King Rat

See the thing is, it's never really much of a fight. Most "factfinders" that come here are barely hanging on to their faith anyway. I've found that those secure in their faith don't need to go on "factfinding" missions.

AmbiguousUbiquity

I know I don't mind hearing everyone's opinion. But since I'm a new user, you shouldn't listen to me LOL Although the veteran users here have always seemed open to debate. That's why I started coming here. Everyone seemed pretty reasonable.

Anyway, I've been hanging around these boards for a few months before actually having something to say (trying to live by the whole "agree to disagree" thing), and the only time I see atheists on the board argue about anything religious is when some theist comes in trying to "gather facts", causes up a stir by asking "innocent" questions, and then complains that we all argue after we repsond.

faustuz

It just goes to show. It seems like Jesus might have said anything at all, and it wouldn’t have made any difference. He might have said “turn the other cheek”, and 2000 years of nonstop warfare, burnings and forced conversions would follow. He might have said “let he without sin..” and 2000 years of crusades, burnings and pogroms would follow. He might have said “love thy neighbor” and 2000 years of nonstop warfare, slavery and oppression might follow. Finally, nearly 2000 years later, something called secular humanism might come along and some of these things might let up a bit in certain parts of the world. Jesus came on the seen, and things didn’t change for the better one iota. What a useless religion. People just spent 2000 years doing nasty things in Jesus name. Secular humanism comes along, and things get a little better, at least in those parts of the world where it is embraced.

Maybe it’s time to spread the word!

Hopeful Monsters

You might really have nailed down something true here!

Godless Sodomite

The problem I see in this is that once you adopt a supernatural mindset then all bets are off. Your interpretation of Jesus isn't any more (or less) valid than the pope's or Pat Roberson's. Even if Jesus were a historic personage (he may or may not have been, I don't automatically concede that he was), we must remember that Jesus never actually taught (or wrote) anything--he's only written to have taught and said things (there's no firsthand information). In addition to the claims that Jesus taught : "Blessed are the merciful", he's also said to have said that he "came not to bring peace, but the sword." How is your loving Jesus more valid than someone else's warring Jesus? And what of xian denominations that have no problem with gay relationships and already perform gay marriage? To make a unilateral statement that xianity doesn't condone my "lifestyle" isn't true either. Because no gods are evident, we cannot claim that your anti-gay xianity is any more correct than a pro-gay xian stance. My point in all of this is that since gods are imaginary, they can be said to support anything their creators support and are therefore worthless in public political discourse.

And while I know plenty of live-and-let-live xians like yourself, precious few will actually do anything to make full equality under the law a reality. My opposition to xianity, and religion in general, deals nearly entirely as it pertains to politics. Most of my family are vaguely religious (they spout the "god is love" line a lot, and believe that dance instructors from Long Island can converse with dead people and that life gets better after one is deceased) but they keep their religious belief separate from their political convictions, so religion isn't an issue unless an aunt starts to spout about Jesus at xmas--then a reminder that I'm still an atheist and nothing I do has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus is enough to stop the christ-talk.

-Jerry

Mageth

So your basically saying that since men fail to implement the 'law' (sin, ethics, whatever you want to call it) as written in the Bible, it means that it is false. So one could assume that since some people fail to uphold the law in the American justice system, the whole law is false. Kind of circular reasoning, isn't it?

You're describing an argument I didn't make, i.e. a strawman.

What I'm saying that your argument in support of the Law (or your argument that God generates all righteousness, whichever it is) falls flat on its face. My argument was against your assertion, not for one I'm making. You have to prove your assertion is true; I don't have to prove it is false.

I've read the Bible, and there's no way in hell that we should implement the horrific, primitive "law" that's found there. It's not that it's false; it's that it's inhumane. Heck, you can't find a consensus among Christians about what the law is, which parts are to be accepted and which rejected, or what we can/should or can't/shouldn't do. An odd case if an all-powerful God is really behind it.

faustuz

Absolutely not! I think you should come to infidels and argue about religion. That’s what people do here. That’s what it’s for. It was you that initiated this thread with a call to stop arguing about religion. I merely find it ironic, and amusing. I have nothing against arguing about religion. It’s healthy (and sure beats burning people who disagree with one’s religion). Hypocrisy, however, I do have something against.

faustuz

Oh, and your tone has subtly (well, not so subtly) started taking on that of a Christian apologist’s. I think you are misconstruing your agenda. I mean, at least be honest.

factfinder

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they believe there are minds to be saved and it's worth the fight ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See the thing is, it's never really much of a fight. Most "factfinders" that come here are barely hanging on to their faith anyway. I've found that those secure in their faith don't need to go on "factfinding" missions
_____________________________________________

:notworthy

Hmmm...I'm getting some clear signals that I'm not wanted here.

You're right though, my faith is weak and I constantly seek to strengthen it. The concept that Christians push an air of superiority over the infidels certainly does not apply to me.

So are you solid in your faith as a non-believer? Or are you not so secure as evidenced by your attendance on this site. Your words, not mine. How 'bout a deal...I won't make any assumptions about you unless I ask you directly & you could be kind enough to reciprocate.

In the future you may want to leave the fortune telling to Miss Cleo.

factfinder

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by factfinder
Yes, I do have an agenda. I'm gathering facts. Remember I'm asking about what the motive to keep arguing is?

Would you prefer that I not participate in the discussions here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and your tone has subtly (well, not so subtly) started taking on that of a Christian apologist’s. I think you are misconstruing your agenda. I mean, at least be honest
_________________________________________________

You got me all figured out!

Can we stick with the topic, please rather than launching character assassinations. I don't know you, you don't know me & you don't know my 'agenda'. For your information, you are wrong. I could defend my motives all day long, but I'm asking for the atheist motives.

You will have to settle with calling me a liar but at least state it directly without all the window dressing.