Heartland

markfiend wrote:[The Problem Of Evil:
If God is not aware of the evil in this world then he is not omniscient.
If God is aware, yet unable to act against it then he is not omnipotent.
If God is aware, able to act, yet unwilling, then he is not loving.

QED. The omniscient, omnipotent, loving god of Christianity cannot exist.

Isn't this where Christian theologians start introducing the concepts of "free will" and "original sin"?

Ed Rhombus wrote: I'm a Buddhist and it's quiet the opposite.

Buddhism is cool, but their problem is that they're not as loud as Catholics.

markfiend wrote:, as maybe you can disproof a religion, but never a god....

I disagree again. I take as an example of an "individual" god, the omniscient, omnipotent, loving god of Christianity:

The Problem Of Evil:
If God is not aware of the evil in this world then he is not omniscient.
If God is aware, yet unable to act against it then he is not omnipotent.
If God is aware, able to act, yet unwilling, then he is not loving.

QED. The omniscient, omnipotent, loving god of Christianity cannot exist.[/quote]the third sentence isn't correct.....it's an assumption, not a logical conclusion, what you do when you pone your last sentence is reducing love to protection, but if you love someone sometimes it's important you let/make them suffer.....
life wouldn't be interesting without evil.....because you wouldn't be aware of the good....in the same way you could say, that in the contrary if God did act,THAT would mean he doesn't love us (now I start to sound like a Cristian

"or any such system" is the key atheism is a system in which you assume there is NO God, so it IS a sysytem of beliefand worship......the system with zero elements :p

Carrie wrote: As for the suggestion that the French ban is even handed because crucifixes will also be prohibited - ARE there vast flocks of French school kiddies promenading about bedecked with crosses, in the style of Salem's Lot extras? I would venture probably not...[/i]

pointing out that?
it doesn't matter gthe catholics don't do it.....
your line of thought is saying that our law system doesn't prohibit anything to non-killers or non-rapists or whatever, because they don't do iot anyway....
or saying prohibition of going to pubs below 18 doesn't count for muslims because they're not supposed to drink anyway....

There was a line in a New Model Army tune that went along the lines of "Worshiping the devil in the name of god".

To me that always said more about religion than any amount of pios arguments.

elguiri wrote:There was a line in a New Model Army tune that went along the lines of "Worshiping the devil in the name of god".

To me that always said more about religion than any amount of pios arguments.

In the song "Christian Militia" I believe...

But yeah, very apt.

Hmmm, some of the ideas here remind me of Richard Dawkins - the most evangelical and intolerant critic of religion. Can you be an atheist fundamentalist?

I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins, even though he can go a little too far at times.

I like some of what he says too, but I think it's would be wrong to give less credit to a religious person's views simply because they are 'obviously' wrong, or muddle-headed. We don't want atheists to treat the religious the way the religious historically treated atheists, or we've learned nothing. The conclusion we should be learning is not that religion is evil, it's that intolerance, whether religious or irreligious, is evil.

MrChris wrote:a) the USSR doesn't exist any more
b) I wouldn't want to live there either. Brutal oppression of religion accompanied by brutal repression of anything Stalin et al didn't currently believe themselves.

I can't believe you think otherwise. So what's the point of your point? Can you think of a genuinely secular state anyone would actually want to live in?

Point A is kind of irrelevant, though I was aware of its passing.

As for point B, you initially argued that a secular society would have no weekends or holidays. The USSR was a secular society with both. I don't recall saying I was keen on living there either, but my views on the desirability or otherwise of the Soviet state have nothing to do with its stance on religion.

The point of my point was that secular societies can exist and can do so without the destruction of individual faith (which is the inalienable right of each individual etc etc).

I cannot name a secular state past or present that I would be happy to live in, perhaps largely because I haven't looked for one. But I can certainly conceive of a society which would create the kind of religious environment I would like to see.

There is no need to dismantle our current social framework in order to dispense with the mystical mumbo-jumbo that characterises religion. We can have a midwinter holiday without having Christmas - after all, many of us manage it every year. We can even have a couple of days off each week without going to church or otherwise remembering them and keeping them holy.

There is no need to stop people believing what they choose and worshipping what they choose in the comfort of their own homes and surrounded by those who share their tastes. This did happen to a meaningful extent in communist, atheistic Europe and would happen in my propsed secular state. How else did we get a Polish pope, FFS?

But there is a demonstrable public benefit (IMHO) in not allowing any religious group to develop a position of public prominence from where they can promote their ideas as part of a social norm. This is what I mean by "corporate religion", and that is what I am implacably opposed to.

MrChris wrote:The conclusion we should be learning is not that religion is evil, it's that intolerance, whether religious or irreligious, is evil.

Amen.

elguiri wrote:There was a line in a New Model Army tune that went along the lines of "Worshiping the devil in the name of god".

To me that always said more about religion than any amount of pios arguments.

what do the crimes perpetrated by any perverted church have to do with the religion itself?

MrChris wrote:Hmmm, some of the ideas here remind me of Richard Dawkins - the most evangelical and intolerant critic of religion. Can you be an atheist fundamentalist?

yup...let's put it that way, if I as a pure agnosticus have to defend religions because people exagerate it has come far....

randdebiel² wrote:

elguiri wrote:There was a line in a New Model Army tune that went along the lines of "Worshiping the devil in the name of god".

To me that always said more about religion than any amount of pios arguments.

what do the crimes perpetrated by any perverted church have to do with the religion itself?

they dont see themselves as perverted, just enlightened.. therefore they are not crimes.. some of those people truly believe and thats scary

emilystrange wrote:
they dont see themselves as perverted, just enlightened.. therefore they are not crimes.. some of those people truly believe and thats scary

doesn't change a thing does it?
there's a big difference between a religion (living by scriptures, or anything else) and a church (power structure, usually perverted to keep its own power....)

no it doesnt change it... just thought i'd say it...
and not all churches are perverted, just... misled.
but i agree.

its hard for me to think clearly on this as i hate it with such a passion. sorry.

emilystrange wrote:no it doesnt change it... just thought i'd say it...
and not all churches are perverted, just... misled.
but i agree.

ok then sorry
this discussion seems to upset me more than good for me

emilystrange wrote:its hard for me to think clearly on this as i hate it with such a passion. sorry.

so do most people...the problem I have is that there's a lot of interesting things, in the old testament, the new one, the koran,etc, but people diregard them just because they associate the books with the churches, and since the churches,well,misbehave...
they don't want to have anything to do with the books, which I think is sad....
people should at least try to understand....

randdebiel2 wrote:

emilystrange wrote:its hard for me to think clearly on this as i hate it with such a passion. sorry.

so do most people...the problem I have is that there's a lot of interesting things, in the old testament, the new one, the koran,etc, but people diregard them just because they associate the books with the churches, and since the churches,well,misbehave...
they don't want to have anything to do with the books, which I think is sad....
people should at least try to understand....

Yes, there is much of value in the Bible
Such as 2 Kings 2:23-25

markfiend wrote:

randdebiel2 wrote:

emilystrange wrote:its hard for me to think clearly on this as i hate it with such a passion. sorry.

so do most people...the problem I have is that there's a lot of interesting things, in the old testament, the new one, the koran,etc, but people diregard them just because they associate the books with the churches, and since the churches,well,misbehave...
they don't want to have anything to do with the books, which I think is sad....
people should at least try to understand....

Yes, there is much of value in the Bible
Such as 2 Kings 2:23-25

the url is blocked here....I guess it's one of the "dark passages" of the bible? well....I don't say everything is of value did I? those books were written centuries ago, I think people need a sense of perspective

OK fair enough. I can see where you're coming from. For what it's worth, the URL links to

23   And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24   And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

I think I should back away from this now; I think I'm having the same problem as emily:

emilystrange wrote:its hard for me to think clearly on this as i hate it with such a passion. sorry.

I feel much the same way.

I don't even understand this quote
it seems everybaody here seems that way....
strange that the same people defend the worst form of it then (the scarf....)in name of freedom.....very strange....

randdebiel2 wrote:I don't even understand this quote
it seems everybaody here seems that way....
strange that the same people defend the worst form of it then (the scarf....)in name of freedom.....very strange....

The quote basically has God sending some bears to rip apart 42 kids for calling Elisha "bald-head"