The self-styled atheists (I was one for a quarter of a century) deceive themselves if they say that they don't believe in a god. EVERYONE has a god. It might be the God of creation, it might the self, it might be money or power or fame, it might be sports or cars or sex or pornography. Whatever is so important in one's life that it controls and shapes his life is his god. As for me, I'll place my faith in the God of the Bible. If I'm wrong, I have lost nothing. If I'm right, I have gained everything.
Amen, NIM
*sighs* never discuss religion or politics in polite settings. Has the conversation turned to faith? At this point there is nothing that can be discussed but what you believe in and your opinion of other's beliefs and it really doesn't help matters because it has a tendency to turn into a "fuck you, you're wrong and stupid and crazy and blah blah blah" kind of conversation instead of a respectful exchange of personal beliefs.
I would like to say one thing, and that's in reference to NiM's post about the etymology of the word atheism. A lot of words don't break down correctly. I mean the term homosexual when broken down means "one gender" and heterosexual means "multiple genders" it doesn't say anything about sexual preference it's a misnomer we've used to as best as they could in closed early 1900's society define a same sex attraction and an opposite sex attraction. There are lots of words that don't break down properly to mean quite what they should, that's part of the issues with translating words into different languages or not having a word for something. I'm all for definitions, but definitions change over time a lot of words have flipped meaning and changed spelling. If you're going to use a term, use it as it's defined today, not as it was defined when the ancient Greeks or whoever coined the term.
Faith is required to believe anything, however. The difference is someone like a scientist or an atheist puts their faith in what is proven and can be reproduced. A Christian exercises a much different kind of faith, they believe in something that they can't produce at will, openly admit is a different experience for each person sharing it and is therefore not something they can even describe as a general "you should feel this way" experience, and something that in a lot of ways defies what has been proven (you mean rainbows aren't God's gift to gays, wha???). Because you can't produce God in a laboratory and can only "prove" him based on your feelings and a sadly misinterpreted storybook, there's no compelling proof to believe in a God.
However, this isn't an active and willful disbelief I would argue against that. I don't believe in the loch ness monster that doesn't mean I sit there and flat out deny that the possibliity that the conspiracy theorists are right and that Nessie was born at Stonehenge and left there by aliens then delivered to the Loch ness waters by Sasquatch... I just don't believe in it because it hasn't been proven. I'm not sitting there looking at irrefutable scientific proof and folding my arms across my chest, squeezing my eyes shut, shaking my head and going "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO" I just... don't believe that's the truth. I suppose it could be, but until I can have some proof of that moment beyond a storybook that's essentially a complicated fairy tale with a moral of the story and warnings to be good or else, you know like someone performing miracles like they talked about in the Bible, then I'm going to have to go with "it's probably not true" so that I don't go buying a deed to the Brooklyn bridge.
However, if you can respect that I don't believe I can respect that you do. This is the issue in the atheism-Christianity back and forth. Christians get heated and offended because how dare you suggest their deeply rooted faith in the one true god is a crock, and atheists get offended because how dare you believe something we consider to be so pointless and harmful to humanity and then have the audacity to call us stupid because we ask for proof.
I will say this, consider some of the things the Bible ask you for... specifically things like "child-like faith"... let's bring that issue to light. A child doesn't question, if you tell them that they better be good or Santa Claus isn't going to come this year they will believe you until they figure things out for themselves and start asking questions. When I was a child I truly believed Roseanne lived in Lanford, Illinois and ran a diner. Blindness occurs because of two reasons, either the light is too strong or the light is too weak. To believe like a child you're believing like the iight is so strong that you just get lost in it, and you have no real direction in mind. This is where Christianity and the other 2 of the major 3 religions fail for me. You can't make a wise decision believing in something in a way that leaves you blind to the details and convinces you that whatever the popular view of your faith tells you is the absolute right and only way to do something.
I have no problem with faith. I have a problem who take the bible literally, in whole or in part. If we start with the premise that the book has been translated through Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek scripts and ultimately into other languages, and we recognize the inherent problems in translation. That certain words and meanings are archaic and unknowable, and in many cases "liberties" are taken. As I mentioned, Leviticus is a book of laws that seem bizarre and unusual. Shellfish is an abomination, unnatural fibres are an abomination, to have sex with a menstruating woman is an abomination, to lay with another man is abomination. Slavery is fine, but god is very specific about the times, days, and locations of sales. If you are a fundamentalist, you must accept all this as it is written, even if the translation is wrong. So why coneniently choose to eat your shrimp cocktail and condemn homosexuality. Does everyone get to pick and choose?
I have no problem with faith. I have a problem who take the bible literally, in whole or in part. If we start with the premise that the book has been translated through Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek scripts and ultimately into other languages, and we recognize the inherent problems in translation. That certain words and meanings are archaic and unknowable, and in many cases "liberties" are taken. As I mentioned, Leviticus is a book of laws that seem bizarre and unusual. Shellfish is an abomination, unnatural fibres are an abomination, to have sex with a menstruating woman is an abomination, to lay with another man is abomination. Slavery is fine, but god is very specific about the times, days, and locations of sales. If you are a fundamentalist, you must accept all this as it is written, even if the translation is wrong. So why coneniently choose to eat your shrimp cocktail and condemn homosexuality. Does everyone get to pick and choose?
It says nothing about unnatural fibers. It does say that you should not combine fibers of different nature such as cotton, linen, or wool.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!