Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Galaxiom]

You see, when you adopt a more moderate religious viewpoint rather than the ultra atheist nonsense - you're quite a nice boy.

Quite a nice boy? Now you resort to demeaning, still without a word to challenge any of the points I have made. You do that because you know you have no answers.

 

[Galaxiom]

The Book tells us the "meaning of life" is to worship God. The reward for doing so will be everlasting life. Having proved our adequacy in that pursuit, the eternal life will no doubt be fully occupied by eternal worship without the need for worrying about supporting ones physical existence.

If that gives your life meaning then you are very easily satisfied.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

1. Rabbie has never claimed to have these answers. Or have you seen a post that says otherwise and I just missed it?
2. Belief in gods doesn't demonstrate seeking answers, it is a final answer in itself. Whereas science will suggest a theory, test it, find faults, and suggest another until it finds an answer that works, belief in gods just takes an untestable theory and places all faith in it, regardless of everything else.

OK If he hasnt the answers, I find it worrying hes not after them, either way.

Most religious people I know - in fact all - dont beleive in God, the way the ultra atheists describe God. The ultra atheist notion of God is particular to themselves and extreme religionists.

Everyone else has a more rounded/open minded/ doing the best they can view of the world. Rather than the black and white thinking the extremist of both sides fall into.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Quite a nice boy? Now you resort to demeaning, still without a word to challenge any of the points I have made. You do that because you know you have no answers.

I thought you had stepped away from - your extremist thinking to be a little more reasonable and moderate.

I was wrong. You're not a nice boy.

 

[Brianwarnock]

OK If he hasnt the answers, I find it worrying hes not after them, either way.

Most religious people I know - in fact all - dont beleive in God, the way the ultra atheists describe God. The ultra atheist notion of God is particular to themselves and extreme religionists.

Everyone else has a more rounded/open minded/ doing the best they can view of the world. Rather than the black and white thinking the extremist of both sides fall into.

Does life have to have a meaning?

Can you expand on the text I bolded, I don't understand what it is you are saying about their view of God.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Does life have to have a meaning?

Can you expand on the text I bolded, I don't understand what it is you are saying about their view of God.

Brian

I dont suppose life does have to have a meaning, I dont know - I'm not sure anyone else does either, which is why I find the belittling of others honest wonderings on this matter, sometimes as part of the greater trials and tribulations of life - frankly arrogant and insulting.

What God is? No I cant explain what God is to most people, its differant to everyone. God answers differant questions to everyone.

The best I can offer you is God is love. Most have a notion of what love is, but we all may describe it differantly. Love can make us do some terrible things, and so frankly can the absence of it, whatever it actually is.
To some God is like the spagetti monster, I dont think most people believe that for a minute, except a few confused ultra atheists and extreme religions who believe the spagetti monster also definately has a beard.

The ultras are gonna love this answer.

 

[Thales750]

Does life have to have a meaning?

Can you expand on the text I bolded, I don't understand what it is you are saying about their view of God.

Brian

Good Morning Brian,

It is always a pleasure to see you here.

Love of course.

 

[CBrighton]

I thought you had stepped away from - your extremist thinking to be a little more reasonable and moderate.

I was wrong. You're not a nice boy.

Which part of the post which you quoted contained "etremist thinking"?

Personally I have no issue with any religion, as long as they keep it to themselves.

If you're not pushing your belief on others then I'm perfectly happy with you believing whatever you want.

But if you come up to me and tell me I'm doing something wrong because some unproven figure in the sky said so, don't expect me to meekly agree with you and bow to YOUR standards which YOU have chosen to follow.

Please note that after the first line this is a general reply to the religios discussion and not a direct reply to the quoted post.

I have little patience with religion other than private beliefs. This quote should tell you why:

I heard a while back that more people had died in the name of Jesus than in the name of Hitler.

I’d always wondered if it was true, it seemed perfectly plausible given the persistence and viciousness of the Vatican during the Crusades. Unfortunately, I had found it difficult to find a number of deaths from the Crusades. But, I found in Google Answers, this webpage that chronicles numerous human conflicts and includes a category for religious conflicts. The numbers are hazy, of course, when we’re speaking about conflicts hundreds or thousands of years ago when death tallies were not a priority or of mild interest like they are today.

In short, 809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people.

Oftentimes, a retort is that secular ideals and Godless Communism have killed many more. It is true that Stalin, among others, slaughtered his own people by the millions during the industrialization of Soviet Russia. By comparison, 209 million have died in the name of Communism. Some 62 million died during World War II, civilian and military, on all sides.

Conclusively, more people have died in the name of religion than in the name of Communism or Hitler, or the two combined times two.

 

[Rabbie]

I find it more worrying - that you think you have the answers to the meaning of life to such an extent that you ridicule others for still seeking those answers for themselves.

I was not intentionally ridiculing anyone. I have never claimed to have answer to the meaning of life although I believe some people think it is 42. . However it is very kind of you to worry on my behalf - much appreciated.

 

[Thales750]

I have little patience with religion other than private beliefs. This quote should tell you why:

Your statistics would be more useful, even if they are accurate, to limit the comparison to a given time scale.

Likewise all of the above mentioned wars had more of an economic root; the religion part was merely a cover up.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Good Morning Brian,

It is always a pleasure to see you here.

Love of course.

Thank you J sorry i was not here when you posted but Hazel needed my assistamce. As a quick update she is once again proofing the medics wrong and is still here, at home now but very weak tho' still able to keep me in order.

This

Believing in God has nothing to do with religion

from an earlier post by you should have been noted by all of the zealots on here, these threads on "is there a God" always result in atheism versus Chritianity and the ridiculing or quoting of the Bible. It always ends with us going round in circles and nobody accepting even a smidgeon of good in others views.

I am not religious but I do acknowledge that many people gain much comfort from their beliefs and that much of the evil done in religions name is merely man's use of all possible means to gain power. I did not find in the Koran the part where it says that they should kill non believers , but perhaps somebody can quote it to me.

As the product of a mixed religious marriage i saw the problems and pain that it can cause but I would not deny anybody their right to their beliefs, just leave the rest of us to ours, even if that is a non belief.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

Thank you J sorry i was not here when you posted but Hazel needed my assistamce. As a quick update she is once again proofing the medics wrong and is still here, at home now but very weak tho' still able to keep me in order.
Brian

Glad to hear Hazel is still proving the medics wrong. Best wishes to you both

 

[MarkK]

Likewise all of the above mentioned wars had more of an economic root; the religion part was merely a cover up.

Yeah, I've heard a quote before that goes something like...

To laymen God is true, to wise men God is false, and to rulers God is useful.

To me, where there's politics there's power. True religion can only be exercised between an individual and his or her God. Any religious activity beyond that is subject to political forces and is therefore primarily an exercise of power. A religious argument is an exercise of power because it's a political position that you aren't required to take in relationship to your God, and that impacts primarily your standing in the group. And as you gain power in a group you will increasingly be subject to corruption and the exercise of power for its own sake.
In my opinion, anyway.

 

[Galaxiom]

Most religious people I know - in fact all - dont beleive in God, the way the ultra atheists describe God. The ultra atheist notion of God is particular to themselves and extreme religionists.

The descriptions I use of God are not something I invented. They are taken straight from the Bible. Believers who deny those descriptions of God are effectively denying the basis for the existence of their God yet they continue to stand by the parts of the Book that they like and hold it up as evidence.

I would not have a problem with the believers if they rejected their holy books and the Gods described in them. But then they would have to accept that their beliefs are on the same level as secular thought and have to argue rational cases for their implimentation as societal values.

Currently the leaders of the churches expect their notions of morality to carry extraordinary weight based on nothing more than their claim that they are the directives from a divine authority.

Everyone else has a more rounded/open minded/ doing the best they can view of the world. Rather than the black and white thinking the extremist of both sides fall into.

No so. The believers presume precedence. Supposedly "rounded" views amount to such things as having schools teach both evolution and creation as plausible theories of equal standing.

Atheists are unfairly accused of being closed-minded on the basis that they reject the notion of a God for which there is no reasonable evidence. Yet this is a principle that has underpinned the rise of our civilisation from the clutches of superstition as the basis for so many decisions that went badly wrong in the past.

Faith by definition is unresaonable. There is no place for the unreasonable in guiding our social values yet the religious expect and are given positions of influence where they are supposed to make decisions based on evidence. Instead they simply support the outcomes based on dogma.

We put Catholics on committees studying subjects such as birth control or gay marriage as if they are going to contribute to any outcome other than their prejudice.

Religion has crippled the advancement of human societies by claiming undue influence for millennia. This is what atheists seek to change and why we are outsoken about the facts underpinning religious beliefs and the detriment they cause.

You seem to imply that atheists are not "doing the best they can". What gives you that impression?

 

[Galaxiom]

"Godless Communism" is often held up as an example of the atheist abuse of power.

The truth is that such abuse reflects the religious nature of the foundational beliefs of communism rather than atheism. As in places dominated by religion, speaking out against the philosophy or the controlling oligarchy is considered heresy punishible by death. The killing of the religious under communist regimes was not about atheism but about destroying belief in what they considered were "False Gods" just as has happened in deist regimes.

Really it is all about protecting power and influence. As in religion the end is considered to justify the means. "They were killed for the betterment of society because they were undermining our values." Only where societies have defended the right of all to present their views do we see real progress.

Much to their chagrin, the church no longer has the power to silence heresy in modern western democracies so they resort to demanding tolerance and respect. By this they mean that those who disagree with the views of the church should keep it to themselves. Meanwhile they continue to take a conspicuous role in society and loudly present their own views whereever possible.

Others like Thales750 and AnthonyGerrard try to dismiss the presentation of atheist values by portraying them as extremist and intolerant. However I have no doubt they don't write to their local cathedral suggesting that ringing loud bells early on a Sunday morning is the work of extremists pushing their narrow minded views on the whole of society, most of whom would rather have stayed asleep.

Oh yes, and the God of communism? If not the God then at least the Pope, Karl Marx.

 

[Galaxiom]

I dont suppose life does have to have a meaning, I dont know - I'm not sure anyone else does either, which is why I find the belittling of others honest wonderings on this matter, sometimes as part of the greater trials and tribulations of life - frankly arrogant and insulting.

So do you also find those loudly blaming the ills of society on the rise of atheist thought arrogant and insulting?

What God is? No I cant explain what God is to most people, its differant to everyone. God answers differant questions to everyone.

God is different to everyone because ultimately the details of their God are individually concocted by each person. Each claims their attitudes have the backing of a deity and they can find support for their position in the Bible or other Holy Book.

Such is the nature of these books that everything from universal love though to brutal genocide is advocated as God's will in one place or another. This is part of what makes religion so dangerous.

The best I can offer you is God is love. Most have a notion of what love is, but we all may describe it differantly. Love can make us do some terrible things, and so frankly can the absence of it, whatever it actually is.

Yes. The love of God and willingness to follow His orders led the Hebrews to slaughter almost every man woman and child in the Promised Land. When they didn't quite finish the job God turned against them.

Two tribes pretended they came from far away and tricked the Hewbrews into a peace treaty which the Hebrews decided to honour despite the wickedness the representatives had displayed with their dishonest trickery. How dare they try to avoid being massacred and ask for peace when God had wanted them killed? Instead the Hewbrews decreed these tribes and their desdendents would be the permanent slaves of the Hewbrews as punishment for their treachery.

The Bible is vastly dominated by stories of God as a bitter, vengeful, violent deity who demands worship.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/atrocities.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/godislove.html

To some God is like the spagetti monster, I dont think most people believe that for a minute, except a few confused ultra atheists and extreme religions who believe the spagetti monster also definately has a beard.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of the Pastafarian Church. It is a conceptual counter to the notion by the conventionally religious that there is nothing that disproves the existence of their God and therefore religious beliefs are valid and deserving of respect.

Likewise nothing disproves the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and therefore Pastafarianism derserves the same respect as Catholicism or any other religion. I certainly consider them of eqaul standing.

 

[Thales750]

Others like Thales750 and AnthonyGerrard try to dismiss the presentation of atheist values by portraying them as extremist and intolerant. However I have no doubt they don't write to their local cathedral suggesting that ringing loud bells early on a Sunday morning is the work of extremists pushing their narrow minded views on the whole of society, most of whom would rather have stayed asleep.

Are you serious?

I'm not dismissing your beliefs.

That's your fundamentalist interpretation raring it’s ugly head. I merely compared your actions the very people you are trying to marginalize.

Interestingly, throughout this entire discussion I have maintain that religion is the problem, whether it’s theist or atheist. Belief in God does not enter into it. You expect me to think and act in certain way based on the fact that I know God. You however, continue to act in a way that is consistent with religious zeal.


I don’t care to save your soul; that is the job of fundamentalist religious folks. My only interest is to point out hypocrisy whenever I see it. I mostly confine my opinions to economics and politics, because we’re in a crisis in those arenas. But it’s always fun to deviate from my passion, when a blatant case presents itself.

 

[Galaxiom]

I'm not dismissing your beliefs.

What I said was:

Others like Thales750 and AnthonyGerrard try to dismiss the presentation of atheist values by portraying them as extremist and intolerant.

You certainly are dismissing my decision to express my objections to religion by portraying me as an extremist.

You however, continue to act in a way that is consistent with religious zeal.

Your repeated objection to me expression my opinions seems quite zealous.

What I do object to are the double standards of those who don't have a problem with the church loudly expressing their beliefs while berating atheists for expressing the counter view under a pretence of backing tolerance.

Such people often claim that they have no allegiance with religion but by their actions they demonstrate a clear bias toward the church.

 

[Adam Caramon]

That's your fundamentalist interpretation raring it’s ugly head. I merely compared your actions the very people you are trying to marginalize.

You have a hypothesis. You have presented it, without referencing any real evidence, and expected everyone to accept it. Most people seem to disagree with you, but you keep harping away on this point. I doubt there is anyway anyone could convince you otherwise.

It seems like the response from the religious group is that some people hold on to their beliefs really deeply, and they are not hurting anyone. Therefore why should anyone try to make them feel bad by casting doubt or suspicion on their belief?

I believe Galaxiom & CBrighton have effectively addressed that question.

 

[Rabbie]

Are you serious?



I don’t care to save your soul; that is the job of fundamentalist religious folks.

Surely it is the duty of all Christian believers to share their good news (that is the literal meaning of Gospel) with all non-believing people. After all Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love and it seems very unloving not to try to save these people's souls. After all if you saw someone on fire and you had a fire extinguisher would you not try to put the fire out?