Jobar

Biff, if we chase off all the theists by staying in their faces all the time, we wind up with nobody here but us unbelievers, and that's not nearly as interesting. I'm not saying not to ever get in a Christian's face, and smear their nose in their own messes; but if we do this constantly, soon we have only the choir to preach to.

Remember that every one of the ones here are at least interested enough in atheism to come and listen. Think of how damn few believers are willing to do that. Even the ones who come here to preach at us may yet be snared by our arguments, if we avoid insult and present our points in as non-confrontational and non-judgemental a way as possible.

I've been here long enough to see a good number of those who came to preach see the emptiness and irrationality of their own preaching. It's a mighty fine feeling, I can tell you.

If we get ranters or holier-than-thou types who come here just to taunt us hell-bound sinners, then hey, slap 'em down, and I'll grin. But if any theist shows a willingness to *listen* to us and not just preach at us, try to phrase your arguments to avoid antagonizing them unnecessarily. Remember the old saw about catching flies.

Amos

Likewise, Jobar.I'd say hit 'em and hit 'em hard. Pound the living hell out of 'em!

Infinity Lover

Some of them all of them?
Biff the unclean; official ambassador of atheism?
Amie is Xians all of a sudden? C'mon Biff, you can do better than that, I know you can.

I think the core of the problem you stated would primarily lie, with those theists who have also adapted the belief that their way is the only way for anyone. This fortunately isn't the case with all theists. To many (and probably the ones that aren't fanatic about their beliefs enough, to debate religion on boards like this) their religion is their tool to find their own path, rather than determine others. Their "bias" would be more along the lines of prefering a specific religion out of familiarity, because they were brought up with it.

For as far as the destruction of foreign cultures goes, most of that was done in the name of an entirely different god... money!

Infinity Lover

I'll leave it up to others to decide, exactly how slippery the ice is you just treaded upon.

Harpy

I think BTU's responce to Aimee is right on the money.

Aimee I have seen various postings where you make statements of belief

I just think things are possible with God. all things

I believe in Angels e.t.c..

While this is a facinating insight into the beliefs of Aimee, it does nothing to further debate.

Can you tell us why you believe these things, why you believe in your god story and not in the Hawian god story.

luvluv

Biff:

All right, THIS is the crux of our discussion.

I didn't say I disbelieved in Maui. You asked my why I didn't believe in Maui and I said it was because I have no reason to believe in Maui. I didn't say, as atheists around here regularly say, that anyone's beliefs are FALSE. I only said that I do not hold them, because I have no experience with them and have no way of assessing them.

I have reasons to believe my faith and reasons to doubt the faiths of others. My faith has been reliable in my experience, it claims and can verify more historical ties than most other religions, I find it's moral system, as enumarated by Jesus, to be superior to the morality of other religions; I have good reason to believe that the founder of my faith declared all other faiths to be false; and I have personal experience with and a knowledge-by acquaintance of the God I worship. Now if any new religion can signifigantly explain away all of these reasons, I will believe them. Until then, I doubt them.

What is inconsistent about that?

Of course everyone is biased, you have a right to be biased. I don't have one problem in the world with you exploring every other religion that has ever existed and comparing it to Christianity, because I fully expect Christianity will win out every time.

I believe in my faith over others because I take it to be superior in regards to historicity, morality, worldview, and the content of my own experiences of the Divine. When I apply the same criteria to other religions, they come up lacking.

Biff the unclean

I didn't say I disbelieved in Maui. You asked my why I didn't believe in Maui and I said it was because I have no reason to believe in Maui. I didn't say, as atheists around here regularly say, that anyone's beliefs are FALSE.
You mean to tell me truthfully that when you hear a story about a god who catches the sun with a lariat, pulls it down to Earth with the help of his brothers, beats the living day lights (pun intended) out of it until it reveals it's magic name and forces it to move more slowly through the skies that you can't know if this belief is false?

I only said that I do not hold them, because I have no experience with them and have no way of assessing them.
How can this be? You are obviously an educated person, surely you posses at least a rudimentary understanding of Astronomy, Geography and Physics, enough to be able to make a call on stories like this one.

I have reasons to believe my faith and reasons to doubt the faiths of others. My faith has been reliable in my experience,
That's an excellent start.

… it claims and can verify more historical ties than most other religions, I find it's moral system, as enumarated by Jesus, to be superior to the morality of other religions;
Except, only the other day, you thought that I might be making these basic stories of Polynesian theology up all by myself. Have you since then learned what their moral codes are or how accurate their history is? Because if you haven't how would you know Christianity is superior?

I have good reason to believe that the founder of my faith declared all other faiths to be false; and I have personal experience with and a knowledge-by acquaintance of the God I worship.
300 years ago both the Protestants and the Catholics would have been more than happy to burn you at the stake for writing that.

But I'll go back to your first claim," I didn't say I disbelieved in Maui… I have no reason to believe in Maui…" You would have faced death for that one too. If you follow Jesus then you have to claim that Maui is false…or else.
Or to refer to an earlier thread… Since you didn't know about Maui and Kane your mind would have been closed to them. Your bias would have prevented you from seeing the evidence for them. Sorry, just busting your chops with a specious argument Christians sometimes have been know to use

I don't have one problem in the world with you exploring every other religion that has ever existed and comparing it to Christianity, because I fully expect Christianity will win out every time.
Win out? It didn't win out. The two sets of stories are almost identical. The Christian ones win only because the Christ says the others are false and ours are true. The problem with this is that the Christ is one of the stories.
If you judge them by what Kane teaches then Jesus is false.
If one judges the Semitic and the Polynesian stories by known facts they both show up as false for exactly the same reasons.

I believe in my faith over others because I take it to be superior in regards to historicity, morality, worldview, and the content of my own experiences of the Divine. When I apply the same criteria to other religions, they come up lacking.
This web site is chock-a-block with threads that find Christianity very lacking with regards to historicity, morality and worldview so I won't go into that. But again you imply that you actually have applied the same criteria to other religions. However if we do that for our two Yahweh and two Maui stories we find that as for "historicity" there is no historic evidence that either the Yahweh or the Maui stories ever happened.
Morality-none of the separating the land from the water and hanging stars from the sky express morality.
Yahweh stops the Sun from moving so that bloodshed and carnage can continue. Maui stops the Sun to help his mother in the creative process…but then blows it by beating up the Sun and forcing it to do things against it's will. So neither comes out very good on morality.
Worldview the Yahweh stories thought the world was a corner of the Middle East, and that the Jews were chosen by God and therefore better than everybody else.
The Maui stories thought the Pacific Ocean was the whole world, and that the Alii and the Alii-nui were chosen by the gods to be better than everybody else.

I can't think of a criteria that recommends one over the other if you honestly apply them to both.

emur

Posted by luvluv:
In the thread on personal experience, regarding people of others faiths you said:
So are all other faiths false, or are they less true than Christianity? If they are false, don't you see how God's encounter with people of those faiths would tend to validate their view of God? Why would God do anything that would validate a false faith in others?

Mel

Biff the unclean

Infinity Lover & Jobar you are so very rude to tell me that what I think is wrong. Everybody has a right to think what they want so no one can tell them that they are wrong. Only this morning I helped rescue a kitten from a tree, which shows how nice I am. I think what I think because I think it, and you have no business saying otherwise.

Sounds pretty screwy when I say it, doesn't it?
You thought that I was wrong and you told me the reasons you thought so. What you would expect from me is either I accept your reasons as being logical and factual and change my POV or that I would present other reasons and facts that would support a different conclusion.
Instead I completely avoided the entire subject. Instead of weighing your arguments on their own merits I manipulated them and presented you as a rude bully who was victimizing me.
I completely dismiss the validity of your arguments by declaring that "I think what I think." In effect I'm saying that I could give a rats arse what logic you have, every thing revolves around me.
If I did this I could probably muster some defenders, no body likes a bully and everyone loves little kittens. And you'll feel bad because you had no intention of being rude.
But the reality is that I would be the one who should apologize to you. These are under handed manipulative tactics that don't add to the discussion at hand but rather bring it to an abrupt halt.

Sabine Grant

Hello Biff... sorry for jumping in... but I am wondering... who enforced putting to death the citizens of the Roman Empire? the Roman local government? was there a christian government in place to exercise such cohercive and oppressive power... I am really confused here. Sorry.