Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 194

Thread: God Speaking...anyone listening?

  1. #91
    Registered User mona amon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,502
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion. It is the righteousness that is driving the hatred.

    In general, bigots don't promote violence against other people in a state that protects civil liberties because that could get them into trouble. Basically, they have no power to implement that violence. That's the way it should stay.
    I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?
    Exit, pursued by a bear.

  2. #92
    University student EvoWarrior5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by mona amon View Post
    I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?
    The closest I can think of is a politician in my country, Geert Wilders (an agnost), who is extremely hateful towards the islam. If you look on his Wikipedia page you'll see what I mean, he even made a film about what an evil religion it is. I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said. I do agree with YesNo on the fact that bigots do not have the power to implement violence and that is the main reason they do not do it. I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.

    Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.
    Last edited by EvoWarrior5; 10-03-2013 at 03:42 AM.

  3. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by mona amon View Post
    I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?
    Actually Zeus has just spoken to me, and has praised me for defending the stoics. The Christians are first on his list for thunderbolts. He finds the atheists amusing, and will let them off with a caution, this time. Better start building temples to Zeus from now on though! What's that tooth fairy? OK, I'll ask Zeus to let the Christians off this time as well, but he's an angry old b...

  4. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by EvoWarrior5 View Post
    The closest I can think of is a politician in my country, Geert Wilders (an agnost)...
    These agnostics are the ones we really have to worry about

    To get serious, I do find Wilders extreme, but you can't equate being an agnostic with being a bigot. You might say, with some justification, that Wilders is a bigot, but you have to look deeper to see where his extreme views come from. Wikipedia makes clear that he is a very right wing politician, might his politics not have more to do with him being a bigot than his agnosticism?

    I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said... I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.
    So he didn't press for violent measures in the film? Then why should he be prosecuted? Everyone should have freedom of speech, even right wing fascists and extreme islamists.

    Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.
    Yes but they were, yet again, communists. You have one group of atheists (Attlee, Russell, Dawkins) who are not mass-murders and another group of atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) who are. So is there any difference between the first and second group? Yes indeed... the second group are communists, the first group are not. So doesn't it look like communism is the problem, not atheism?

  5. #95
    University student EvoWarrior5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    126
    Never mind for now, unfinished post. Will finish later, class starts soon!
    Without any form of punctuation, our language would not say "I'm perfect"; it would say "imperfect".

    "Access to works of art cannot be defined solely in terms of physical accessibility, since works of art exist only for those who have the means of understanding them."

  6. #96
    Registered User Calidore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,071
    Quote Originally Posted by mal4mac View Post
    Yes but they were, yet again, communists. You have one group of atheists (Attlee, Russell, Dawkins) who are not mass-murders and another group of atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) who are. So is there any difference between the first and second group? Yes indeed... the second group are communists, the first group are not. So doesn't it look like communism is the problem, not atheism?
    Peaceful communists would probably beg to differ. The problem is the people, not the labels they adopt.
    You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi

  7. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Calidore View Post
    Peaceful communists would probably beg to differ. The problem is the people, not the labels they adopt.
    Of course. Labels are mandatory in order to communicate. However, we must be very careful about this. There can be many double agents playing this peaceful game. As a resident of USA, I prefer to leave this topic to the CIA.

  8. #98
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by mona amon View Post
    I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?
    On the strength of that, you have just won the entire internet for best post ever.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  9. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
    On the strength of that, you have just won the entire internet for best post ever.
    What a comical ignoramus you are. Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh? ROFLMAO

  10. #100
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    What a comical ignoramus you are. Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh? ROFLMAO
    I try to make allowances for people to whom English is a second language, and I'm presuming you're one of them, as you seem to struggle with metaphors.

    Perhaps you should learn more of the language and its complexity before jumping in and making a fool of yourself.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  11. #101
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,054
    Blog Entries
    72
    This name of this particular sub-forum is "Religious Texts" --"texts" being the operative word. Yours fooly therefore suggests that we read various texts in order to form better-informed opinions. The "source" (i.e. the New Testament) is a good place to start, and the closing chapters of the Book of Job in the Old Testament provide another illuminating focal point.

    Other sources might include "The Will to Believe" by William James(highly recommended!) and twentieth century theologians-- Catholics such as Teilhard de Chardin and other Christian commentators, such as Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.

    Also, perhaps we could all benefit by learning more about the concept of Free Will.
    Last edited by AuntShecky; 10-03-2013 at 03:43 PM.

  12. #102
    Registered User mona amon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,502
    The Atheist, thanks!!! You've made my day.
    Exit, pursued by a bear.

  13. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh?
    Look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary; it's an entirely valid trope. Mr Atheist makes good use of it here in praising Mona Amon.

  14. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post
    This name of this particular sub-forum is "Religious Texts" --"texts" being the operative word. Yours fooly therefore suggests that we read various texts in order to form better-informed opinions. The "source" (i.e. the New Testament) is a good place to start...
    I had that crammed into my brain in school for ten years. I think most people here have probably had similar experiences. I think we can take it as given that most people have adequate experience of that text.

    Other sources might include "The Will to Believe" by William James(highly recommended!) and twentieth century theologians-- Catholics such as Teilhard de Chardin and other Christian commentators, such as Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.
    I've read Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. You seem to be assuming that the atheists here haven't read much in the area of religion. Why do you presume that? Maybe the thread is focusing on an "Old Testament" God, but that's because people have been defending an "Old Testament" god, but if you want to bring in the kind of God put forward by writers like Tillich, then bring in the idea, don't make veiled and unsubstantiated insults about atheists not being well read. Why not assume we have read these, or similar, writers and make your point?

    Then again, there is always more to read Why not start a thread on "The Will to Believe", if you want people to read your favourite text. I do want to know more about James' view of religion, so I'll read along. I might even read parts of the Bible, again. So why not start a thread on Job?

  15. #105
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,054
    Blog Entries
    72
    RE: response to previous reply, #104 above^
    Yours fooly's comment (#101) recommends that we refer to texts. This is more than a mere "suggestion," it is actually a cardinal LitNet rule, which can be found by clicking the top thread in this forum.

    That comment was not directed at any specific LitNutter, but rather was a general observation. In that reply a reference to atheists, pro or con, was neither expressed nor implied.

    The New Testament, The Book of Job, and the various theologians were mentioned as examples of authors of texts in chich we could discuss.

    And as far as "starting a thread of "The Will to Believe," I've already done this, way back in November of 2010! Maybe you'd like to give it a look-see:

    William James Redux

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Classical Listening
    By stlukesguild in forum General Movies, Music, and Television
    Replies: 1548
    Last Post: 08-05-2019, 05:46 AM
  2. Christmas Listening?
    By stlukesguild in forum General Movies, Music, and Television
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-29-2012, 10:36 AM
  3. Listening While Reading
    By subterranean in forum General Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 04:00 PM
  4. National Day of Listening
    By motherhubbard in forum General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 02:29 PM
  5. Not listening
    By soccerchick21 in forum 1984
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-30-2007, 01:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •