“The work of God”?

Ban-jani said:
No of course you haven’t, because they agree with you, so you’re not critical of people calling Christians morons or horrific, because they’re on your side. That’s why your faux critique of my posting style is a little boring, you’re not on a moral crusade to ensure the debate is held to a decent standard, because if you were, you’d have pulled up those who have been personal. I really cannot be bothered with that though, I’d much rather we just talked about the topic at hand.

The reason why I have suggested people might have a particular view being atheist, is because that’s what atheism is, the “random event” is merely a very basic example of what happened at the Big Bang, it was to distinguish it from being something of intelligence. Maybe “random event” isn’t the best way to describe a non-designed/intelligent Big Bang but that’s all I meant by it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.......not good enough.
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
When the anti-religionists on here begin to discuss something like Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamikakarikas, the inner chapters of the Zhuangzi, Meister Eckhart, the mystical insights of Ibn Arabi, or the impenetrable lyricism of Dogen’s Shobogenzo with some kind of rudimentary facility, it might then be possible for a meaningful discussion to take place.

Until then....
Click to expand...
Until then what?

People are typically anti-religion because of the impact it has one our society, which is why anyone who is anti-religion will typically focus most of their attention on the dominant religion in their society. When I lived in Morocco, most atheists didn't spend most of their time slagging of Christianity, because that's not the religion that affects their life without their consent.
 
crazyg said:
@Ban-jani. A serious question. Of all the Christian "sects", which one did you choose, and why?
Click to expand...
Church of England.

It’s the closest to scripture, in my opinion and I’m really not a big fan of all the exaggerated hysterics in some Protestant churches, you know the crying and throwing yourself on the floor stuff?

I don’t have a problem with people in those churches if that’s how they feel then fair enough, it’s just not for me.
 
Ban-jani said:
Not really at all.

It’s a completely false assessment of my conversion.
Click to expand...
It is brilliant in the sense that it described most people's conversions. A personal incident, a feeling, you did say you had that reading One of the anonymous writers given a name. So, it's closer than you are willing to accept. Let's face it, it wasn't proof that God existed it was you having a feeling he did. Just like Collins who saw a frozen waterfall in three frozen parts and he concluded, with out a shred of evidence, that this was the Trinity. If he carried out his scientific work with such irrational abandon, he would have failed to get his first degree.

It was all about an emotional response. And reading your story, that seems to me to be the same. Anyway, regardless of how you got there, if it brings you peace, and you don't want people in the book who have a hard time, women, gay people to be persecuted because the book does, you're ok with me. Hope you had a good Christmas.
 
Magicpole said:
It is brilliant in the sense that it described most people's conversions. A personal incident, a feeling, you did say you had that reading One of the anonymous writers given a name. So, it's closer than you are willing to accept. Let's face it, it wasn't proof that God existed it was you having a feeling he did. Just like Collins who saw a frozen waterfall in three frozen parts and he concluded, with out a shred of evidence, that this was the Trinity. If he carried out his scientific work with such irrational abandon, he would have failed to get his first degree.

It was all about an emotional response. And reading your story, that seems to me to be the same. Anyway, regardless of how you got there, if it brings you peace, and you don't want people in the book who have a hard time, women, gay people to be persecuted because the book does, you're ok with me. Hope you had a good Christmas.
Click to expand...
I’d say with total honesty that it’s a mixture of emotional and objectivity on my part.

I was surprised at how much the Jesus story stacked up against criticism, I presumed a quick google would show it to be complete nonsense and then I read eye witnesses were willing to die, rather than dismiss what they saw.

You’ll disagree with that, I know, but it’s fine, I have no quarrel with atheists and I’m not the type that’s going to push it on others.

The New Testament calls for the opposite of persecution. Love thy enemies and offer them the shirt off your back, doesn’t really check out on the persecution front. Even in Corinthians, where there is further instruction from St Paul, he says to help those that sin. There’s no discrimination from Christ’s teachings in the New Testament.

I know it hasn’t always been the case but Christians and atheists have a good thing going on in Britain and we can exist perfectly in harmony, I think respecting people’s views but challenging them is healthy.

Hope you had a nice Christmas too!
 
Ban-jani said:
Agnostics have nothing to prove as they’re not claiming to know how the universe was formed, an atheist is claiming that it wasn’t created intelligently and with that claim, they’re making an assertion without evidence too.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of responses to this. The first (Dawkins' position) is that most people who describe themselves as atheists are technically agnostic, just agnostics who are making a probability judgement that makes the idea of a god so monumentally unlikely that for all intents and purposes they call themselves atheists to differentiate themselves from the people who claim it's unknowable or equally likely either way.

The other response would be one that says that the concept of God described is a logical impossibility. Of course this relies on someone providing a concept of God to give an opinion about. Luckily the traditional religions are quite specific about the nature of their god, right down to what he thinks about particular dietry choices. However, lots of religious people like to present a concept of god that is so wooly as to effectively be meaningless and it's pretty difficult to oppose something that isn't really saying anything.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Until then what?

People are typically anti-religion because of the impact it has one our society, which is why anyone who is anti-religion will typically focus most of their attention on the dominant religion in their society. When I lived in Morocco, most atheists didn't spend most of their time slagging of Christianity, because that's not the religion that affects their life without their consent.
Click to expand...
That being the case people will choose to focus on the negative impact religion might have, seen most noticeably on a large scale through wars and other atrocities where religion is used to rationalise such acts.

What is less often discussed and acknowledged is the stuff that goes on at a local level and more likely to represent the generosity of spirit that religions advocate. For example I know of at least two churches within my relatively local area that are responsible for the delivery of food parcels and feeding and sheltering the homeless, the need for which has been allowed to flourish in an agnostic society.

Essentially though it’s people following their instincts, to feed the hungry or wage war on others, if religion is responsible for the worst of us it also has to be responsible for the best, you can’t have it both ways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.