Anglican church against gay marriage

[Jochistan]

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the modern atheist is whining that Christianity is overly controlling and crying about individual rights, while at the same time insisting that God, if He were truly good, should directly take over the world and establish a totalitarian theocracy so as to eliminate evil. The modern atheist is a spoiled brat, demanding freedom to do whatever he wants, while also throwing a tantrum because his parent does not fix all his problems for him.

And you have the audacity to accuse UMN of focusing on his "first world problems", when atheism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon found among the rich, the privileged, the pampered. Those starving children and their parents are far more likely to believe in God than you ever will be. They understand that a world without God is a world without justice. They understand that it is precisely the existence of God that makes their suffering mean something, that guarantees their lives are not in vain. But you, from the comfort of your first world lives, talk about suffering and death as one talks about war after having played Starcraft. You don't know the first thing about suffering and death.

A lot of the suffering in this world can be fixed, but there is a lot more than we can do nothing about. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world for whom, even in the best of circumstances - even if we abolished capitalism, war, and world hunger - life would still be filled with suffering. Some of them have an incurable chronic medical condition, some of them have childhood trauma that they will never overcome, some of them have seen loved ones die and will never be able to smile again. Atheism has nothing to say to these people, and nothing to give them but despair and darkness. "Life sucks and then you die."

That is why atheism is the religion of the rich and privileged. Because only the rich and privileged can endure to look at this rotten world and say "yup, this is all there is, and I'm fine with that."

What a load of shit.

Christianity is overly controlling of individual rights, bowing logic to the demands of the celestial dictator. The problem of evil is a popular problem that's practically a meme, and that Christianity has not solved. Saying that God works in "mysterious ways" (short hand for "special pleading") is useless. Free will is unproven, the entire mythology is based on unsupported assertions of human psychology, most of which are entirely false. The morality prescribed is inconsistent and subpar, and the sorting through of the religion's tenets to arrive at any one conclusion shows more of the reader than the text.

The modern atheist demands freedom from archaic and obsolete tradition, that is all. What you call a tantrum is actually pointing out the inconsistensies and incredible narcissm of believing in a personal God, that acts in accordance with justice, yet allows so much suffering.

Athetism is found in the rich, priveliged, and pampered for the same reason that the sciences and philosophies are most advanced among the rich, priveliged, and the pampered. When you don't have to spend every waking moment scrounging for food, you have the time to spend thinking, and maybe getting the answer right.

Religion is wishful thinking. That's it. The world can be rotten sometimes, often actually, but ignoring your critical thinking and giving in to what you want to be true helps no one.

Religion is just as common with the "privileged" as it is with the poor. And has gone through just as much conceptualizing and advanced development as Atheism. Way more in fact.

[Conserative Morality]

Then again, religious fundamentalism is just as common among the poor and underprivileged.

Fanaticism and adherence to doctrine are two radically different things.

[Jochistan]

Then again, religious fundamentalism is just as common among the poor and underprivileged.

Fanaticism and adherence to doctrine are two radically different things.

Religious Fundamentalists often adhere very closely to...whatever their leaders tell them. Unless an opportunity for something more profitable for them presents itself.

[Susria]

Oh, good. They're willing to hold onto tradition.

[Constantinopolis]

... Atheism is the religion of the rich and privileged?

DOES THAT MEAN I'M RICH?!

... Oh, wait... Nope. That bank account's still at 7 cents.

Constantinopolis is just talking shit.

You are taking this a little too literally, methinks.

What I meant was simply that atheism is far more common among the populations of rich countries, than among the populations of poor countries. Not that every single atheist is rich.

1.You asked for God to be a "celestial policeman". You have to consider the consequences of such an arrangement. A policeman is an agent of the state. 2.Asking for God to be a "celestial policeman" is asking for God to become the state.

1. I asked why God couldn't be a celestial policeman. Perhaps I should say: "Why would God being a celestial policeman remove free will?"

2. Nope. By your own admission. Agent of the state=/=the state. PC Plod is not the government.

So, new question. Does crime prevention by humans take away free will? If yes, why is it acceptable for humans to claim that authority over one another, but not for God?

No. We're talking about two separate issues.

Issue 1: God could take away the ability of human beings to think about doing evil, but that would mean taking away free will.

Issue 2: God could act as a celestial policeman, NOT taking away free will, but simply acting like a supernatural and infallible version of human police authorities - miraculously transporting evildoers to some kind of inescapable prison, for example, smiting armies with bolts of lightning to stop wars, and so on. Then, people would still have free will - they would still be in control of their minds, which is what free will means - but God would police their actions. The problem with THIS is that God would effectively become a supernatural world dictator. Humans would no longer be in control of their own history, of their own development as a species. God would be the state, and a totalitarian state at that.

I highly doubt that any atheist would really want either of these two scenarios to happen, assuming you were given the option to make them happen. Conserative Morality has already said that he would refuse to press a button that would remove the ability of human beings to think about doing evil. Now, imagine that a sufficiently advanced alien civilization made contact with us and offered to police the world in the way you asked for God to police the world. Would you accept their offer?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Or waiting until they cause harm... And then waiting until the person dies and then punishing them because he paid no mind to religious people, who have no evidentiary or logical standard for their beliefs, and who the fuck cares, and then being all smug about it.

BREAKING NEWS: ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF GOD:

In this thread: An atheist wanting God to break out the fire and brimstone and get to smiting.

Huh, that's a bit weird.

Or

Or

Or

He could just demonstrate he actually exists. In any way. Like, descend in a heavenly cloud into New York City. Say "yo, it's me, jesus and whatnot, that whole Bible thing is true." That would do it, yeah.

[Constantinopolis]

Religious orthodoxy, on the other hand, is the domain of the privileged. Syncretism is far more common in the underprivileged and poor, because how can one justify the horrors of the world as all ultimately springing from one source?

In this argument, I'm not defending religious orthodoxy. I'm defending religious belief in general. If by "religious orthodoxy" you are referring to knowledge of (and belief in) complex points of theology, then of course most of the underprivileged and poor do not care about that, for the same reason why most people do not care about that, or about any other highly specialized field of human knowledge.

In any field, detailed expert knowledge is usually held by only a small minority of people who have a very high personal interest in that field for whatever reason. It's the same whether we are talking about religion, art, music, science, or history.

[Constantinopolis]

He could just demonstrate he actually exists. In any way. Like, descend in a heavenly cloud into New York City. Say "yo, it's me, jesus and whatnot, that whole Bible thing is true." That would do it, yeah.

No. That would NOT do it.

There are already several documented instances of large crowds of people claiming that they've seen a miraculous appearance of God (or the Virgin Mary, etc.). Do you believe in God because of this? Nope.

It would actually be extremely difficult for God to demonstrate His existence to the satisfaction of most atheists. I've met at least one atheist on NSG who said in another thread that if God personally appeared to him, he would just dismiss it as a hallucination and go see a psychiatrist. I can look up the exact post if you wish.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There are already several documented instances of large crowds of people claiming that they've seen a miraculous appearance of God (or the Virgin Mary, etc.). Do you believe in God because of this? Nope.

A few guys writing about supposed miracles in an age when everyone believed in sorcery and possession doesn't sway me, no. Mostly because of the thousands of other religions based on such things. If we simply go by that as end-all evidence, every other damn religion is just as fucking legitimate.

[The Alma Mater]

He could just demonstrate he actually exists. In any way. Like, descend in a heavenly cloud into New York City. Say "yo, it's me, jesus and whatnot, that whole Bible thing is true." That would do it, yeah.

No. That would NOT do it.

There are already several documented instances of large crowds of people claiming that they've seen a miraculous appearance of God (or the Virgin Mary, etc.). Do you believe in God because of this? Nope.

But nowadays every cellphone has a camera. That would help.
Of course, it would do the same if those large crowds saw Brahma, Zeus or the FSM instead.

[Constantinopolis]

There are already several documented instances of large crowds of people claiming that they've seen a miraculous appearance of God (or the Virgin Mary, etc.). Do you believe in God because of this? Nope.

A few guys writing about supposed miracles in an age when everyone believed in sorcery and possession doesn't sway me, no. Mostly because of the thousands of other religions based on such things. If we simply go by that as end-all evidence, every other damn religion is just as fucking legitimate.

I'm talking about events in the 20th century.

But also, so what if adherents of other religions have also witnessed supernatural events? How does that invalidate the events as evidence of the existence of supernatural entities of some kind? If an entity appears to you today claiming to be Saint George and performs some miracles, and another entity appears to you tomorrow claiming to be a bodhisattva and performs some miracles, would you say to yourself, "well, they contradicted each other, so clearly neither of them is real"? No, you would probably say to yourself "well, they contradicted each other, so one of them must be lying".

I will freely admit that supernatural events witnessed by people do not provide conclusive evidence that the Christian God exists. But I believe they provide conclusive evidence that some supernatural entities of some kind exist. And then it's up to us to determine which religion (if any) is correct about these supernatural entities.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the modern atheist is whining that Christianity is overly controlling and crying about individual rights, while at the same time insisting that God, if He were truly good, should directly take over the world and establish a totalitarian theocracy so as to eliminate evil. The modern atheist is a spoiled brat, demanding freedom to do whatever he wants, while also throwing a tantrum because his parent does not fix all his problems for him.

I think you should be careful not to generalize a diverse group of people, especially not in such an ad hominem way. I don't think it has any intellectual merit, and I don't think it's particularly useful for our discourse to have an inflammatory framework for approaching the issue.

And you have the audacity to accuse UMN of focusing on his "first world problems", when atheism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon found among the rich, the privileged, the pampered. Those starving children and their parents are far more likely to believe in God than you ever will be. They understand that a world without God is a world without justice. They understand that it is precisely the existence of God that makes their suffering mean something, that guarantees their lives are not in vain. But you, from the comfort of your first world lives, talk about suffering and death as one talks about war after having played Starcraft. You don't know the first thing about suffering and death.

Again, I think all you've accomplished here is generalizing people's experiences. Even rich, privileged, pampered Western life offers its struggles. And not all of us are rich, privileged, and pampered. I find it totally out of line to suggest that users on this forum don't understand suffering and death, or that they've experienced large degrees of privilege and comfort (again, some of us might, but not all of us, so don't assume). How do you know what life experiences people have had? What allowed you to make these determinations?

Atheism has nothing to say to these people, and nothing to give them but despair and darkness. "Life sucks and then you die."

Not at all. Atheism is a very positive message, at the end of the day, or at least, from my perspective on atheism, it's a positive outlook. I think you're just typecasting atheists as having a certain pessimistic outlook, when not all of them are like that. It's shallow.

[Conserative Morality]

In this argument, I'm not defending religious orthodoxy. I'm defending religious belief in general. If by "religious orthodoxy" you are referring to knowledge of (and belief in) complex points of theology, then of course most of the underprivileged and poor do not care about that, for the same reason why most people do not care about that, or about any other highly specialized field of human knowledge.

In any field, detailed expert knowledge is usually held by only a small minority of people who have a very high personal interest in that field for whatever reason. It's the same whether we are talking about religion, art, music, science, or history.

I'm not talking about advanced theology. I'm talking about religious and supernatural concepts mixing and muddling in contradiction to the basic assertions of a religion. The underprivileged overwhelmingly are polytheistic, despite belonging to monotheistic religions; superstitious, when their enlightenment disregards superstition; accepting, when their religion demands rejection. These thoughts are not (usually) imperfections in the believer's faith, like a drinking problem or an inability to keep it in their pants, but of fundamental doctrinal differences with the basic concepts of their own religion. Orthodoxy, accepting only one truth (as I do), is overwhelmingly the domain of the rich and privileged. Syncretism, accepting multiple truths, has its roots in poverty and suffering.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm talking about events in the 20th century.

But also, so what if adherents of other religions have also witnessed supernatural events? How does that invalidate the events as evidence of the existence of supernatural entities of some kind? If an entity appears to you today claiming to be Saint George and performs some miracles, and another entity appears to you tomorrow claiming to be a bodhisattva and performs some miracles, would you say to yourself, "well, they contradicted each other, so clearly neither of them is real"? No, you would probably say to yourself "well, they contradicted each other, so one of them must be lying".

I will freely admit that supernatural events witnessed by people do not provide conclusive evidence that the Christian God exists. But I believe they provide conclusive evidence that some supernatural entities of some kind exist. And then it's up to us to determine which religion (if any) is correct about these supernatural entities.

If someone claims gold is an amazing and sound investment, and another person claims the one true investment opportunity is oil, I'm rather inclined to believe neither of them. Likewise, when one person claims a supernatural experience of one kind, and someone else a supernatural experience of an entirely different nature, I'm rather apt to chalk it up to the vagaries of the human mind. I've had enough meaningless hallucinations to know that all that is seen is not true, all that is heard is not real, all that is felt is not there.

[The Rich Port]

Or waiting until they cause harm... And then waiting until the person dies and then punishing them because he paid no mind to religious people, who have no evidentiary or logical standard for their beliefs, and who the fuck cares, and then being all smug about it.

BREAKING NEWS: ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF GOD:

In this thread: An atheist wanting God to break out the fire and brimstone and get to smiting.

Huh, that's a bit weird.

... There is no choice.

It's either be good or you go straight to Hell.

Do not collect $200. Do not pass Go.

[Constantinopolis]

I can only post a quick (and therefore incomplete) response for now:

If someone claims gold is an amazing and sound investment, and another person claims the one true investment opportunity is oil, I'm rather inclined to believe neither of them. Likewise, when one person claims a supernatural experience of one kind, and someone else a supernatural experience of an entirely different nature, I'm rather apt to chalk it up to the vagaries of the human mind.

You're missing the point. The issue (at this stage) is not whether the claims are fully accurate, it's whether the objects of those claims exist or not.

In other words, to use your example: If someone claims gold is an amazing and sound investment, and another person claims the one true investment opportunity is oil, I may not believe their claims about which commodity is better, but that doesn't mean I have to conclude that gold and oil don't exist, or that investment doesn't exist.

If someone I trust, with no history of hallucinations, claims that a djinn visited them and performed supernatural actions in their presence, I may not believe that the entity they saw was a djinn, but I will be inclined to believe that they did indeed see something supernatural.

... There is no choice.

It's either be good or you go straight to Hell.

Uhh...

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm late to the thread, but I'll say it anyway..

join the Catholic church

Is the Catholic church really a safe harbour from homophobia? If anything I thought they were more homophobic than the Anglican church.

[Conserative Morality]

You're missing the point. The issue (at this stage) is not whether the claims are fully accurate, it's whether the objects of those claims exist or not.

In other words, to use your example: If someone claims gold is an amazing and sound investment, and another person claims the one true investment opportunity is oil, I may not believe their claims about which commodity is better, but that doesn't mean I have to conclude that gold and oil don't exist, or that investment doesn't exist.

If someone I trust, with no history of hallucinations, claims that a djinn visited them and performed supernatural actions in their presence, I may not believe that the entity they saw was a djinn, but I will be inclined to believe that they did indeed see something supernatural.

As someone who had no history of hallucinations for the longest time, I assure you, that's not really a safe assumption to make.

Are you inclined to believe that those who claim alien abduction were visited by some sort of extraterrestrial beings?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It would yield greater results than letting us play fuck-fuck games.

Is that what the children are calling it nowadays?

It's the official AIT term for fucking around then getting fucked because you were fucking around. If God was a platoon sergeant he wouldn't put up with our bullshit. But no, he's a father figure, which means he's not responsible at all, because fathers aren't responsible.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

1. I asked why God couldn't be a celestial policeman. Perhaps I should say: "Why would God being a celestial policeman remove free will?"

2. Nope. By your own admission. Agent of the state=/=the state. PC Plod is not the government.

So, new question. Does crime prevention by humans take away free will? If yes, why is it acceptable for humans to claim that authority over one another, but not for God?

No. We're talking about two separate issues.

Issue 1: God could take away the ability of human beings to think about doing evil, but that would mean taking away free will.

Issue 2: God could act as a celestial policeman, NOT taking away free will, but simply acting like a supernatural and infallible version of human police authorities - miraculously transporting evildoers to some kind of inescapable prison, for example, smiting armies with bolts of lightning to stop wars, and so on. Then, people would still have free will - they would still be in control of their minds, which is what free will means - but God would police their actions. The problem with THIS is that God would effectively become a supernatural world dictator. Humans would no longer be in control of their own history, of their own development as a species. God would be the state, and a totalitarian state at that.

I highly doubt that any atheist would really want either of these two scenarios to happen, assuming you were given the option to make them happen. Conserative Morality has already said that he would refuse to press a button that would remove the ability of human beings to think about doing evil. Now, imagine that a sufficiently advanced alien civilization made contact with us and offered to police the world in the way you asked for God to police the world. Would you accept their offer?

For someone who believes in a supernatural being you seem startlingly unimaginative. Firstly, I'll repeat that enforcing the law is not the same as being the state. You know this, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Why couldn't God police the world according to our morals? Or he could just prevent the very worst crimes, the ones basically everyone can agree are wrong. Murder, genocide, standing on the left on escalators.

We'd still be largely in control of our history, all we'd really be doing is creating a very efficient police force and UN.

[Zoice]

What a load of shit.

Christianity is overly controlling of individual rights, bowing logic to the demands of the celestial dictator. The problem of evil is a popular problem that's practically a meme, and that Christianity has not solved. Saying that God works in "mysterious ways" (short hand for "special pleading") is useless. Free will is unproven, the entire mythology is based on unsupported assertions of human psychology, most of which are entirely false. The morality prescribed is inconsistent and subpar, and the sorting through of the religion's tenets to arrive at any one conclusion shows more of the reader than the text.

The modern atheist demands freedom from archaic and obsolete tradition, that is all. What you call a tantrum is actually pointing out the inconsistensies and incredible narcissm of believing in a personal God, that acts in accordance with justice, yet allows so much suffering.

Athetism is found in the rich, priveliged, and pampered for the same reason that the sciences and philosophies are most advanced among the rich, priveliged, and the pampered. When you don't have to spend every waking moment scrounging for food, you have the time to spend thinking, and maybe getting the answer right.

Religion is wishful thinking. That's it. The world can be rotten sometimes, often actually, but ignoring your critical thinking and giving in to what you want to be true helps no one.

Religion is just as common with the "privileged" as it is with the poor. And has gone through just as much conceptualizing and advanced development as Atheism. Way more in fact.

It is not just as common, no. Atheism is much more popular among highly developed countries, and poverty is very well correlated with religiosity.

It is only in the past century or so that scientific evidence has directly supported atheism rather than theism, and destroyed the argument from design. And only in the past several decades have we had a lot of public atheist figures. Of course religion has had a big head start on the development of its mythology, but in that time it's done nothing but prove how useless of a world model it is.

[The Flutterlands]

I'm late to the thread, but I'll say it anyway..

join the Catholic church

Is the Catholic church really a safe harbour from homophobia? If anything I thought they were more homophobic than the Anglican church.

I know. I joined The Episcopal Church to get away from the homophobia in The Catholic Church.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

I'm late to the thread, but I'll say it anyway..

join the Catholic church

Is the Catholic church really a safe harbour from homophobia? If anything I thought they were more homophobic than the Anglican church.

Apparently there's a secret network of gay priests in the Catholic Church, if the leaked papers of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis's own statement are to be believed.

[Jochistan]

Religion is just as common with the "privileged" as it is with the poor. And has gone through just as much conceptualizing and advanced development as Atheism. Way more in fact.

It is not just as common, no. Atheism is much more popular among highly developed countries, and poverty is very well correlated with religiosity.

It is only in the past century or so that scientific evidence has directly supported atheism rather than theism, and destroyed the argument from design. And only in the past several decades have we had a lot of public atheist figures. Of course religion has had a big head start on the development of its mythology, but in that time it's done nothing but prove how useless of a world model it is.

Scientific evidence does not favor Atheism rather than Theism. That's just ridiculous.

It's not done nothing in that time at all. The Catholic Church, The Islamic World and Hindu India havevled the world in scientific achievement in the past.

Religion doesn't remain stagnant and do nothing. And religion is just as popular with the upper classes as it is with the lower classes. Atheism is a mere minority in Center of Left circles of the upper and middle-classes.

[Zoice]

It is not just as common, no. Atheism is much more popular among highly developed countries, and poverty is very well correlated with religiosity.

It is only in the past century or so that scientific evidence has directly supported atheism rather than theism, and destroyed the argument from design. And only in the past several decades have we had a lot of public atheist figures. Of course religion has had a big head start on the development of its mythology, but in that time it's done nothing but prove how useless of a world model it is.

Scientific evidence does not favor Atheism rather than Theism. That's just ridiculous.

It's not done nothing in that time at all. The Catholic Church, The Islamic World and Hindu India havevled the world in scientific achievement in the past.

Religion doesn't remain stagnant.

Scientists living in the religious world =/= Religion discovering things.

Science absolutely favours atheism. Every time that religions make a specific claim or prediction about the world it's proven wrong by science. Religions have no predictive value and they are scientifically useless. Less than useless, even harmful because they'll lead you to the wrong conclusion if you believe them.