The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32588

Posted: December 27 2009 at 16:21

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Where does it say in the ten commandments that "Thou shalt not kill [the innocent]"?

I can't hang around for discussion (I have to leave for church soon LOL

), but I feel I should point out that the Hebrew word translated "kill" in the Ten Commandments is a completely different one than the Hebrew verb that is used for execution and the one used for killing in the military.

Of course, the dutiful scholars of Evil Bible are completely ignorant that translating ancient text is an art, not a science. Wink

I know - you can translate it as "thou shalt not commit murder" and thus it becomes ok to kill for various reasons, as long as the person to be killed is not completely innocent. Of course a concept like original sin comes in handy in that situation ... Wink

I don't have time to go through the specific linguistic differences among the concepts of "sin," "transgressions," and "iniquity," but suffice it to say that a man is not worthy to execute another person on the basis of original sin (a disease we all share), but might be required to carry out a death penalty on the basis of specific transgressions (symptoms of the disease).

Have a nice evening everyone. Smile

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: December 27 2009 at 23:26

Trademark wrote:

Hmmm, let's see if we can apply this concept to some other sets of circumstances.

Lawyers. Some lawyers do bad things like working to ensure that murderers go free. They can't be personally blamed for this because they are doing what they do in the service of something they believe in, i.e. "the law." Lawyers have done these bad things in the past and will likely continue to do them in the future. So it follows by Mike's logic that the world would be better off not without greedy unscrupulous lawyers, but without the root cause of the problem in his illogical view; the laws. This may explain his fervent antagonism of Ivan.

Politicians. Some politician have done bad things in service to the ideals of politics (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, for example), and will almost certainly do bad things in the future. It follows then that all political apparatus should be done away with, not the mean-spirited, greedy politicians, but politics itself. This I might be able to agree with. LOL

Germans. (Where!!??) Germans have done terrible things in the past in service to their country and so will likely do bad things in the future. To avoid this happening we should not remove insane atheist leaders from positions of power, we should instead do away with Germany.

Plumbers. PLumber have done bad things in the past (poor workmanship and outrageous bills) and will do bad things in the future. Don't remove the bad plumbers, its better if we do away with plumbing altogether.

The problem with this line of logic should be obvious. It should also be obvious that the as rational logic it fails. It totally ignores the root cause of the problems, which ever and always is the twisted desire of some people for money, control, power, (or simply trying at any cost to win what they perceive as an argument).

My mother used to say, "Your mouth gets you into a corner and your pride keeps you there." Here's your sign.

I get it, Germany and Plumbing are both belief systems that ask us to dispense with our habitual reservations about imaginary transcendental agents ? (All that ammo and money wasted on what were phantasms all along)

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: December 27 2009 at 23:36

Trademark wrote:

"You mean the myth of atheist violence?"

I meant violence by atheists and should have phrased it that way. I did clearly state "doctrinal or not" and you are the one bringing the atheist black sheep into it, not me (this time).

I was thinking of this:

Jeffrey Dahmer: "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" [An interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994]. "

or this:

"You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that."
-- Ted Bundy

but, as usual, you know best and also know what everyone else is thinking.

I guess that quoting from the mentally ill is the same as quoting from any sane atheists right ?

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: December 28 2009 at 00:23

^It would seem that acoording to him, all atheists are schizophrenics. Funny, last time I checked, the ones hearing voices that weren't there were the other ones...

tszirmay

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673

Posted: December 28 2009 at 01:03

Aliens Ate my Buick! (Thomas Dolby title) is all I can come up with.

Frankly, who cares? Think about it.... Who...... cares?

I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: December 28 2009 at 02:12

Doctor Who?

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 28 2009 at 05:32

Pete Townshend?

What?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 28 2009 at 09:27

The T wrote:

^It would seem that acoording to him, all atheists are schizophrenics. Funny, last time I checked, the ones hearing voices that weren't there were the other ones...

Yes T, some atheists are schizophrenics, also some Catholics, some Jewish, some Buddhists, etc.

Only a very small minority of religious people have claimed listening God. But at least the Catholic Church is absolutely careful with this claims, less than 0.1% of the cases are considered real, after a long complex trial where The Promoter of the Faith also known as The Devil´s Advocate, tries to find holes in the claim, acting as a DA,in some cases, even atheists as Christopher Hitchens have been called to testify against a canonization, as in the case of Mother Teresa.

So we normally don't listen voices, and when a claim exists, it's carefully verified.

For example, when Fujimori was President for second time modifying illegally the Constitution, sudden miracles started to happen (almost always in people from his party houses), the most famous was a crying statue of the virgin, we all believed it was a smoke curtain to distract people, but the media (managed byfujimori) covered it with hundreds of pages as the TV News used 50% of their space (Fujimori had bought the TV station's owners with millions)

The Church made a serious investigation, and instead of exploiting the opportunity to increase faith, declared with their scientists that all were fake.

Iván

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 28 2009 at 10:00

^ Teo isn't talking about high profile "people on a mission" or cases that will prompt the pope to cannonise, but ordinary folk who believe that god talks to them, like this example:

Originally posted by random sample fron <a href=http://christianity.about.com/od/womensresources/a/hearingfromgod.htm target=_blank>the internet</A>

random sample fron the internet wrote:

When God Talks, Shut Up and Listen

Let me give you an example. A couple years ago I signed up to become a hospital visitor for my church. When I first saw the notice in our church bulletin, I immediately felt that I should respond. But, I let it pass. Over the next couple of weeks, the thought occurred to me off and on so I said to myself, "If I see the notice in the bulletin this coming Sunday, I'll sign up."

Of course, it was in there. But this time when I saw it, there was no getting away from it. I finally had to say, "Okay, okay God, I'm going!"

So there I was doing hospital visits for the first time. I was nervous, but I prayed a lot before I went, and I was doing okay. But on my way to the second hospital, I prayed again that God would use me to represent Him to all the sick people, giving comfort, etc.

Right in front of the hospital was a crosswalk with a traffic light. As I stood at the corner I kept praying, starting to cross, even though the light was red. I mean, I was in a hurry trying to get to all those sick people!

Right in the middle of the street I heard, "So you want to represent Me, and you can't even make it across the street without breaking the law?"

I was so shocked by this, I said the most spiritual thing I could think of, "Oops."

God uses lots of things to talk to us. But actually hearing from God isn't so much a matter of if he's talking, but rather, whether we're listening.

What?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 28 2009 at 10:23

Dean wrote:

^ Teo isn't talking about high profile "people on a mission" or cases that will prompt the pope to cannonise, but ordinary folk who believe that god talks to them, like this example:

random sample fron the internet wrote:

When God Talks, Shut Up and Listen

Of course, it was in there. But this time when I saw it, there was no getting away from it. I finally had to say, "Okay, okay God, I'm going!"

Right in the middle of the street I heard, "So you want to represent Me, and you can't even make it across the street without breaking the law?"

I was so shocked by this, I said the most spiritual thing I could think of, "Oops."

God uses lots of things to talk to us. But actually hearing from God isn't so much a matter of if he's talking, but rather, whether we're listening.

Theo talks about schizophrenia, and that means AUDITIVE EXPERIENCE, we believe that only saints are capable of listening God's voice, if a person claims having heard God's voice, the Church has to investigate the case in order to accept it.

We say we listen God's voice, as a personal call, not listening really God's voice with our ears..

One of the worst propaganda against religion, are those TV religious magazines that make 20 or 30 miracles per program, listening God's voice is a high profile issue for us and has to be verified.

Iván

BTW: The Pope doesn't Canonize, it's the Church after a procedure that can take years or even centuries, the Pope only declares a saint after his case has been carefully verified, by the Holy Office and the Canonic procedure.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 28 2009 at 10:29

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 28 2009 at 10:57

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

We say we listen God's call, as a personal call, not listening really God's voice.

One of the worst propagandas against religion, are those TV religious magazines that make 20 or 30 miracles per program, listening God's voice is a high profile issue for us and has to be veruified.

Iván

BTW: The Pope doesn't Canonize, it's the Church after a procedure that can take years or even centuries, the Pope only declares a saint after his case has been carefully veruified, by the Holy Office and the Canonic procedure.

Iván

(I assume) Teo wasn't speaking literally, but re-telling an old joke.

The Catholic Church is not the only church - many born-again christians believe that god talks to them directly - these people are not claiming miracles or activley seeking (TV) fame and publicity, nor do they think themselves saintly - for them it is an essentially personal and private thing. Born-again christians also believe they have received the charismatic gifts listed in Corinthians.

What?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 28 2009 at 11:24

Dean wrote:

(I assume) Teo wasn't speaking literally, but re-telling an old joke.

Of course each Church has slightly different beliefs, but I can only talk for the case I know (I'm very interested in Catholic Canonic Laws).

I know many of this persons are sincere, but there has been too much scam with miracles, still today a Brazilian "sect" called "Pare de Sufrir" sells miracle cures every week in every local station in Perú, despite they are having a trial for fraud in Brazil and some places around the world.

Dictators, kings, and even false Messiahs have said that they talk with God, so the Cathoilic Church is absolutely careful with this claims.

But I respects other beliefs.

Iván

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: December 28 2009 at 11:46

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

But I respects other beliefs.

You say that often. I assume you don't respect all beliefs?

Surely a belief that, for example, a giant invisible unicorn guides down every suspended object with it's shiny silver horn deserves less respect than the law of gravity, though it may be infinitely more awesome.

How many beliefs do you think you have which don't influence your actions at all? Should we respect dangerous beliefs it it's true they may influence actions negatively?

Perhaps you want to say you respect other's right to believe, but not necessarily a right to act on that belief.

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 28 2009 at 13:10

^ careful there ... you're almost defending my position. Wink

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 28 2009 at 13:11

stonebeard wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

But I respects other beliefs.

You say that often. I assume you don't respect all beliefs?

How many beliefs do you think you have which don't influence your actions at all? Should we respect dangerous beliefs it it's true they may influence actions negatively?

Perhaps you want to say you respect other's right to believe, but not necessarily a right to act on that belief.

In a previous post I talked about POSITIVE beliefs, in which I include all major religions.

I absolutely don't respect Satanism neither sects as the Davidians or The Kids of Charles Manson, because their motivation is absolutely negative.

I even lost respect for groups as the Westboro Baptists who claim God hates everybody, or Bob Jones Non Denominational Sect who are only homophobic, racists and intolerant bigots.

But if you ask me even for polytheist religions as Hinduism, I have the greatest respect for them.

Now about the giant invisible unicorn...I like mythology, but I believe I have enough common sense to find the difference with a formal religion.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 28 2009 at 13:43

FusionKing View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 28 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 522

Posted: December 28 2009 at 13:31

Atheist. The one and only thing which I can assure myself that I can believe in is me. As a matter of fact I hold many of the beliefs of quantum theory. Everything is energy thus everything is constant. Energy is the closest thing that there is to a god. A powerful, all encompassing force but without being a deity by any manner of means, but that's just my opinion.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 28 2009 at 13:47

stonebeard wrote:

Surely a belief that, for example, a giant invisible unicorn guides down every suspended object with it's shiny silver horn deserves less respect than the law of gravity, though it may be infinitely more awesome.

Pah! You know full well that is a fantasy! Until "science" can prove that gravitons actually exist Intelligent Falling is the only way gravity could possibly work.

What?

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 28 2009 at 13:58

(watch to find out more about Intelligent Falling and the Stork Theory of reproduction)

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: December 28 2009 at 17:39

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean wrote:

(I assume) Teo wasn't speaking literally, but re-telling an old joke.

Of course each Church has slightly different beliefs, but I can only talk for the case I know (I'm very interested in Catholic Canonic Laws).

Dictators, kings, and even false Messiahs have said that they talk with God, so the Cathoilic Church is absolutely careful with this claims.

But I respects other beliefs.

Iván

I really was following Exitthellemming's comment about Trademark's comment where he quoted Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer to give a view about atheists.... Whoever picks two mentally insane people as spokespeople for a whole movement, well... it deserves to be joked about.

The use of the word "schizophrenia" was really for effect. Auditory hallucinations per se are not enough to diagnose the illness. But after a comment where two know serial killers are used as atheist-reference, I don't think the standards of language precision deserved to be too high....

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 28 2009 at 17:46

^ there is simply no good argument in favor of God's existence. All the Theists are left with are ridicule and name-calling ... or non-arguments like the argument from revelation. Those posts by Trademark which contain no argument, but are simply personal attacks against me, are the best example.

Over the last few weeks I watched so many debates between various Atheists and various Theists, and it's always this same situation.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 28 2009 at 17:47

Poll Question: What are you?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Theist	26	[30.59%]
Agnostic/Deist	13	[15.29%]
Atheist	46	[54.12%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted