chose this word (Elite in case of non-religious) to refer to the top decisions makers in the world, speaking politically and scientifically as well.
Politics that was started in the form of religions is the oldest art known by men by which a few persons can control legitimately the rest of their society with minimum problems. Today, the political artists (producers and directors working behind the scenes, also their great actors called politicians) use religions as a cover up of their diabolic plans; the best one, so far, is their international endless daily series known as 'War on Terror'. We all witnessed how in less than 24 hours the previous bogyman 'Communists' was replaced by 'Terrorists'. This was possible when both the American and Russian Elite agreed, under the table of course, to divide the main resources of the world between them. And the men on power of every other country were instructed to present themselves as ally to America or Russia, but not both. And they are promised to protect their positions if they play well in the series 'War on Terror'. So, one country after another, the unbeatable/unreachable terrorists are allowed to be raised locally or be imported from abroad so that they can spread the 9/11 terror against the powerless men on bottom, civilians.
On the other hand, the terrorist crimes against millions of people (we are just at the beginning of the World Terror War against civilians, as the American and Russian administrations keep telling) are now fully justified after sacrificing, in daylight and as high as possible in order for the entire world to witness, just a few thousands of innocent citizens in NYC (since no one in the world dares even to imagine attacking America, mainly a silly attack against its civilians). In other words, believing that the heroes of the 9/11 terror are psychopaths and the actual uncounted number of terrorist groups (actually forming a huge army prepared from 2002 to 2010) are trained, supported and funded (to the point they are threatening the two greatest nations!) by psychopaths too, won't differ a lot from believing that the human race started by Adam & Eve. As the latter story has its defenders in millions, it is natural that the story of the new incredible psychopaths has also its great defenders (theists and atheists, I guess).

---

In other words, they are twins when a nation has both.
Today's Chinese are likely the most rational people. They are supposed to be guided by one ruling system; an earthly one.

  Have you any idea about the discrepancy between female and male live births in China? About partial birth abortions, if the offspring is female? Go look it up, for your own edification. You are clueless. And Islam is even more retarded. Go take care of your own country before you come around and chide people in other countries for their "sins". If you actually go and research this information, you can come back and beg our forgiveness for posting your shit where it isn't due. Ye cats, what a tool. nb (not that you would understand that) nothing you will say here is going to make one whit of difference in what we think. Go out into your own country and do some good, instead of wasting your (and our) time with this shit. SHOO! SHOO fly!

Sorry, I didn't imagine my humble personal views could have such side effects, as your reaction, on some people in the world.

Yes, to me in the least, only civilized people take the world's birth control seriously on these days, starting from themselves.
Although where you live you likely can't agree on this, a human baby should never be treated as a mere animal baby.
It is a crime to let a human baby be born just because a law, said of god or else, commanded it, while no one in the world is waiting his arrival by true love. But in many countries, most human babies are born as being mere animals and this is done in the name of human rights or religion. By doing this, it became possible to raise millions of babies around the world to play the terrorists in the International 9/11 Terrorist Army (formed by uncounted terrorist groups). These victims (with many others who are also made to defend their god's land) are made ready to serve the American and Russian Elite in their international endless series "War on Terror" that targets daily, directly or indirectly, millions of civilians anywhere on earth. We all witnessed the Hollywood perfect crime on 9/11/2001 in the 1st tragic episode of this series.

If you have another view on any of these points, no matter how it is, please don't be shy to share it with me. I am all ears. I may learn things from you that I might have missed, from where I live as you said.

[KerimF]

[1]
A typical theist doesn’t mind believing in miracles, said religious if approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind believing an idea, beyond his personal experience, if said scientific and approved by certain scientists, privileged by the high class.
 
[2]
A typical theist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by a god and approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by certain great ancestors (who are usually supposed representing ideals for the human race) and approved by privileged Elite.
 
Even from these two points, one may conclude that while a typical theist is made ready to accept being a follower/supporter of a certain heavenly ruling system, an atheist prefers to be a follower, if not a supporter too, of an earthly ruling system he used to know.
 
In the ‘real’ world (far from the great speeches, religious or political and as I see it), the role of religions (of various heavenly ruling systems) and politics (of various earthly ruling systems) are much alike. In both camps, minds of the faithful believers/followers are driven cleverly to where they are supposed to be. For example on one hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a god. On the other hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a flag (actually, the ideals it represents).

In other words, religions and politics complement each other, so that the most powerful/rich families in every region in the world can legitimately be served by the men on bottom who can choose freely to be theist or atheist.

I am so fucking sick of being lumped in with others just because we happen to share the relatively meaningless term 'atheist'. It's completely empty and devoid of meaning in all respects except to one simple question, and even slight nuances of that same question don't always pertain to it.

As a rational skeptic (and secular humanist, which are both far, far more relevant labels, so please consider differentiating if you want to be taken seriously rather than making somewhat insulting generalizations), I don't give a flying FUCK what any scientist or authority has to say, I give a shit what the goddamned evidence has to say. The identity of any discoverer or experimenter is irrelevant, if they can't demonstrate any claim to be reasonable or plausible, I'll suspend judgment rather than accepting it. As a chemistry major I've studied the subject and the claims it makes do stand up to scrutiny. But I'm not going to expect anyone to believe me if I don't go into detail or make demonstrations to back the claim up, but if they care to ask I'm more than willing to do that because I don't WANT people to be credulous idiots and just take anyone's word for anything. Even if I was a Ph.D I wouldn't answer anyone's questions without asking them if they'd done any studying on the subject first because it's better to become familiarized with the evidence first before speaking to an actual person about it.

Obeying rules only applies if it makes sense; laws can be immoral and that's where things like protests and civil disobedience, or even direct political action like running for office come in to play. If one feels strongly enough about something, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, they should be able to do that and more if they want and have the freedom (both time- and resource-wise, and being in an environment where that kind of activity won't be violently silenced.) I don't consider any ancestors to be 'great' because the identity of the originator of an idea is irrelevant. The content of the ideas or concepts is what matters and we discard those which don't work or make practical sense. Even now, we bastardize what good ideas there are (the type of democracy we have in the U.S. where the people choose one leader and the leaders choose the opposing candidate, is a perfect example). The elite tend to be the polar opposite of the masses, i.e. rich and conservative, alienating them from actual human values and encouraging and enforcing a striated class system that is to their benefit and distracts the lower classes from who their real enemies are.

You put zero thought into this and probably are just parroting what someone else farted out (which, in some cases, the identity of the speaker can be a somewhat useful factor, if they're a complete FUCKING IDIOT, for example, you'd probably want to just dismiss what they say out of hand...but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day). So thanks for the insults and the opportunity (slim as it may be) to educate you. Please actually do something with it and not let it go to waste.

Did I insult any specific person? You, for example? If I did, please let me how I did it and I am sorry in advance.
Please also tell me if some expressions, I wrote, could sound as being a sort of hatred or even judgment against anyone.

I simply said that an atheist doesn't obey rules claimed being inspired by a (any) god. But he doesn't mind obeying rules if made by men based on certain modern notions of ideals, as Freedom and Democracy; even if these ideals exist in great speeches but not in reality (on ground).

By the way, the notion of Democracy is created to be more effective than Dictatorship in controlling better the people. Once the people in a country/nation are made to believe that their men on power are elected by them, those in charge of their system will have 'Carte Blanche' to say and do whatever is good for the ruling class (whose members are privileged by the law/constitution). Then anytime the People complains, the answer comes: "It is the fault of the People that voted for the wrong man (men)". And the case will be closed gradually till the next Free election. It is indeed a simple but very effective trick though costly (it needs continuous propaganda/interviews, besides ceremonies/festivals). But I noticed that, in democratic countries, the men on power have no right to be involved in sexual affairs which is considered being the greatest crime against the nation, all other crimes are forgivable. So, when Bush played the naïve ignorant kid and sent his loyal troops (fortunately, most of them are not American) to risk their life in Iraq (for any reason we may imagine but surely not to protect the American people), he was re-elected for a second term. Also, to me in the least, Obama was great when he was instructed to play the role of Superman who saw the Syrian president giving order to shoot Syrian young protectors in Daraa town in March 2011, Then, he had to play the powerless handicapped blind when my small farm (near Aleppo city) was attacked a year later by long dark beards, coming from Chechnya, to save us from the tyrant he discovered. Naturally, Obama was also re-elected by the FREE American people. Now, should I really believe that the actual US President is the best idol representing the moral and virtues of most Americans? Obviously I don't believe it because I know that real free elections cannot exist (for many reasons) anywhere on earth as real ruling gods cannot exist as well (only in some people's minds perhaps).

---

Why do all theists think atheist = science?

Atheists (in their minds) attack their religion by not being relgious. Science (in their minds) attacks their religion by showing that their god(s) doesn't control stuff like their holy books say.

---

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

A book which tells you "do X" then turns around and tells you to do the exact opposite is not a reliable guide to anything.

In the gospels Yeshua bar Yosef tells you you have to obey every jewish law (because he was, if he existed, a proto ultra orthodox Jew), but by Saul of Tarsus, you are told the Jewish laws have to be ignored. So your "perfect detector" is a self confessed muddled pile of bullshit.

Please help me find a contradiction said by Jesus himself. Thank you.

[Brian37]

[1]
A typical theist doesn’t mind believing in miracles, said religious if approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind believing an idea, beyond his personal experience, if said scientific and approved by certain scientists, privileged by the high class.
 
[2]
A typical theist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by a god and approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by certain great ancestors (who are usually supposed representing ideals for the human race) and approved by privileged Elite.
 
Even from these two points, one may conclude that while a typical theist is made ready to accept being a follower/supporter of a certain heavenly ruling system, an atheist prefers to be a follower, if not a supporter too, of an earthly ruling system he used to know.
 
In the ‘real’ world (far from the great speeches, religious or political and as I see it), the role of religions (of various heavenly ruling systems) and politics (of various earthly ruling systems) are much alike. In both camps, minds of the faithful believers/followers are driven cleverly to where they are supposed to be. For example on one hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a god. On the other hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a flag (actually, the ideals it represents).

In other words, religions and politics complement each other, so that the most powerful/rich families in every region in the world can legitimately be served by the men on bottom who can choose freely to be theist or atheist.

Siri Gibberish Translator, "I just made shit up and pulled it out of my ass".

Let me clue you in, the use of the word "typical" is bullshit.

Monopolies of power can arise in any aspect of society, be it religion, class, political party, economic view or an overlap of a combo of those things.

Closed oppressive theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have the same thing in common with North Korea, worship of the state. Neither are good. 

In the open west in pluralistic societies the concept isn't either to worship a god, or worship the state, but systems of checks and balances on all powers, public or private.

China is a closed state, it has a one party monopoly on the economy, but it is also at the same time a capitalist country. The Kim family is a family monopoly but the family itself also gets rich investing in the global economy. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in General Electric. Cuba is a majority CATHOLIC and Fidel Castro had at one time a personal fortune estimated to be $800,000,000.

None of your OP made any sense at all. And it most certainly does not argue for a western open system with any sense of coherence.