Support NeoGAF

[Chaplain]

New resources:

John Lennox: If God, why coronavirus?

The coronavirus is so called because it visibly resembles a crown (“corona” in Latin). A crown is a symbol of power and authority - and certainly this virus has colossal power over us humans. It is invisible to the naked eye, and yet just think about what it has forced many millions - indeed, billions - of us to do and not do. It also forcibly reminds us of our vulnerability. It is easy to forget that we humans are mortal. The coronavirus is evidence that both our relationship with creation and creation’s relationship with us are disordered; and that this is not an accident.

Video: A Live Conversation with Lee Strobel: The Case for the Resurrection

Sean McDowell and Lee Strobel talk about the compelling evidence for the resurrection and take live questions.

Video: I Am Pilate: The outstanding short film you need to watch this Easter

Don't miss this gripping new film which puts a modern day twist on the Easter story, says Sam Hailes

Coronavirus Could Kill Consumer Christianity

One of the potential positive effects of COVID-19 on Christianity is that the epidemic is likely to kill off consumer Christianity, at least in the short term. And while there is certainly plenty to lament about how this crisis is wrecking lives, economies, and unraveling all the world’s plans in stunningly rapid fashion, the virus’s attack on comfortable Christianity could be something we eventually celebrate.

Preparing for the Worst, Hoping for the Best: A New Doctor’s Reflections on COVID-19

As we prepare for the worst and hope for the best, we have daily opportunities to make meaningful impacts on each other and on our communities. We have come together in a new way, and I suspect this will ultimately reshape the future landscapes of our medical practice and our health-care system.

In Times Like These: Learning to Love by Letting Go

In times like these, we’re called, like God’s own passion, to find home again–to relocate our hearts in suffering by finding the greater joy that comes by letting go, and the home-coming of being found again.

Hungry for Hope: A Work-Place Shooting, COVID-19, and Our Greatest Longings

"Hope is intimately connected to desire. Buddhists fast, in part, to drain themselves of desire, and with it, hope. Hope is what happens when you combine a desire with something you think can actually happen, a fact that distinguishes it from a mere wish. For instance, I’m writing this article from my home on the 28th floor of my apartment building. I have a childish desire to fly off my balcony and over the skyline of Toronto. Calling this hope, however, wouldn’t be accurate because I don’t have any realistic expectation of ever being able to fly. Conversely, there are plenty of things I expect to happen but don’t desire, yet more live-action remakes of Disney classics, for example. Because I don’t desire it I can’t say I hope for it. But I desire this global pandemic to end, and for many concrete reasons we can expect it to, and thus I can say: I hope it will end." (4/5/20)

 

[Chaplain]

Live Easter Sunday (this weekend) on YouTube (and free):

On Easter Sunday (April 12, 2020), by invitation of the City and of the Duomo cathedral of Milan, Italian global music icon Andrea Bocelli will give a solo performance representing a message of love, healing and hope to Italy and the world. Watch live here at 10am LA, 1pm NYC, 6pm UK, 7pm CET. ... “On the day in which we celebrate the trust in a life that triumphs, I’m honored and happy to answer ‘Sì’ to the invitation of the City and the Duomo of Milan. I believe in the strength of praying together; I believe in the Christian Easter, a universal symbol of rebirth that everyone – whether they are believers or not – truly needs right now. Thanks to music, streamed live, bringing together millions of clasped hands everywhere in the world, we will hug this wounded Earth’s pulsing heart, this wonderful international forge that is reason for Italian pride. The generous, courageous, proactive Milan and the whole of Italy will be again, and very soon, a winning model, engine of a renaissance that we all hope for. It will be a joy to witness it, in the Duomo, during the Easter celebration which evokes the mystery of birth and rebirth” Andrea Bocelli

 

[Taxexemption]

So, I'm reading the new testament for the first time since I was like 12. I just finished Matthew, and am aware that after Jesus resurrected there was a thing called pentecost. What book is that in?

 

[phisheep]

So, I'm reading the new testament for the first time since I was like 12. I just finished Matthew, and am aware that after Jesus resurrected there was a thing called pentecost. What book is that in?

That's in the Acts of the Apostles (read it straight after Luke for the best effect, same author).

 

[Tesseract]

a wild phisheep appears

 

[PrellboGark]

I read Leo Strauss and Eric Vögelin recently. Two neoclassical conservatives making an argument for Christianity as an important pillar of our ideology going forward.
I think Strauss was an atheist actually, but still considered religion vital.

I don't regret reading them at all, especially considering how influential Strauss is in the US, but their arguments are complete and utter trash.
My main reaction to reading this stuff was disbelieve. If you look for the academic foundations of conservatism you expect some sort of sophistication and interesting worthwhile thought, what I found was ignorant but vain nonsense.
Also, for political philosophers to just completely ignore economic factors in all their theories seems so weird from today's perspective.

I also read some of what Ratzinger wrote, the previous pope, he is supposed to be a kick-ass theologian but all I found were random axioms designed to lead to his preferred outcome. Zero reflection, zero critical thinking.

So yeah, I really haven't seen any good academic arguments laying out the worth/benefit of religion/Christianity to our post-modern society.

Believing in the stories of religion is one thing, believing in religions purpose in society is the other.
I've never been religious, but for some time I was kinda convinced of the benefits of Religion, but the more I read about it, the more I become convinced that Religions are nothing but harmful delusions. Constructs that are constantly bent and reshaped to fit whatever narrative the powerful currently want to push. Be it war, slavery, inequality, injustice, Religion always does its part in normalizing atrocities.
On an individual level, I think the most harmful thing religion(and particularly Christianity) does is the internalization of blame. Dozens of generations of people who where taught to hate themselves and others in the name of a supposedly all-loving god.

 

[kevm3]

Yet "godless"societies have been some of the most destructive, especially the marxist ones

 

[Ornlu]

I read Leo Strauss and Eric Vögelin recently. Two neoclassical conservatives making an argument for Christianity as an important pillar of our ideology going forward.
I think Strauss was an atheist actually, but still considered religion vital.

I don't regret reading them at all, especially considering how influential Strauss is in the US, but their arguments are complete and utter trash.
My main reaction to reading this stuff was disbelieve. If you look for the academic foundations of conservatism you expect some sort of sophistication and interesting worthwhile thought, what I found was ignorant but vain nonsense.
Also, for political philosophers to just completely ignore economic factors in all their theories seems so weird from today's perspective.

I also read some of what Ratzinger wrote, the previous pope, he is supposed to be a kick-ass theologian but all I found were random axioms designed to lead to his preferred outcome. Zero reflection, zero critical thinking.

So yeah, I really haven't seen any good academic arguments laying out the worth/benefit of religion/Christianity to our post-modern society.

Believing in the stories of religion is one thing, believing in religions purpose in society is the other.
I've never been religious, but for some time I was kinda convinced of the benefits of Religion, but the more I read about it, the more I become convinced that Religions are nothing but harmful delusions. Constructs that are constantly bent and reshaped to fit whatever narrative the powerful currently want to push. Be it war, slavery, inequality, injustice, Religion always does its part in normalizing atrocities.
On an individual level, I think the most harmful thing religion(and particularly Christianity) does is the internalization of blame. Dozens of generations of people who where taught to hate themselves and others in the name of a supposedly all-loving god.

Since you started out with references to specific authors, could you perhaps lay out what they said that you took issue with? There's not a lot to go on if we don't know what you're referring to.

In regards to your last point/observation: What leads you to that conclusion? (religion being harmful rather than helpful)

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Fake edit: Long post and I feel it's not really organized but this is a topic that has been on my mind recently and I felt like getting a few things off my chest.

Imo, lack of a belief in a God leaves people open to degeneracy, narcissism and hedonism. Humans are selfish and tend to just think about themselves, religion and a belief in a higher power makes you acknowledge that life isn't just about you, religion makes sure morals have some sort of objective fondation and that theirs a reason to have good morals.

Without religion and/or a belief in a higher power it's easy to fall into the rabbit hole of narcissism and hedonism and morals can be corrupted. What would be the point of caring about anyone other then yourself if other people are just gonna one day not exist? If this is all their is and their is no divine judgment then the most beneficial thing to do is be selfish and indulge in whatever pleasures you can regardless of whether or not it hurts others.

We had a thread where the OP said he was going to try and sleep with someone's wife after she came on to him. That is a pretty not cool thing to do and is morally repugnant, but because OP felt it would make him happy he went for it, Forget about the harm he'd inflict on the husband, in a world without God, why should he care?

As someone that has family and relatives that weren't good people then turn religious and improve themselves and become happy and good people I dont see how religion is more bad then good.

 

[Airola]

Without religion and/or a belief in a higher power it's easy to fall into the rabbit hole of narcissism and hedonism and morals can be corrupted.

Honestly though me and a lot of other believers (maybe even all) have no problem succumbing into all of that every now and then even with the belief in God.

One thing I find getting better at though is getting over with being annoyed by someone I don't like. I might be terrible at keeping me from harming myself in various different more or less immoral ways but it's certainly much easier to accept and even get to be friends with people who are initially annoying and who make me angry when I understand we all are in the same boat and all are the children of the same God. It's much easier for me to get along with all kinds of different people because of my belief in God. If only it were that easy to keep myself out of harm's way.

 

[PrellboGark]

Since you started out with references to specific authors, could you perhaps lay out what they said that you took issue with? There's not a lot to go on if we don't know what you're referring to.

So Strauss's general point was a critique of modernity and liberal thought.
In a Platonian sense he claimed that the enlightenment lead us into a second even deeper cave (based on Platons cave humans are supposed to escape).
He argued that enlightened liberal thought leads to relativism which is really bad according to him.
In addition to relativism he rejected historism and positivism.
Historism is the idea that human nature and norms are mostly the results of cultural developments. There are no higher truths in any of our behaviors, instead, they are just the consequence of historical development and also subject to further evolution in the future.
Positivism on the other hand basically means that for something to be considered knowledge it needs to be based on observable facts.
Strauss rejected all that.

His philosophy was elitist and based on a certain interpretation of Plato's natural law he derived human hierarchies and basically came to the conclusion that only tiny parts of humanity are able to think clearly enough and it should, therefore, be only a small group of ruling people.

What I don't get about him is why he rejects the relativist and critical and positivist approaches(the ones that reject absolute truths) and instead praises Christianity as a system of moral guidance and control of the masses, while still remaining an atheist himself.
For me, this just means he appreciated religion as a tool for smart people to control everyone else.

His work is generally close to Carl Schmitt and he is a star among neoconservatives.

Eric Vögelin is similar.
He argues that modern concepts of secularism, enlightenment, and liberalism are totalitarian in nature.

In regards to your last point/observation: What leads you to that conclusion? (religion being harmful rather than helpful)

It's a faux moral cage denying/restricting human nature.

It's not like Religion just gives a few tips on how to live. It demands a certain way of living and if you don't follow you are a sinner and deserve cruel punishment. That's the internalization of blame I mentioned.
Today we have other structures of knowledge so Religion isn't the sole authority anymore, but for the past couple of thousands of years, people didn't have that perspective. Questioning the truth and judgement of Religion was something only very few were even capable of.

 

[Chaplain]

New Resources:

Podcast: The Baptism Debate (4/7/20)

While Matt, Derek, and Andrew practice staying in-place, they decide to take about the topic and question of who are the proper subjects of baptism? Derek argues for the legitimacy of paedobaptism, Andrew argues for the view of credobaptism, Matt moderates, and fun is had by all. Even amidst the pandemic that the world is experiencing, topics like the sacraments always remain salient for the church. And while it may be important for us to discuss and perhaps debate how to respond to our current public health crisis, it remains important to continue to discuss one of the things that only the church does and is marked by: baptism.

Video: Water of Life

In the beginning of the Bible, God transforms a desolate wilderness into a garden through a stream that waters the ground and brings life wherever it goes. This image gets developed throughout the biblical story as wells, cisterns, rain, and rivers all become images of God’s creative power. In this video, we’ll explore the “water of life” theme through the biblical story and see how it leads to Jesus, who presents himself as the one bringing living water to a world that is desperately thirsty.

Video: EP07: Hope thru Reason w/ Dr. John Lennox

Where is God in a Coronavirus world? Dr. Lennox provides answers and answers your questions.

Coronavirus: Oxford professor from NI says Christianity offers hope in Covid-19 crisis

A new book by an Oxford professor from Northern Ireland explores how a Christian worldview may help us make sense of the Covid-19 crisis.

Praise in a Time of Plague

For most of human history we have faced famine, war, plague and death. The Christian church has flourished in those times. In modern times those of us in the West have largely lived free of the plague – not for us the black death which killed up to 50 million people in the 14th Century, or the small pox that killed McCheyne – although we need to remember that last year 1.6 million people in the world died from TB.

Podcast: John Piper on the Coronavirus and Christ

In a new book, Coronavirus and Christ, John Piper writes, “The coronavirus is God’s thunderclap call for all of us to repent and realign our lives with the infinite worth of Christ.” John Piper is the founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and the chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. He is also a Council member of The Gospel Coalition.

The Technology That Could Free America From Quarantine

Contact tracing is working in South Korea and Singapore. But it raises privacy issues.

Video: Where is God in a Coronavirus world? (4/8/20)



Edit: added text.

 

[Bolivar687]

So Strauss's general point was a critique of modernity and liberal thought.
In a Platonian sense he claimed that the enlightenment lead us into a second even deeper cave (based on Platons cave humans are supposed to escape).
He argued that enlightened liberal thought leads to relativism which is really bad according to him.
In addition to relativism he rejected historism and positivism.
Historism is the idea that human nature and norms are mostly the results of cultural developments. There are no higher truths in any of our behaviors, instead, they are just the consequence of historical development and also subject to further evolution in the future.
Positivism on the other hand basically means that for something to be considered knowledge it needs to be based on observable facts.
Strauss rejected all that.

His philosophy was elitist and based on a certain interpretation of Plato's natural law he derived human hierarchies and basically came to the conclusion that only tiny parts of humanity are able to think clearly enough and it should, therefore, be only a small group of ruling people.

What I don't get about him is why he rejects the relativist and critical and positivist approaches(the ones that reject absolute truths) and instead praises Christianity as a system of moral guidance and control of the masses, while still remaining an atheist himself.
For me, this just means he appreciated religion as a tool for smart people to control everyone else.

His work is generally close to Carl Schmitt and he is a star among neoconservatives.

Eric Vögelin is similar.
He argues that modern concepts of secularism, enlightenment, and liberalism are totalitarian in nature.



It's a faux moral cage denying/restricting human nature.

It's not like Religion just gives a few tips on how to live. It demands a certain way of living and if you don't follow you are a sinner and deserve cruel punishment. That's the internalization of blame I mentioned.
Today we have other structures of knowledge so Religion isn't the sole authority anymore, but for the past couple of thousands of years, people didn't have that perspective. Questioning the truth and judgement of Religion was something only very few were even capable of.

So I don't think neoconservatism is a very good thing, and I wouldn't be interested in their religious perspective. I'm not a conservative but the mainstream conservative positions I agree with are intuitable from secular reasoning.

I am very interested in what you read by Ratzinger. Was it his Introduction to Christianity? I think most of his other work requires some level of background knowledge. I also consider his writings to have interpretive and spiritual value rather than political takeaways, although they do come up. I'd recommend his article on the new paganism, the Regensburg address, and the Jesus of Nazareth series. I would also caution you that although he is one of the most renowned living Catholic theologians, he is very liberal. Real sources of Catholic orthodoxy are Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, and Garrigou-Lagrange.

Lastly, I'm gonna push back hard on religion being complicit on state malfeasance. Religious repression wouldn't be the hallmark of every totalitarian regime if that was the case. Christians were the vanguard of the abolitionist and civil rights movements. They're the reason why the prolife movement has any leg to stand on. And the first atheist governments of the 20th century murdered more of their own people during peace time in only a few short decades than all wars of religion in human history combined.

 

[Ornlu]

It's a faux moral cage denying/restricting human nature.

It's not like Religion just gives a few tips on how to live. It demands a certain way of living and if you don't follow you are a sinner and deserve cruel punishment. That's the internalization of blame I mentioned.
Today we have other structures of knowledge so Religion isn't the sole authority anymore, but for the past couple of thousands of years, people didn't have that perspective. Questioning the truth and judgement of Religion was something only very few were even capable of.

Well, to be blunt, there's no such thing as Religion as a monolithic entity. Saying that there is would be saying that all religions are the same, or similar enough to not differentiate. Trying to contrast atheism with a capital R Religion catchall is not going to work well, unless your intention is to pick and choose whatever bits are nastiest from each religion you can think of. If you have specific issues you take with Christianity, or Christians, this would be a good place to talk it over.

What structures of knowledge (as you refer to) in our current world provide a moral code to live by? I would strongly suggest that any morality you or anyone else would possess ultimately comes from a religion. Also, how exactly would you suggest that transgressions against said moral code be handled? You assert that blame is a bad thing, but provide no alternative. How is society structured without the guide of religion? Is morality to be enforced by the State in some fashion?

 

[Chaplain]

Live in 1-hour: "On Wednesday, April 8, join us for a special lockdown conversation between RZIM President Michael Ramsden and Professor John Lennox centered around John's new book, Where is God in a Coronavirus World? The event and Q&A will be broadcast to RZIM's Facebook page and YouTube channel beginning at 7:00 p.m. EDT."

 

[B-universe]

(…) I would strongly suggest that any morality you or anyone else would possess ultimately comes from a religion. (…)

There'd be much to pick apart in your post, but I'm focusing on this assertion, just because it is ostensibly false. Let's set aside the contemporary attempts at building secular morality, which in themselves would refute your claim, and as a matter of history focus on movements which have been at least functionally atheistic: some forms of Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism and Daoism, all of them providing a moral and ethical atheistic foundation.

Atheism has ancient roots and is not ‘modern invention’, claims new tex

 

[#Phonepunk#]

happy Passover yall

i will be watching the film classic "The Ten Commandments" this weekend. it's a tradition

amazing how humanity finds itself plagued by the same old problems, time and time again. ah, but we are strong, we survive!

some forms of Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism and Daoism, all of them providing a moral and ethical atheistic foundation.

a bit of a stretch to call any of these "atheist". Hinduism has many many forms that are polytheistic. Buddhism has never settled on a definite answer for the mind/body problem and the questions of duality and whether or not God has personal qualities are ancient, thousands of years old. most of these mystical versions of spirituality leave the door open (there is a reason the peak of state enlightenment isn't so easily described) so putting them into a atheist/non atheist binary is an over simplification.

also a big part of this argument seems to be "religion bestows morals on people" which is kind of silly, as if people are these vacant vessles with no moral standing and religion pours into their head. the real case is ofc religion is like any part of culture, providing guidelines, norms, etc. that are expressed through a living culture. religion is not a set of static laws that people must accept. it is a living thing. you can look at every religion on the planet and see how it changes over time with the people who practice it.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Buddhism has many rules on Living Good. things like not involving yourself with or causing death. this is in reaction to the Cycle of Reincarnation and the idea that one must purify karma in order to pass into enlightenment. karma is very much like sin. all these systems date back thousands of years to the more tribal Veda culture. you might not see a capital-G God deity in there, but there is some kind of spiritual backing which gets ignored when you just call it "atheist".

 

[B-universe]

a bit of a stretch to call any of these "atheist".

I explicitly stated "some forms" of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Hinduism and Buddhism in general. and I also cared to add "functionally". Likewise, some forms of Satanism are atheistic, but Satanism in genral cannot be considered atheistic.

religion is not a set of static laws that people must accept. it is a living thing. you can look at every religion on the planet and see how it changes over time with the people who practice it.

Some religions or denominations don't care for that seemingly benign description. In fcat, the concept of Dogma, which tends to apply to central tenets, runs contrary to that.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

yeah well some religions cling to extremist unchanging versions of Dogma. many don't. for instance you can find tons of Old Testament commentary from Rabbis who disagree that dogma is this unchanging thing. Everyman's Talmud is a good resource. very often in Hebrew commentaries they talk about practical and daily applications that go along with Bible verses. many rules and laws are no longer practiced. i would suggest it is very much a living thing for a majority of that tradition.

at any rate, no practitioner needs to be a slave to dogma. after all, this was one of Jesus's "great sins". he did not respect the dogma that came before. yet it did not hold him back from the kingdom of God. the lesson there; you can find salvation in the spirit rather than the letter of the law.

 

[Chaplain]

Buddhism has many rules on Living Good. things like not involving yourself with or causing death. this is in reaction to the Cycle of Reincarnation and the idea that one must purify karma in order to pass into enlightenment. karma is very much like sin. all these systems date back thousands of years to the more tribal Veda culture. you might not see a capital-G God deity in there, but there is some kind of spiritual backing which gets ignored when you just call it "atheist".

Buddhism makes exclusivist claims by claiming God is an illusion (the source of meaning, purpose, truth, morality, etc.). It is very much like atheism, but without God (truth is relative and subjective). Apologist Ravi Zacharias explains:

"Gautama Buddha taught that we should free ourselves from illusions of selfhood, God, forgiveness, and individual life hereafter. We should focus on a life wherein good deeds outweigh the bad. Buddha believed that all life is suffering and that to escape from rebirth we must understand our nature. If we extinguish hungers and detach ourselves from desires (namely, relationships), we will then offset all impure acts and thoughts. That is the Buddhist's hope. But Buddhism's attraction provides no real answers. The self— which is undeniable and inescapable— is lost in Buddhist philosophy, which brushes away the hungers of the soul. Everything is in our care. All losses are ours. There is no "other" to whom we can go, not even a self to whom we can speak. Yet Buddhism's denial of a personal God is unable to prevent its practitioners seeking to relate to and worship a personal being. There is a universal hunger that drives the self to a transcendent personal other of one's making. Buddha considered one's present life to be payment for previous lives. Each rebirth is due to karmic indebtedness, but without the carryover of the person. In contrast, Christianity sees the individual self as distinctive and indivisible. God's love is personal. Jesus brought God's offer for true forgiveness and eternal life while affirming each individual as uniquely created in God's image. For Jesus, suffering is only symptomatic of the life unhinged from right relationship with God. We have broken away from God, from our fellow human beings, and even from ourselves. In contrast to karma— where "sin" is nothing more than ignorance or illusion— Christ's forgiveness can provide true appeal for the Buddhist. The gospel proclaims that we have come apart from within, and to this brokenness Jesus brings the real answer. In finding true relationship with God, all other relationships are given moral worth. God, who is distinct and distant, came close so that we who are sinful and weak may be forgiven and made strong in communion with God Himself without losing our identity. That simple act of communion encapsulates life's purpose. The individual retains his or her individuality while dwelling in community. Moreover, Christ does not prescribe extinguishing one's self— which is not possible— but rather prescribes no longer living for oneself. Hungering after righteousness is good and brings God's fulfillment. Everyone who has surrendered all at the feet of Jesus can confess with the Apostle Paul, "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day" (2 Tm 1: 12). Jesus Christ guards all our purposes, loves, attachments, and affections when we entrust them to Him."

Edited

 

[PrellboGark]

So I don't think neoconservatism is a very good thing, and I wouldn't be interested in their religious perspective. I'm not a conservative but the mainstream conservative positions I agree with are intuitable from secular reasoning.

It's nevertheless hugely influential in the US. The entire Bush era was nothing but Straussians making decisions.

I am very interested in what you read by Ratzinger. Was it his Introduction to Christianity? I think most of his other work requires some level of background knowledge. I also consider his writings to have interpretive and spiritual value rather than political takeaways, although they do come up. I'd recommend his article on the new paganism, the Regensburg address, and the Jesus of Nazareth series. I would also caution you that although he is one of the most renowned living Catholic theologians, he is very liberal. Real sources of Catholic orthodoxy are Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, and Garrigou-Lagrange.

See my general problem is that I don't buy the spiritual world view. All these arguments are at some point based on a completely irrational foundation.
I agree with a lot of their criticisms of liberalism and modernity, and that's why I read it, but I completely reject the alternative they provide.

Lastly, I'm gonna push back hard on religion being complicit on state malfeasance. Religious repression wouldn't be the hallmark of every totalitarian regime if that was the case.

For the longest time, power was split up almost equally between spiritual and secular leaders. Organized Religion can't avoid responsibility for many of the atrocities committed in its name, even if secular structures were involved.
The hallmark of a totalitarian regime is the oppression of the minority, the other, whatever it may be. In some cases, Christians were a minority, but in many other cases, they were the oppressing majority.

Christians were the vanguard of the abolitionist and civil rights movements. They're the reason why the prolife movement has any leg to stand on. And the first atheist governments of the 20th century murdered more of their own people during peace time in only a few short decades than all wars of religion in human history combined.

I don't think it makes sense to compare death counts of ideologies, considering that the human population exploded over the past 200 years.
And I don't think that secular societies are perfect, or even good, I just believe that any ideology that can guide us in the 21st century, has to be based on science and a rational understanding of the world.
And that's bundled with a set of values, human rights, and its fair to point out the some of these values have a religious background. But that doesn't mean we have to buy all the metaphysical stuff that usually comes attached to it.

 

[Bolivar687]

See my general problem is that I don't buy the spiritual world view. All these arguments are at some point based on a completely irrational foundation.
I agree with a lot of their criticisms of liberalism and modernity, and that's why I read it, but I completely reject the alternative they provide.

The existence of God is naturally intuitable from logic and physics. The universe is not capable of creating itself. Every object must have been originally set in motion by another, so something uncreated must have put creation into motion.

The scriptural prophets also said that during the time of the fourth foreign empire to vassalize the Kingdom of Judah, the messiah would come, that he would be killed, that the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, and that the light of the God of Israel would go forth into all the nations. They wrote about this hundreds of years before it became an undeniable historical reality irreversibly redirecting the trajectory of human affairs.

There's also the children at Fatima who promised a miracle would happen there on October 13, 1917, which was attended by thousands of eye-witnesses, including atheists and skeptics who went there thinking they would prove it was all bullshit.

For the longest time, power was split up almost equally between spiritual and secular leaders. Organized Religion can't avoid responsibility for many of the atrocities committed in its name, even if secular structures were involved.
The hallmark of a totalitarian regime is the oppression of the minority, the other, whatever it may be. In some cases, Christians were a minority, but in many other cases, they were the oppressing majority.

I think those are over generalizations and the atrocities laid at the feet of religion are often incomplete historical distortions. The Crusades were pre-emptive strikes against the largest military coalition at the time, who had already annihilated civilizations, including Spain and Byzantium hundreds of years prior. The sacks at the cities were in line with contemporary medieval warfare and the numbers keep going down as the archaeology gets better. The Inquisitions had better legal procedure than what was secularly available at the time. The people they went after weren't humble nobodies with novel ideas, they were the kind of powerful people who later initiated the wars of the religion during the Protestant Reformation.

It simply is not true that totalitarian regimes only oppress religious minorities. France had the most vibrant Catholic culture in the world at the time of their Revolution but that did not stop the Enlightenment revolutionaries from butchering priests and nuns in the streets. Otto von Bismarck heavily suppressed the Church during the German Kulturkampf. The Nazi party later expressly adopted the policy of destroying German Christianity and repressed, imprisoned, and killed many religious leaders. The atheist Bolsheviks did the same to the Russian Orthodox Church, until they subverted it into a clandestine arm of the state.

Are you at least willing to entertain the possibility that your views on religion might to some extent be prejudiced on ahistorical propaganda hardwired into our popular culture?

And I don't think that secular societies are perfect, or even good, I just believe that any ideology that can guide us in the 21st century, has to be based on science and a rational understanding of the world.

Don't you think that's a bit generic?

I'll just end this by saying I believe a Christian has nothing to contribute to government except their loyalty, obedience, and for their conscience when they are in office or at the ballot box. Much like the founding fathers, I believe the Christian should be skeptical toward the capacity of government to do good and, also like the founding fathers, we should insist on its limitations whenever possible. I do think the state should officially recognize the universal kingship of Jesus Christ, because anything less would be dishonest. Many state Constitutions in fact already do this here in America.

 

[Ornlu]

There'd be much to pick apart in your post, but I'm focusing on this assertion, just because it is ostensibly false. Let's set aside the contemporary attempts at building secular morality, which in themselves would refute your claim, and as a matter of history focus on movements which have been at least functionally atheistic: some forms of Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism and Daoism, all of them providing a moral and ethical atheistic foundation.

Atheism has ancient roots and is not ‘modern invention’, claims new tex

Sorry, referencing forms of 3 religions as "functionally atheistic" doesn't give much weight to your argument. You're still pointing at religion as the source of morality. the fact that you can't point to a single large atheist/secular moral foundation speaks volumes.

The base state of Man, absent of all influence and pressures, is completely amoral, as in the end we are all animals. The base argument of most atheists arguing this point usually boils down to "people are all born good, religion and society is what makes people evil/crazy!", which doesn't even make sense from a scientific or biological point of view, even without looking at history, which would quickly show that idea to be demonstrably false.

For the longest time, power was split up almost equally between spiritual and secular leaders. Organized Religion can't avoid responsibility for many of the atrocities committed in its name, even if secular structures were involved.
The hallmark of a totalitarian regime is the oppression of the minority, the other, whatever it may be. In some cases, Christians were a minority, but in many other cases, they were the oppressing majority.

What atrocities of religion rise above those committed without religion being the impetus? I can certainly think of much more horrible "atheistic" atrocities. Also, Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarian regimes; please do not try and conflate the two together.

I don't think it makes sense to compare death counts of ideologies, considering that the human population exploded over the past 200 years.
And I don't think that secular societies are perfect, or even good, I just believe that any ideology that can guide us in the 21st century, has to be based on science and a rational understanding of the world.
And that's bundled with a set of values, human rights, and its fair to point out the some of these values have a religious background. But that doesn't mean we have to buy all the metaphysical stuff that usually comes attached to it.

All of the modern Western values and human rights are based on religion. If you want to reap all of the benefits that religion has accorded humanity, and cast aside all of the "metaphysical stuff", that's fine. But please don't lie to yourself about where all of those benefits came from.

 

[B-universe]

Sorry, referencing forms of 3 religions as "functionally atheistic" doesn't give much weight to your argument.

It shows that it is categorically false that all morality is founded on religion.

Additionally, I provided an academic source which provides historical evidence atheism is not a contemporary invention and, as such, that people have been creating moral frameworks absent of religion for a long while now. Finally, we have contemporary secular movements which do try to codify areligious morality, attempts which in no way could be described as resting upon religion, even if you happen to disagree with their formulation. In short, it is categorically false that all morality rest upon religion, both historically and contemporarily.

You're still pointing at religion as the source of morality. the fact that you can't point to a single large atheist/secular moral foundation speaks volumes.

No, I'm not pointing to theism. These movemenst are religious, in the strict sense they appeal to the supernatural, but are also atheistic, either functionally or metaphysically, which is more relevant to the discussion.

Just to name two secular moral foundations - there are more - Secular humanism does not rest on any sort of religious foundation at all. Objectivism is an explicitly atheistic moral foundation that outright rejects any religious influences. You shouldn't let your unfamiliarity with these secular moral foundations prevent you from coming to terms with the current philosophical landscape. It's broader then what you seem to think, even if you are to disagree with their conclusions.

The base state of Man, absent of all influence and pressures, is completely amoral, as in the end we are all animals. The base argument of most atheists arguing this point usually boils down to "people are all born good, religion and society is what makes people evil/crazy!",

That's categorically false as well.

This is the problem of the popular theistic view on atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god. From then on, all avenues are open and possible. You could be a Stalinist, a Laveyan Satanist, a Buddhist, a subscriber of Apatheism, a Daoist, a Trotskyist, an Objectivist or a Secular humanist. And what do all these avenues have in common in terms of worldview, besides atheism? Absolutely nothing. So to claim atheists are Rousseau-ists is simply missing the point altogether.

More importantly, due to the current climate, I think, say, atheist libertarians and theists could reach some sort of truce and join forces to push back against the common adversary of Wokism.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

maybe the atheist libertarians can go play in a thread that isn't about Christianity

 

[B-universe]

maybe the atheist libertarians can go play in a thread that isn't about Christianity

Or maybe this is a public forum?

If open discussion rubs you the wrong way, I'm sure there 's no shortage of Christian-only forums out there, you know, a small-scale reprise of that noble tradition of tolerance and frank debate Europe enjoyed 4th century CE onward...

 

[phisheep]

Imo, lack of a belief in a God leaves people open to degeneracy, narcissism and hedonism. Humans are selfish and tend to just think about themselves, religion and a belief in a higher power makes you acknowledge that life isn't just about you, religion makes sure morals have some sort of objective fondation and that theirs a reason to have good morals.

Without religion and/or a belief in a higher power it's easy to fall into the rabbit hole of narcissism and hedonism and morals can be corrupted. What would be the point of caring about anyone other then yourself if other people are just gonna one day not exist? If this is all their is and their is no divine judgment then the most beneficial thing to do is be selfish and indulge in whatever pleasures you can regardless of whether or not it hurts others.

There are plenty of degenerates narcissists and hedonists among the faithful too. It's easy to fall into whoever you are.

The way I see it, God gave us morality just like He gave us sheep and the Grand Canyon and rain. I don't recall any fine print in the EULA saying any of these things are reserved to the faithful, or to any particular faithful.

 

[Ornlu]

B B-universe , I really think you aren't doing your arguments any favors. I'm always happy to debate atheism vs. theism, but your statements thus far have had a lot of contradictions. I don't say this as a gotcha or anything like that. Just maybe take it as friendly encouragement to examine your held beliefs critically.

It shows that it is categorically false that all morality is founded on religion.

Additionally, I provided an academic source which provides historical evidence atheism is not a contemporary invention and, as such, that people have been creating moral frameworks absent of religion for a long while now. Finally, we have contemporary secular movements which do try to codify areligious morality, attempts which in no way could be described as resting upon religion, even if you happen to disagree with their formulation. In short, it is categorically false that all morality rest upon religion, both historically and contemporarily.

I'm sorry, but use 3 examples of religions with morality systems to disprove a link between morality and religion is very flawed. It's not going to cut it as an argument. If your argument is instead that "All morality originally came from religion, but we as humans can now take the best parts of religion and scrap the rest", that would carry much more weight. It's a pretty common argument.

No, I'm not pointing to theism. These movemenst are religious, in the strict sense they appeal to the supernatural, but are also atheistic, either functionally or metaphysically, which is more relevant to the discussion.

Just to name two secular moral foundations - there are more - Secular humanism does not rest on any sort of religious foundation at all. Objectivism is an explicitly atheistic moral foundation that outright rejects any religious influences. You shouldn't let your unfamiliarity with these secular moral foundations prevent you from coming to terms with the current philosophical landscape. It's broader then what you seem to think, even if you are to disagree with their conclusions.

Secular humanism doesn't even deny that it originates from religious tradition. Why are you insisting the opposite? Why assume that I'm not familiar with philosophical thought?

Again, a much more powerful argument would be "Modern humanism has grown beyond morality derived from religion, and we can now create our own system of morality". However I would say even that falls short, as 'morality' without any real rules or teeth would seem to be a pointless exercise.

That's categorically false as well.

This is the problem of the popular theistic view on atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god. From then on, all avenues are open and possible. You could be a Stalinist, a Laveyan Satanist, a Buddhist, a subscriber of Apatheism, a Daoist, a Trotskyist, an Objectivist or a Secular humanist. And what do all these avenues have in common in terms of worldview, besides atheism? Absolutely nothing. So to claim atheists are Rousseau-ists is simply missing the point altogether.

More importantly, due to the current climate, I think, say, atheist libertarians and theists could reach some sort of truce and join forces to push back against the common adversary of Wokism.

How is it false? That's what these trains of thought usually boil down to. Religious people tend to believe that people are capable of extreme evil without moral guidance; that man is born flawed. Non-religious people tend to believe that people are inherently good, and that morality is relative, thus people should be free to do whatever they want, usually paired with a caveat of "so long as they aren't hurting someone else".

Or maybe this is a public forum?

If open discussion rubs you the wrong way, I'm sure there 's no shortage of Christian-only forums out there, you know, a small-scale reprise of that noble tradition of tolerance and frank debate Europe enjoyed 4th century CE onward...

He does have a point, though. This thread is specifically meant to discuss Christianity. If you have a general problem with all religion, I'm sure there are many other threads where you can swing for the fences and shout out your own personal atheistic views (whatever they may be).

 

[Shaqazooloo]

There are plenty of degenerates narcissists and hedonists among the faithful too. It's easy to fall into whoever you are.

The way I see it, God gave us morality just like He gave us sheep and the Grand Canyon and rain. I don't recall any fine print in the EULA saying any of these things are reserved to the faithful, or to any particular faithful.

I'm not trying to say it is, just that it's far easier for an Athiest. Religion kind of acts as a safeguard to prevent it.

We are being judged, a divine being created the universe with objective morality, God wants us to be good and love him.

Athiest dont have that and without it theirs no real point to think of others.

Faithful can fall into these traps to, but their are reasons why you shouldn't think that way.

 

[B-universe]

B B-universe , I really think you aren't doing your arguments any favors.

I appreciate your impartial assessment.

I'm always happy to debate atheism vs. theism, but your statements thus far have had a lot of contradictions.

Yet you can't bring yourself to point them out.

I don't say this as a gotcha or anything like that. Just maybe take it as friendly encouragement to examine your held beliefs critically.

And I encourage you to do the same.

I'm sorry, but use 3 examples of religions with morality systems to disprove a link between morality and religion is very flawed.

You made an absolute or quasi-absolute statement: all morality is based on religion. One. just one, counter-example alone is what's needed to disprove your claim. I provide 3 historical examples, plus two contemporary examples. 5 examples in total. Your claim has been shown to be false.

It's not going to cut it as an argument. If your argument is instead that "All morality originally came from religion, but we as humans can now take the best parts of religion and scrap the rest", that would carry much more weight. It's a pretty common argument.

It is false that all morality is based on [theistic] religion, as 5 counter-examples show. It's false both historically and contemporarily.

Secular humanism doesn't even deny that it originates from religious tradition.

False. Secular humanism is based on a principle - human well-being - that is in no way tied to religion.

Furthermore, Objectivism explicitly states its departure from religious tradition. It really can't get any more explicit. So here we have an example of a moral framework that not only isn't based on religion, it markedly deviates from religion, specifically Christianity.

Your assertion is therefore false.

Why are you insisting the opposite?

Because it's true and your assertions are false.

Why assume that I'm not familiar with philosophical thought?

Because your posts often suggest that to me.
The matter, however, is not tremendously important.

Again, a much more powerful argument would be "Modern humanism has grown beyond morality derived from religion, and we can now create our own system of morality". However I would say even that falls short, as 'morality' without any real rules or teeth would seem to be a pointless exercise.

You're free to make that argument. For now, that's not the argument I'm making, though.

How is it false? That's what these trains of thought usually boil down to.

It's been explained to you, with a multitude of examples that conclusively disprove your assertion. The examples I've listed all fall under atheism, and yet some of them do not hold the Rousseau-ian worldview you're trying to impute on atheism at large. The mistake is the usual pitfall of taking atheism as a monolithic block. I would argue atheism is more pluralistic than Christianity.

Religious people tend to believe that people are capable of extreme evil without moral guidance; that man is born flawed. Non-religious people tend to believe that people are inherently good, and that morality is relative,

I reject the assertion, specifically the implied link between irreligiosity and worldview.

thus people should be free to do whatever they want, usually paired with a caveat of "so long as they aren't hurting someone else".

Evidently, that per se, is a moral viewpoint, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not.

He does have a point, though. This thread is specifically meant to discuss Christianity.

Which is exactly what I'm doing. Or did you mean "specifically meant to praise"? Again, if it's not discussion, but rather praise you're after, a public gaming forum might not be the ideal choice. I'm sure forums exist where only Christians can take part in the discussions and praise Christianity on end. NeoGAF, just doesn't seem to be it.

Evidently, if a mod chimes in and declares this a unbeliever-free zone, I'll take my strong opinions on Christianity, its veracity, or lack thereof, its morality, or lack thereof, somewhere else. Until then, I 'll keep finding it peculiar when people on a public forum accuse others of being "triggered" and not so politely invite them to shut up when they post their views. It just boggles the mind. What did you expect? A uncontested sermon from the pulpit?

I haven't attacked anyone in vicious terms. I haven't dragged this to the personal sphere. I haven't insulted you or anyone else. So what exactly do you expect, other than debate, when you start a thread like this on a public gaming forum? What would you have me do different?

If you have a general problem with all religion,

Not all religion is the same. Not all denominations within the same religion are the same. I disagree and oppose Christianity the most, true, but I also recognize Christianity is so diverse among its thousands of denominations that one needs to be very precise about at which doctrine or denomination one is aiming criticism. Calvinism has little to do with Universalism, Partial preterists have little in common with proponents of Millennialism. Trinitarians don't agree with Unitarians, who don't agree with proponents of Binitarianism. Christians can't even agree on soteriology, of all doctrines. So, unlike some theists who think atheism is one big block of marble, critics need to be specific when dissecting Christianity.

I'm sure there are many other threads where you can swing for the fences and shout out your own personal atheistic views (whatever they may be).

Be absolutely I'll keep posting here if and when I deem it appropriate.

I ended my last post extending an olive branch to Christians on this thread and explaining why I thought a temporary coalition of sorts was needed. It seems to me you have defaulted to the mood of that now bygone era, when Christianity exercised dominance over the entire West. Those days are long gone. They're not coming back. Christianity is in irreversible decline. For tactical reasons, Christians do need to cooperate with non-Christians, even those who vehemently disagree with practically every single point of mainstream Christian doctrine. Differences need to be set aside, temporarily, for the greater good.

Take care.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

lol ok you victim.

Christians do need to cooperate with non-Christians

they do, every day. have done for thousands of years. not sure what you want. do we need to pat you on the head for stating something that has been happening for millenia? do you think you invented this idea?

what exactly do you expect, other than debate

debate isn't really the reason i go on the internet. i go there to share things, read other's experiences. debates bore me to tears, frankly. i don't have to win a debate with every post. i don't care. i don't care "who wins" or whatever. if you have something interesting to share, then share it. if you want a debate thread then start that one. you will find more than enough people excited to jump in.

 

[B-universe]

lol ok you victim.

No, you're the victim. You're the victim of someone daring to come to your thread and daring to disagree with you, on a forum, a public forum, of all places. Evidently, it's a repeat of what goes on the gaming section, when Sony apologists and Xbox apologists go into the each other's respective threads and ruin all the fun. No, one cannot let that happen.

they do, every day. have done for thousands of years. not sure what you want. do we need to pat you on the head for stating something that has been happening for millenia? do you think you invented this idea?

I'm not a victim and I certainly couldn't care less about getting validation from Christians at large. Evidently, you're not a spokesperson for Christianity - or are you? - and hope exists that at least some Christians will be able to recognize the imminent problem and come together with non-believers to address it. This is not about me or about you. At least I thought that didn't require clarification.

So you save that proverbial pat on the back for someone who gives two cents. Listen, I'm fine as it is. I look at that graph on Christianity and the Western World and it's going where I want it to go, that sweet sweet asymptote.

As for claims of amicable friendly Christianity, joining hands throught the centuries with non-believers in merriment, history paints a different picture, but I'll set that aside for the moment.

debate isn't really the reason i go on the internet.

Great.
Don't presume everyone is like you. Likewise, don't presume a thread on Christianity is not open for debate on Christianity.

i go there to share things, read other's experiences. debates bore me to tears, frankly.

Again, I am not out to tell you how to spend your leisure time.

i don't have to win a debate with every post. i don't care. i don't care "who wins" or whatever. if you have something interesting to share, then share it. if you want a debate thread then start that one. you will find more than enough people excited to jump in.

No, I think this thread will do just fine for debating Christianity. Save for mod admonition, I will continue posting if and when I deem fit.

Thanks for your input.

 

[PrellboGark]

The existence of God is naturally intuitable from logic and physics. The universe is not capable of creating itself. Every object must have been originally set in motion by another, so something uncreated must have put creation into motion.

See, this is where the debate ends already because that's just nonsense and if your entire argument is based on that there is no point in debating it.
And even if the prime mover argument had any merit, which it doesn't, it still wouldn't back up any specific Religion.

I do think the state should officially recognize the universal kingship of Jesus Christ, because anything less would be dishonest.

And this is where I think Religion becomes dangerous.

 

[B-universe]

See, this is where the debate ends already because that's just nonsense and if your entire argument is based on that there is no point in debating it.
And even if the prime mover argument had any merit, which it doesn't, it still wouldn't back up any specific Religion.

The prime mover argument - in all its forms - cannot withstand the trivial question: How do you know that first premise is true?

And this is where I think Religion becomes dangerous.

For starters, it's overtly unconstitutional. There's this pesky provision called separation of Church and State.

Christianity has been experiencing a steady decline in the West. The graph is angled at just the right angle. A pipe dream is a peipe dream.

Dominion Christianity is relegated to a tiny fringe among an already shrinking demographic. Back in the 19th century, they might have stood a chance, though.

 

[Bigrx1]

No, you're the victim. You're the victim of someone daring to come to your thread and daring to disagree with you, on a forum, a public forum, of all places. Evidently, it's a repeat of what goes on the gaming section, when Sony apologists and Xbox apologists go into the each other's respective threads and ruin all the fun. No, one cannot let that happen.




I'm not a victim and I certainly couldn't care less about getting validation from Christians at large. Evidently, you're not a spokesperson for Christianity - or are you? - and hope exists that at least some Christians will be able to recognize the imminent problem and come together with non-believers to address it. This is not about me or about you. At least I thought that didn't require clarification.

So you save that proverbial pat on the back for someone who gives two cents. Listen, I'm fine as it is. I look at that graph on Christianity and the Western World and it's going where I want it to go, that sweet sweet asymptote.

As for claims of amicable friendly Christianity, joining hands throught the centuries with non-believers in merriment, history paints a different picture, but I'll set that aside for the moment.



Great.
Don't presume everyone is like you. Likewise, don't presume a thread on Christianity is not open for debate on Christianity.



Again, I am not out to tell you how to spend your leisure time.



No, I think this thread will do just fine for debating Christianity. Save for mod admonition, I will continue posting if and when I deem fit.

Thanks for your input.

God you sound like a fucking asshole. I'm an agnostic atheist and this is my first time in this thread just because I wanted to see what they talk about in here, but I sure as fuck wouldn't come in here to tell them how wrong they are about their beliefs. Have some fucking respect. There is nothing "daring" about coming in here to challenge people it's a dick move and fucking rude. Why don't you go to some local churches next time they are having services and tell them how wrong they are and pat yourself on the back while doing so to feel good about how BRAVE you are for being a dick.

I fucking hate people like you, you give all of us who believe in any sort of atheism the worst stigma and reputation.

 

[B-universe]

God you sound like a fucking asshole.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

I'm an agnostic atheist and this is my first time in this thread just because I wanted to see what they talk about in here, but I sure as fuck wouldn't come in here to tell them how wrong they are about their beliefs.

Oh, I see.
You wouldn't tell them why you think their arguments are wrong, because of this or that reason, but you would tell me how I sound like "a fucking asshole".

Yes, no one can ever accuse you of being partial. And disrespectful.

Have some fucking respect.

Disagreemt is not disrespect.
If disagreement were disrespect, and since you disagree with me, you'd be disrespecting me, right? How hard is that to understand?

There is nothing "daring" about coming in here to challenge people it's a dick move and fucking rude.

I'm not claiming it's daring. Whether it's daring or not is, frankly, irrelevant and a petty matter. I don't particularly care if you think it's a "dick move", if you think it's "fucking rude". Until you provide a valid reason why you think so, I'll gladly describe it as an emotional overreaction from someone who claims he's an agnostic and who doesn't know the diference between disagreement and disrespect.

Why don't you go to some local churches next time they are having services and tell them how wrong they are and pat yourself on the back while doing so to feel good about how BRAVE you are for being a dick

.

You mean do what Christian street preachers have been doing for centuries now? Go to a public square and tell pedestrians just how wrong they are and how they have to repent to be saved?

No, I'm of the opinion public forums are for open debate. Again, alternatives exist where non-believers are excluded from the conversation. I have nothing against the existence of such places. NeoGAF just isn't one of them, just so you know.

As far as I can tell, you're the first person to use terms like "fucking moron" , "dick move", etc, here, which, of course, is just about the hallmark of truly respectful conversation.

I fucking hate people like you,

Will I be able to sleep tonight?
Will I?

you give all of us who believe in any sort of atheism the worst stigma and reputation.

Then you don't know what atheism entails. One cannot believe in Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. Yours is a nonsensical statement. There's nothing surprising about you not knowing what atheism entails. But you know your profanity, I'll give you that.

 

[Slimybug]

Hi, all!

 

[Bigrx1]

Thanks. I appreciate it.



Oh, I see.
You wouldn't tell them why you think their arguments are wrong, because of this or that reason, but you would tell me how I sound like "a fucking asshole".

Yes, no one can ever accuse you of being partial. And disrespectful.



Disagreemt is not disrespect.
If disagreement were disrespect, and since you disagree with me, you'd be disrespecting me, right? How hard is that to understand?



I'm not claiming it's daring. Whether it's daring or not is, frankly, irrelevant and a petty matter. I don't particularly care if you think it's a "dick move", if you think it's "fucking rude". Until you provide a valid reason why you think so, I'll gladly describe it as an emotional overreaction from someone who claims he's an agnostic and who doesn't know the diference between disagreement and disrespect.

.

You mean do what Christian street preachers have been doing for centuries now? Go to a public square and tell pedestrians just how wrong they are and how they have to repent to be saved?

No, I'm of the opinion public forums are for open debate. Again, alternatives exist where non-believers are excluded from the conversation. I have nothing against the existence of such places. NeoGAF just isn't one of them, just so you know.

As far as I can tell, you're the first person to use terms like "fucking moron" , "dick move", etc, here, which, of course, is just about the hallmark of truly respectful conversation.



Will I be able to sleep tonight?
Will I?



Then you don't know what atheism entails. One cannot believe in Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. Yours is a nonsensical statement. There's nothing surprising about you not knowing what atheism entails. But you know your profanity, I'll give you that.

Damn, that's one hell of a reply for someone not bothered at all by what I said. Now, I know you're new and eager to show off how smart you are to everyone here, but I promise nobody is interested in your ego. Nobody here gives a shit about how smart you think you are, how pedantic you can be in an argument or how "brave" you are for bursting into a Christianity thread to tell them how wrong religion is. The only thing people are going to think is that you're a bit of a cunt, which you have been acting like certainly. So, if you want to fit in here and be a part of the community show the forum and its members respect. Continue on with how you are acting thus far, including bitching and whining about other areas of GAF here in this thread, and you'll certainly be someone nobody respects and most likely due for a quick exit.

 

[PrellboGark]

The prime mover argument - in all its forms - cannot withstand the trivial question: How do you know that first premise is true?

In a much more practical way, the argument is based on a cause and effect understanding of the world that's based on the laws of nature which only fell into place as a result of the big bang. But the big bang itself happened before these laws existed and technically that means it might not have required a cause at all.
So we shouldn't ask for a first mover, instead, we should ask how long it takes for an infinitely unlikely event to occur when there is no time.

Explaining existence doesn't benefit from asking human perspective questions of purpose or meaning.
Instead, we should confront the reality that we might have to be the architects of our own purpose and meaning. Maybe that's scary because it also comes with a shit ton of responsibility if you are an at least somewhat decent person.

 

[B-universe]

Damn, that's one hell of a reply for someone not bothered at all by what I said.

You must be new at public forum-ing, if you think the sole or even main goal of a reply is always to engage with the person you're replying to. Then again, inexperience in public forums would certainly help to explain your latest reactions.

But, hey!, if you need to believe your vernacular matters to me, hey, you do you!

Now, I know you're new and eager to show off how smart you are to everyone here,

Because you can read minds and determine intentiions whenever it suits you?

but I promise nobody is interested in your ego.

Would it kill you repeat that in front of a mirror?
Would it?

Nobody here gives a shit about how smart you think you are, how pedantic you can be in an argument or how "brave" you are for bursting into a Christianity thread to tell them how wrong religion is.

The not giving a shit part is true and applies to your posts, my posts, every single post. Posts are forgotten exactly three seconds after they're read, if that. No one cares and no one should, unless the post provides a good argument or is interesting or especially funny in some way. But if the post provides a good argument or is interesting or funny, then the argument is no longer an exclusive trait of the original post. It sort of becomes public domain. And that's precisely the virtue of public forums.
Precisely.

Anyways, I'm not posting here under the assumption people give a shit or that people giving a shit is even tremendously important. No one claimed that coming to a thread one of the Christians here described as a place for debating Christianity and - wait for it - debating Christianity was particularly brave. You did. You did so that you could then knock that strawman down.

My, aren't you clever.

I certainly do not give a shit about your posts, whose apex of brilliancy has been to tell someone how they sound like, quote, " a fucking moron"
So stunning. So brave.

The only thing people are going to think is that you're a bit of a cunt,

Yes, it is entirely reasonable to see yourself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, to see yourself as the self-appointed spokesperson for all the Christians out here.
Talk about Ego trip.

which you have been acting like certainly. So, if you want to fit in here and be a part of the community show the forum and its members respect.

Read my lips: I do not care what you think should be conduct around here.

Continue on with how you are acting thus far, including bitching and whining about other areas of GAF here in this thread, and you'll certainly be someone nobody respects and most likely due for a quick exit.

Read my lips: I do not care what you think is the admissible conduct around here.

 

[Bigrx1]

You must be new at public forum-ing, if you think the sole or even main goal of a reply is always to engage with the person you're replying to. Then again, inexperience in public forums would certainly help to explain your latest reactions.

But, hey!, if you need to believe your vernacular matters to me, hey, you do you!



Because you can read minds and determine intentiions whenever it suits you?



Would it kill you repeat that in front of a mirror?
Would it?



The not giving a shit part is true and applies to your posts, my posts, every single post. Posts are forgotten exactly three seconds after they're read, if that. No one cares and no one should, unless the post provides a good argument or is interesting or especially funny in some way. But if the post provides a good argument or is interesting or funny, then the argument is no longer an exclusive trait of the original post. It sort of becomes public domain. And that's precisely the virtue of public forums.
Precisely.

Anyways, I'm not posting here under the assumption people give a shit or that people giving a shit is even tremendously important. No one claimed that coming to a thread one of the Christians here described as a place for debating Christianity and - wait for it - debating Christianity was particularly brave. You did. You did so that you could then knock that strawman down.

My, aren't you clever.

I certainly do not give a shit about your posts, whose apex of brilliancy has been to tell someone how they sound like, quote, " a fucking moron"
So stunning. So brave.



Yes, it is entirely reasonable to see yourself, a self-proclaimed agnostic, to see yourself as the self-appointed spokesperson for all the Christians out here.
Talk about Ego trip.



Read my lips: I do not care what you think should be conduct around here.



Read my lips: I do not care what you think is the admissible conduct around here.

Okay cool buddy, you just keep on going how you're going you're certainly a quality addition to the community here.

 

[B-universe]

In a much more practical way, the argument is based on a cause and effect understanding of the world that's based on the laws of nature which only fell into place as a result of the big bang. But the big bang itself happened before these laws existed and technically that means it might not have required a cause at all.

Exactly.
Christian apologist William Lane Craig, for example, uses the Kalam Cosmological argument. One of the versions goes like this:

"Premise one: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause.""

How did Craig get to know this for a fact, an absolute fact? What evidence has he provided to establish this? He cites three lines of argument, Rational intuition, - I reject his claim on this - , Reductio ad absurdum - the inflation/multiverse hypothesis would address this -, and inductive reasoning , which is just bizarre, after quantum mechanics and relativity threw intuition out the window. Intuition is not a good tool to perceive the infinitely big and the infinitely small.

Bottom line: we don't know how the universe begun. That lack of knowledge shouldn't have us all anxious and accepting the first explanation just because it's comforting or convenient and we want to put an end to the lingering doubt. We don't know and we might never know.

In layman terms, his argument seems to be a variation on the idea that because things in his backyard behave a certain way, then the universe itself, surely, behaves the same way.

So we shouldn't ask for a first mover, instead, we should ask how long it takes for an infinitely unlikely event to occur when there is no time.

Explaining existence doesn't benefit from asking human perspective questions of purpose or meaning.

Exactly.

Instead, we should confront the reality that we might have to be the architects of our own purpose and meaning. Maybe that's scary because it also comes with a shit ton of responsibility if you are an at least somewhat decent person.

We should accept reality for what reality is. We should go where evidence leads, no matter where it leads to. Even if it leads to uncomfortable places. Even if it leads to existentialism, or the heat death of universe eons from now. Just to be clear, this also applies to atheists. If evidence were ever to surface that the Christian God exists, one would be compelled to accept it. One would have to simply take it. It still wouldn't mean one would have to worship such God, like the great Christopher Hitchens brilliantly reminded us all time and time again.

 

[B-universe]

I moved this over here. No need to further derail the other thread.

Not in the slightest, the difference is that we both know what a public forum is but you lack respect for others.

Respect?
This, of course, from you, who said his interlocutor sounded like, quote, "a fucking asshole." That's poetry right there.

Listen, if you can't tell respect and disagreement apart, I'm afraid little can be done before you come to that realization.

As an agnostic atheist I know I TECHNICALLY could go into the Christianity thread and tell them how wrong religion is or their beliefs are because it's a public forum after all,

Surely you must have noticed mine wasn't the first post from a non-.believer? Surely? And surely you also noticed how a Christian there declared it a place for debating Christianity. What sort of debate you had in mind, where only one side gets to voice their opinions?

True, you made an exception. You allowed for one agnostic atheist, not a Christian, to call another member a "fucking moron" and then try to lecture him on respect.
Some semblance of self-awareness, please.

but I don't. I don't do that because I have the self awareness to know how that would come across to the regulars in that thread, how that may make them uncomfortable, how it may disrupt or derail discussion in there.

Off-topic discussions might do that. Debating Christianity on a thread dedicated to debating Christianity is not off-topic. No, threads aren't the property of regulars, unless the rules have changed. They are not the curators of that thread. They are entitled to their opinions and to express them. But those are not exclusive privileges.

The only individual resorting to insults was you and then you had the gall to try to lecture on respect.
You deal with it.

Even though I don't have their beliefs, I respect their beliefs and don't have an entitled sense to debate be damned how it makes the people in the thread feel.

A debate can only happen if two parties willingly take part. If one hits that ignore button or exercises self-restraint the debate ends or never happens. Case in point, until I choose otherwise, I will keep replying to your posts, because I do not take lightly this attempt at conflating disagreement and disrespect, especially from someone so keen on "fucking moron"-ing others.

Even in the face of people expressing their disinterest in debating with you

Sure, people can and do disagree and express their disagreement. People can go into name-calling mode and climb that high horse from where they think they can lecture on respect. People are free to do all that. And I am just as free to disagree with their assessment and keep on posting.

What you would be well-advised to do is to understand this is not to aggravate or affront them gratuitously. After all, If all I wanted to do were that I would simply copy your style and call them "fucking morons".

Instead, I posted actual arguments they are free to refute. Believe me, I won't ever cry how their disagreement is disrespectful, how the thread needs to run like a safe space for atheists.

and suggesting you take the discussion elsewhere you just stamped your feet down and planted your flag saying, well, the same thing you just keep saying - "it's a public forum and I can do what I want!!"

It's a simple truth that bears repeating.
You, for example, still cannot come to terms with it.

 

[Bigrx1]

Respect?
This, of course, from you, who said his interlocutor sounded like, quote, "a fucking asshole." That's poetry right there.

Well that's because you act like an entitled egocentric asshole, not sure what to tell you. If you were acting in this forum in a respectful way I would have treated you in kind. You talk about self awareness but clearly have none based on your actions. Having said that, you are right about the public forum - you can do what you want it is a public forum, so have at it. And I'm done derailing, so get your final word in and carry on with your debates here.

 

[B-universe]

Well that's because you act like an entitled egocentric asshole, not sure what to tell you.

Well, you can attempt to lecture on respect. Not only do you not know what respect entails, you also aren't terribly generous with it, are you? But hey, I don't want this or any thread to be my safe space. "Judge and prepare to be judged" someone once said.

So you keep on pretending like you're the paragon of virtue. You actually are making one of my points. It really isn't legitimate to treat atheists as a monolithic block. I certainly have very little in common with you, even if nominally we both could be pigeonholed into that camp. This was one of the points I was making.

Thanks for the vivid anedoctal evidence.

If you were acting in this forum in a respectful way I would have treated you in kind.

Yes, I know all about that Rules for Thee, Not for Me.

 

[MaestroMike]

Are we allowed to eat meat today?

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Are we allowed to eat meat today?

No

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Not only do you not know what respect entails, you also aren't terribly generous with it, are you?

lol you are so funny. what's with the big swinging dick act? must you dominate every thread?

 

[B-universe]

lol you are so funny. what's with the big swinging dick act? must you dominate every thread?

Since you quoted me and asked a number of questions, I take it that cold shower did produce its effects.

As for the questions you're asking, in such colourful language, I don't know what you mean by" dominating" a thread. Post count? To post is to dick swing, to dominate? Is that it? We could compare stats and then maybe we would get to the bottom of who is trying to do what where.

Anyway, quoting me and asking me questions is a sure way to get me to post around here. I am more than happy to oblige. This is what you had in mind, right?

Thanks for your interest.