View Single Post
  #1110  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2012, 5:13 AM
chrisallard5454's Avatar
chrisallard5454 chrisallard5454 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
I may not have been clear enough here. First off, we are using the word 'discriminate' in different ways. I am using the word in the broadest sense that include simply not liking someone (the way vid was discriminating). You seem to be using the word with regard to people's rights, which is a major difference. I'll not use the word with the broader sense from here on. Secondly, I'm not saying it's ok to discriminate against or even dislike people with uncommon gender/sexual identities which is NOT a belief or decision and cannot have a negative effect on the way one treats others. What I am saying is that if someone holds certain beliefs, we should dislike them. This can apply to (for example) racism, homophobia and apparently for vid, religion. Please keep in mind that I am not equating religion to racism, I am merely using racism as an example as to why we should hold people accountable to their beliefs.
The italicized line has me extremely confused - which boils down to your entire argument. Why is it that we should judge people to the point of dislike for their beliefs? Especially when we are talking about such a broad spectrum of beliefs. You are creating a new definition for discrimination, in which it is acceptable to dislike a group of people for what they believe. To disagree and dislike are two different things. Essentially what you have done is taken fundamentalism (which you said we should avoid) and applied it so that it suites your atheist mentality.
I agree that we should hold people accountable for their beliefs.
Are you suggesting that our society is too liberal in how we tolerate certain religious beliefs? Because it sounds like you are taking a step backwards if that is indeed the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
We may have differing opinions on what it means to be intelligent. For me intelligence means:
1. Proficient in logic: one of the major principals of logic is the requirement of evidence. Being as this is inconsistent with religious teachings, this generally excludes the religeous. (Although there are exceptions, namely people who have been told all their lives that the evidence is there and just haven't looked for it themselves.)
2. Thinks for themselves: Doesn't go through life believing everything the are told. Investigates things for themselves.
3. Reflects on beliefs: Goes through beliefs to make sure that they all hold up to logic and evidence.

I think you may be thinking of intelligence based on the amount of things one knows. But this is just the regurgitation of information.
You are once again applying a biased definition in which case Devon will be made out to be an unintelligent man. Your spectrum is once again too broad to be applied to the discussion at hand.

1. Remember Cam, that to be an Atheist is to be Religious. To claim there is no God is taking a Religious stance against a higher being. You are thus making a claim that can not be proven, and therefore have no evidence to back your argument. I can then conclude that Atheists are just as unintelligent as Theists. The only individual who can be considered intelligent in this sense is the agnostic, who is unwilling to make a claim about the situation for fear of being wrong about his or her decision.
2. The average citizen in today's world by your definition would be unintelligent in that the majority of our obtained information is passed from individual to individual as a secondary or tertiary source. This includes some of the most accredited professors and scientist alive today.
3. Read back to point one for an answer to this. To put it simply, some of the most intelligent men through the ages (Theist or Atheist) have had hundreds, if not thousands of debates - many of which have been recorded over the last few decades - over the existence of God. You'd think that after several thousand years that if a Scientific finding of which the evidence procured could abolish our silly claims that these debates would subside. My point being their is no evidence to either prove nor disprove a higher being, which I might add is why they call it faith not fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
I admit that I was (and have still been) too harsh, and for that I apologize. My intent was never to be cruel and I regent any offense i may have caused.
No offense caused as of yet, so far this has been a rather mild and enlightening debate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
This is a very complex issue and I have glossed over most of it but basically: People who believe in God form an idea in their mind of what God's opinions are, then use this idea to develop and reconfirm their opinions. This makes them much less likely to admit they are wrong because it would also be admitting that God is wrong. I understand that you wont be able agree because you believe that the opinions that your mental God are the actual opinions of God.
Now for the idea of submitting to God: If one submits to the opinions they think God has, then they think they are humble. But they only are if God actually exists. If not, then their relationship with God is actually a relationship with their own ego, and they are even less humble.
Now for the idea of doing things you don't want to do for God: So if you disagree with some of the things God wants you to do, then this means that either God want's you to do immoral things OR you don't want to do moral things. If God is Immoral, then why does he deserve your worship? If I believed in an immoral God then I wouldn't worship Him on principle, even on threat of Hell. The other alternative is that you don't want to do moral things. Is this true? I've been told that Christianity teaches that all people are immoral and only the threat of Hell keeps them in line. Based off of the moral people I've met who don't believe in Hell, I can't believe that.
Your theory is definitely an interesting one. But since it has not been backed up by any evidence I must hereby pronounce it as false

Now for my own claims on the matter;

First off, let me remind you that I was an Atheist, so unlike many believers I have no trouble conceptualizing any of your points including the ones that you have said I wouldn't understand.
You claim that Christians (and for this entire post I have been presenting myself as a Theist for the sake of other Religions out there), or Theists formulate an idea of what God is based around our own bias and perceptions. This statement is probably accurate regarding the believers of the dark ages. Today most beliefs are far more progressive than that. For instance, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian or a Muslim who would attempt to paint a vague picture of God, let alone try and pretend that we understand him.
As believers we don't formulate the image God around ourselves (which is considered Idolatry) but rather formulate ourselves around what we do know of God. My God is the God of the Bible. Everything I know about him is presented in that book. I therefore submit myself to the teachings of that book, rather than to the ideas that swarm around my head.
Now in terms of my immorality. I will freely admit that I am immoral. You are immoral, and the person who represents perfection as close to its perfect form as possible is immoral. I have already stated on this thread what some of my problems are. Including but not limited to,
Addiction to Pornography
Anger Issues
Idolatry
Lack of Commitment
Etc. Etc.

In fact I would say that I have just as many immoral habits as you, if not more. A common misconception regarding Christians is that we don't think that we are perfect in any way. There is only one thing that differentiates a Christian from you. That is that they believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. That is it. Finite. Finished. That is literally the only difference.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
I do NOT think that it's ok to be ignorant, I just think it's ridiculous to demand that someone know everything about a topic to be even allowed to participate. And I'm sorry if I've offended you about the intelligence thing, I should not have even brought it up, but now that we're on the topic I direct you above to what I consider prerequisites to intelligence.
I understand where you are coming from. In regards to the offence, I wasn't actually offended, I just use sarcasm as a defense mechanism (again one of my problems that I need to work on).
The only problem with your response here is that we aren't discussing the general teachings of Christianity. In fact I would be so bold as to say that -theology aside- even you would agree with 3/4 of the teachings of Christianity.
We are referring to a certain individual who happens to be a Christian. People on this forum have made insults, and produced false claims based on this man being a Christian. Acts such as these should not occur without the people in question having sufficient knowledge of the subject at hand (Devon) to take such bold steps.
Therefore, they should not possess the knowledge found from an entire doctrine of many different denominations or even Theologies, but rather understand what scenario Devon is presenting himself from. In which case they should know all about Kilcona Park Alliance Church, its doctrine, statement of faith, the congregation within it, his family, etc.
So far the only two people who have shown such sufficient knowledge of Devon are myself and H0twired. Seeing as how I am of a biased opinion I shall retract myself from any comments regarding Devon, and assume that only H0twired is capable of providing anything that is reputable to be heard. In this instance, Devon sounds like a good man for the top job.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
It just seemed strange that you would bring up 'Freedom of Religion' as no one was even suggesting limiting that freedom. All that people were doing was criticizing and although some were even insulting, no one was suggesting limiting religeous freedom. As for pointing out the contradictions in Christianity, I don't really see the point all I need is: Skepticism is logical therefor faith based religion is illogical
Many people have suggested that their trust in Devon has been shaken upon finding out his beliefs. That fact has been stated over and over. A few have gone as far as saying that he should no longer be Police Chief for broadcasting his beliefs to the public (yourself included).
My response is that these people have expressed a fundamental ideology that starkly contrasts religion intolerance, which ironically, is the exact thing that they oppose about Christians. Who would have thought, Atheists can be Fundamentalists?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
That's really interesting. I've never met someone who actually went from being an Atheist to being religeous and I would be very interested in discussing this further and I agree we should switch over to PM(I wrote this whole thing before I noticed this part of your post)
I am free for tea anytime. I don't like to push my beliefs on people, but I would be open to discussing how my beliefs came to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam View Post
Your right Chris, this part was muddled and unclear. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that I am concerned that the rest of the country will see this and see us as socially backwards because, generally the more religeous a place is, the more socially conservative it is. I understand that this correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but will the rest of the country understand this? Doubt it.

I know quite a few people that would argue that the US is already a theocracy. I wouldn't agree with that, but that is the impression they are giving and I would prefer that we don't start giving that impression. I understand that one prominent government figure promoting religion doesn't make us a theocracy, but they can add up to a big problem.
I for one do not mix Religion and Politics. That is very dangerous. I very much believe in the separation of Church and State. So when people equate fundamentalist Republicans with Christians I roll my eyes. I already informed you -as well as many others in the past- what it takes to be a Christian. Political ideology is not part of the criteria. If people align Religion with a certain party, or political agenda then that only highlights their ignorance of today's Religions.
__________________
2017 Tryout for DEL 2 Kassel Huskies
Reply With Quote