Here (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041028/325/f5hzl.html)

Any thoughts?

That's new? It is quite common here in Germany...

its a big step toward religious tolerance. Anytime one person accepts another differences I call it a good day.......acceptance doesn't have to mean agreement.

So what is the atheistic belief system? Many words have been spent by atheists at this site trying to keep atheism from being pictured as a belief system.

It's just a single belief, or lack of belief, or however one wants to phrase it. After all the words spent trying to keep atheism from being considered a religion or a belief system, I would think atheists would be discouraged at the idea of a uniform atheism being taught.

So what is the atheistic belief system? Many words have been spent by atheists at this site trying to keep atheism from being pictured as a belief system.

It's just a single belief, or lack of belief, or however one wants to phrase it. After all the words spent trying to keep atheism from being considered a religion or a belief system, I would think atheists would be discouraged at the idea of a uniform atheism being taught.Oh welcome ye atheists to the flock. If this really picks up pace, posting on this site will actually become more satisfying.:)

I guess we (guess who...) have been/will be proven right with more and more confirmation after all.:D

I guess we (guess who...) have been/will be proven right with more and more confirmation after all.

How do you figure that?

In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world? Less time spent teaching religious nonsense in preference of teaching "there is no god". In time nobody will care for the spoutings of ancient shepherds, but will be much more interested in hearing about atheism and how there is no god. A while after that, religion will be on it's way to extinction.

Here (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041028/325/f5hzl.html)

Any thoughts?

I think it's lame. Atheism is a label that people give to those whom don't
accept 'god' (this can be interpreted as acknolwedging 'god' exists but not
accpeting it, or not accepting the notion that 'god' exists). Either way it's
not a belief system (but it can arise from an absence of a belief system).
Quite simply anyone whom whom accept assertions as being true without hard
supporting / contradicting evidence is exercising a 'belief'. My take is that the
'education' provided may turn out to have an effect analgous to a gazillion
little kids thinking that 'evolution' is when a pokemon magically becomes a
bigger and stronger being within the course of a few seconds. It might lead
to more tolerance, but less comprehension.

How do you figure that?Simple actually. As a Christian, for me, Hinduism = atheism = any religious belief/disbelief/lack of belief apart from the belief in the God of Christianity. In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world?As I stated, welcome to the flock. Who know's Hinduism might be the dominant religion in time. I don't give a rat's ass about any other specific religion (atheism included). My Christian faith is what concerns me.Less time spent teaching religious nonsense in preference of teaching "there is no god". In time nobody will care for the spoutings of ancient shepherds, but will be much more interested in hearing about atheism and how there is no god.Funny statement. You are indeed the comedian. I imagine people sitting in school learning about the "booga mooga" that doesn't exist - valuable time spent.A while after that, religion will be on it's way to extinction.Atheism included of course. :) That link is one of the most informative posts I've ever seen from you. You did well. Have a nice day. :)

atheists are far more closer to grasp what "allah" refers to, than those having a preconception of god.
it may be a big step toward understanding the works of life and the laws of nature provided it does not involve necessarily rejection and resistance.

So what is After all the words spent trying to keep atheism from being considered a religion or a belief system, I would think atheists would be discouraged at the idea of a uniform atheism being taught.

It's poor company to be kept in, for certain, but if it serves to help kids realize that there are people out there who don't indulge in the frightening tails of mythical cosmic sky fathers who will seek vengeance against us if we break the status quo then I suppose it's worth it.

so long as it's taught fairly I don't see any problem. It should be mentioned that the term doesn't imply a reasoning for believing that there is no God, and should certainly include some of the common reasoning among atheists. . .such as the fact that they are Buddhists, or they put a high value on empiric evidence and the logical concept of burden of proof.

Simple actually. As a Christian, for me, Hinduism = atheism

Why should such a clearly theistic religion with so damned many gods be considered atheistic? Do we need to point you to dict.org so you can look up the term yourself?

I can certainly understand calling it paganistic/heathenistic or what have you, but atheistic? Stranger things have come from the mouths of Zealots to be sure, but this is a rather simple matter of semantics.

I think it's a bit presumptuous for you to speak for other Christians, many of whom I'm sure own dictionaries, or are even theologians and as such would disagree with your assessment of Hinduism.

I think it's absurd. Not all atheism is religion. Weak atheism and agnosticism are definitely not religions, although perhaps strong atheism could be defined as religious.

Are we a bit quick to jump to conclusions here? Is talk of atheism within the context of religious education necessarily an accusation that atheism is itself a religion, or simply an acknowledgement that the topic of atheism is in some way relevant to religion (which in a cultural sense it almost certainly is)?

I think it's absurd. Not all atheism is religion. Weak atheism and agnosticism are definitely not religions, although perhaps strong atheism could be defined as religious.

Not really. Strong atheism is not a religion because it doesn't involve worship, ritual, a set of beliefs, or anything of that nature. Most strong atheists feel their conclusion that there is no God is a result of logical reasoning, not faith. I fail to see how it could possibly be considered a religion.

I concur with you (the erk),that was an utterly stupid statement (mountain).

teaching atheism at school, however I can only see as a good thing, teaching children to have a more decerning palete can only make them see the flaws in religion, they will realise there is only one life, and life is precious, it will be the begining of an higher humanity with care and love and the end of killing.

Why should such a clearly theistic religion with so damned many gods be considered atheistic? Do we need to point you to dict.org so you can look up the term yourself?

I can certainly understand calling it paganistic/heathenistic or what have you, but atheistic? Stranger things have come from the mouths of Zealots to be sure, but this is a rather simple matter of semantics.

I think it's a bit presumptuous for you to speak for other Christians, many of whom I'm sure own dictionaries, or are even theologians and as such would disagree with your assessment of Hinduism.I would be embarrassed at such a post and delete it immediately. This is a vivid example of the atheist tendency to isolate, read out of context, and misinterpret. Dict.org won't help this. A lesson in grammar and literary devices might.

I would be embarrassed at such a post and delete it immediately. This is a vivid example of the atheist tendency to isolate, read out of context, and misinterpret. Dict.org won't help this. A lesson in grammar and literary devices might.

Although I understand that you meant, basically, "if it isn't the Christian God, then it's all equal to me", your post was worded quite badly. You're suggesting that he takes a lesson in literary devices? This is laughable. Next time, don't get upset when somebody misinterprets one of your totally ambiguous posts.

Simple actually. As a Christian, for me, Hinduism = atheism = any religious belief/disbelief/lack of belief apart from the belief in the God of Christianity.

Yes yes, the typical "everyone else is wrong but me" attitude. I didn't expect anything less. Before you over-inflate your ego; If we take a look at the actual questions and statements, we'd see we weren't talking about you.

You said that "we", (your kind), shall be proven right. I said how so, and you then wrote this irrelevant nonsense.

You still haven't answered my question, and talking about Hindu's as being as atheists to you, doesn't aid in any way whatsoever.

Let's try again shall we? How would the inclusion of 'teaching' atheism in RE classes "prove that we, (your kind), are right"?

As I stated, welcome to the flock. Who know's Hinduism might be the dominant religion in time. I don't give a rat's ass about any other specific religion (atheism included). My Christian faith is what concerns me.

Once more I can only say that the discussion was not about you. Let's try one more time for the hard of hearing:

"In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world?"

Impressionable children being taught that a lack of belief in god is normal, and safe can surely do more to damage religion than to aid it, or as you quoted "prove it right"?

The first response on this thread was by a guy who said this has been going on for a while in Germany. Is it a surprise then to see Germany very low on the list of countrywide religiosity? Do you think that could have contributed to a drop in religious belief? I mean, Germany is certainly a lot lower than England, and if England's overall religious beliefs start to dwindle as a result, what then? Oh I know, you'll just say you don't give a rat's ass, without realising this isn't about you

Kindly try and remember that there is more to life and more to this thread than just you. And if it's at all possible, try answering the questions. Thanks.

Funny statement. You are indeed the comedian. I imagine people sitting in school learning about the "booga mooga" that doesn't exist - valuable time spent.

Well, they sit in school learning about the "dead jew" that doesn't exist, so what's the difference?

However, on a serious note: Since when did atheism have anything to do with someone called "booga mooga"? And you dare call me a comedian?

Atheism included of course.

Oh c'mon, you've had several thousand years, and as time passes atheism grows - whereas the jesus camp becomes all the more vacant. What are you left with other than a few closet worshippers and some old grannies who like church bingo?

Then we must appreciate as science explains more, more and more people begin to understand life, and realise they don't need an invisible friend to guide them.

That link is one of the most informative posts I've ever seen from you. You did well. Have a nice day

I always have a nice day. Undoubtedly however, it would be a nicer day if you'd answer the actual questions.

MarcAC

First off, literary devices don't fly well at Sciforums. I know, it's tragic. But that's the way it is.

Secondly, literary devices are supposed to help clarify communication. Not all do, as you show quite clearly in your statements that "Hinduism = Atheism" and "Atheism included".

Of that latter point, you seem to be reaching for some sense of personal satisfaction, although that assertion could easily be countered by reconsidering the point about Hinduism; it could simply be that you're so wrapped up in theopolitik that you're suspending conventional definitions of words in order to feel superior about yourself.

The reality is that while the religions we see on the face of the planet certainly won't plague it forever, religion and religious thought are part of being human. Atheism aims only at God; atheists can be otherwise religious. One can believe in luck, in ghosts, or even legitimate miracles without necessarily invoking God. Of course, this reality is often too subtle for the "religious" (atheists included).

The idea of atheism as a religion is more complicated than it needs to be, and more complicated than some religious folk understand.

• Atheism is protected as a religion in the United States, as freedom of religion includes the freedom to have no religion, or to believe that God does not exist. Freedom of religion does not mean you have to subscribe to a given subset of theosophical considerations.

• Atheism is an anti-identification for most of the folks that would call themselves atheists; without a proposition that God exists, those atheists would merely be getting on with their lives instead of stopping to argue the superiority of their necessity.

• Atheism is a simple idea: that one lives without God, that there is no God, &c. Anything beyond that--and this according to atheists--is a separate issue entirely and inappropriate to include in a discussion of atheism.
- This actually creates an interesting problem wherein an atheist might appeal to a theist that there is no God, but will be unable to provide answers for the questions arising across the broad spectrum of what God represents to the religions; in other words, atheists, having no God except that which they identify themselves against, tend to underestimate the impact and influence of faith. It is well enough, as such, to say that no God exists, but without any objective anchor in the Universe, the idea that murder is wrong becomes just as much a trumped-up fiction as "Jesus saves". Unfortunately, those theists to whom the defeat of atheism matters most are not adept enough philosophers, sophists, or students to understand such subtlety. And the identifying atheists? By and large, they're too dense to care.
• The word "atheist" means "without God"; in any hair-splitting sense, yes, Hinduism = Atheism for the empty-headed. But then again, Christians, too, were called atheists for the simple reason that their vision of God was so absurd that it constituted no God whatsoever.
- I, personally, am prone to using a phrase--"shoebox God"--to describe the nature of a vast deity compressed into a single volume easily accessible in your average hourly-rate motel. In other words, if you don't know what to do with a hooker, there's plenty of advice in the Bible in the drawer. However, Christianity provided such a shoebox sense of God--a God so limited and impotent compared, for instance, to the principles (authority) that governed the "polytheistic" Greek and Roman pantheons, that it really does seem rather like comparing various pagan "Earth goddesses" (e.g. planetary deities) with a monotheistic demiurge said to include all time and space and will.

- The kind of "atheism" that "equals Hinduism" is the atheism perceived by egocentric myopia.

Most revealing, MarcAC, is the pleasure--that egocentric delight--you display without ever providing any basis; it merely reinforces the longstanding prejudice that theists, while human in their passions, think even less than their atheistic neighbors.

What can be taught of "atheism"? Nothing, aside from its central principle and an accentuation on moral relativity in the face of agnosticism.

"Baseball", these days, is more of a religion than atheism. College football (American) is more of a religion than atheism.

It will be most interesting to see how atheism is presented in the curriculum.

When you teach religion, the answer to why something is the way it is can always be traced--regardless of how many discussions of relevant factors one goes through--to God. Teaching atheism will be an adventure in the sense that there are no relevant factors to discuss.

The atheism portion of the class final exam should be a cinch.

I would be embarrassed at such a post and delete it immediately. This is a vivid example of the atheist tendency to isolate, read out of context, and misinterpret.

I give you my deepest apologies. I didn’t intend to misinterpret your words, but only to give the benefit of a doubt that you were not so blindly stupid as to ignore the reality of the situation, which you clearly are at least aware of, in favor of your own sense of self worth and religious hubris. I was mistaken.

snakelord :
I say its about time, they started teaching common sense, the world will become a better place.

Are we a bit quick to jump to conclusions here? Is talk of atheism within the context of religious education necessarily an accusation that atheism is itself a religion, or simply an acknowledgement that the topic of atheism is in some way relevant to religion (which in a cultural sense it almost certainly is)?

Mystech, I agree partially. However, isn't it also possible that many kids will jump to the conclusion that since atheism is being taught in a religion class, it is a religion? You and me both know that it isn't... but kids often jump to conclusions.


Strong atheism is not a religion because it doesn't involve worship, ritual, a set of beliefs, or anything of that nature

Religion is based on faith. It takes as much faith to claim with absolute certainty that a God does not exist as it does to say that one does exist.
Meanwhile, it is quite reasonable to ASSUME that one doesn't exist, due to lack of evidence. I would even go as far to say that the probability of one is existing is low. But I can't say, with 100% certainty, that a God doesn't exist.

When you define religion the way you did, strong atheism isn't a religion. Yet if religion = blind faith, then perhaps strong atheism does fall in that category.

stuff

Strong atheism doesn't mean you believe 100% that there is no God, and that you are sure about it.

It means that you think there is no God. Confidence is not part of the equation.

Great idea. All religion is based on nonsense sprouted thousands of years ago by the intelligensie of the time to control the masses. The ten commandments just seem to me to be a set of rules that any society would put together in order to stop anachy. The first one is what? don't worship a false idol. To me, this just means that if you find another religion, then we would lose our power base and hence our comfortable way of life. Or is that me being cynical? There is still as much proof for any god as there is for elves ,pixies , and faries. We are just an animal with a more developed brain than other animals. We are here ultimatly just to spread our genetic code on. Then we die. Thats it.Thats the reason i'm an atheist. :m:

Tiassa,
Perhaps it would benefit you (as well as the others posting) to read the article presented for discussion. Quote:

"In the framework, the government recommended the teaching of secular philosophies, such as humanism, for the first time, a Department for Education and Skills (DfES) spokesman said."

They are not teaching 'atheism' but secular philosophies. I think it only makes sense to offer a secular perspective in religious teachings.

Great idea. All religion is based on nonsense sprouted thousands of years ago by the intelligensie of the time to control the masses.
:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Actually all religion seems to be based in a belief of a supernatural being or so dictionary.com tells me anyway. Maybe they got it wrong???


The ten commandments just seem to me to be a set of rules that any society would put together in order to stop anachy. The first one is what? don't worship a false idol.


Well actually it is like this...


Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.


and in response to The Lord slotty replies (this is great. stay with me here) ...


To me, this just means that if you find another religion, then we would lose our power base and hence our comfortable way of life.


This is therefore a classic bit of self doubt ...


Or is that me being cynical?


Err thats you realising that God may be listening slotty. I hate to frighten you fella but HE IS ... dun dun daaaaaaahh!

But wait ...


There is still as much proof for any god as there is for elves ,pixies , and faries.


err slotty m8, HE IS STILL LISTENING

but hang on... slotty's intelligence to the rescue :rolleyes:


We are just an animal with a more developed brain than other animals.


Then slotty amazes us all and reveals that he is truly innocent after all :D


We are here ultimatly just to spread our genetic code on. Then we die. Thats it.Thats the reason i'm an atheist. :m:

Bless him. He didn't know The Lord was listening. Little lamb that slotty is.

peace

c20

you been told before, you dont psychoanalyse anybody it's rude.
so pack it in.

I don't have any self doubt dude, there aint no god anywhere looking at me, your the one who by the manner of your reply to my post , seem to be the one who is in doubt, not me. Whats this innocent bit about? Thanks for putting that commandment in there for me- it still says don't worship anyone/thing apart from me, ergo i'll lose my/our power base. It was written by humans not a god and most probably not at the time of any actual event, but years, decades later. So i would think its like a huge collection of Chinese whispers, everything getting changed little by little over time. Your not going to tell me that you actually think that there is an original copy written by your gods hand are you? :eek:

Nihilism's a belief system.
Empiricism's a belief system.
Solpilism's a belief system.

Simply not believing isn't actually a belief system.

However, atheism contains Nihilism, et cetera.

Sooo, GO RED SOCKS WOOO!!!

Perhaps it would benefit you (as well as the others posting) to read the article presented for discussion

'Tis a fine article, but your point misses my particular agenda in this topic.

"In the framework, the government recommended the teaching of secular philosophies, such as humanism, for the first time, a Department for Education and Skills (DfES) spokesman said."

They are not teaching 'atheism' but secular philosophies.

Indeed (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=703966).

My first post, although somewhat needling, is actually a legitimate question to me specifically in the Sciforums' context.

Atheism has been a contentious issue here. There was a time when even I argued alongside atheists the benefit of the diversity possible within atheism. But all that effort of claiming a higher intelligence and broader range of options eventually saddled Sciforums' atheists with too much responsibility for their tastes, and the argument was quickly reduced to the simplest argument possible.

At which point, you could literally ask one of our atheists what they could offer a potential new atheist that would compensate for the collapse of the moral foundation that occurs when one ejects God from their personal outlook, and suddenly atheists couldn't understand that point.

Which brings us 'round to the teaching of secular philosophies. Calling it "atheistic moralism" or "atheistic philosophy" is well enough, but teaching secular philosophies as "atheism" seems to define atheism according to what many atheists have made a point of stating it isn't.

I'm curious where those atheists are these days. Defining atheism as anything beyond a lack of belief in God seemed to offend them. I guess a state endorsement makes up for the new ideological confines.

What do you expect me to get out of reading the article again?

Tiassa,
Sorry, I should have quoted you:

"Teaching atheism will be an adventure in the sense that there are no relevant factors to discuss."

My point was that there ARE relevant factors to discuss.

Let me try to be as straight with you as I can. We have gotten hung up on this before I think. :)

-Think of the word 'religion'. It denotes many different belief systems, all with a belief in god(s).

-A person that is 'religious' can choose a particular subset of beliefs or not (see Deism).

-Religious topics can be taught by focusing on certain philosophies or belief systems.

Now,

-Atheism, like religion, denotes many different belief systems or lack thereof.

-A person that is an atheist can choose a particular philosophy/morality/etc or not.

-Atheist topics can be taught in a similar manner as religious studies, ie. focusing on a subset of 'atheism' like secular humanism or even ambiguous beliefs like pantheism.

Now on to some of your points:

"teaching secular philosophies as "atheism" seems to define atheism according to what many atheists have made a point of stating it isn't."

Analogy: Teaching Islam as religion doesn't 'define' religion as a whole.

"Defining atheism as anything beyond a lack of belief in God seemed to offend them."

Analogy: Defining religion as a belief in one creator and god will offend hindus. Summarizing an overarching group by a subset is sure to offend some. When talking specifically about 'atheism', you can either talk of its subsets or its commonality : lack of belief in god.

In summary, there is certainly much to be discussed and taught of atheism in religious education.

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT! c20 is correct, there is a god. He has shown his displeasure of me by seeing fit to fiddle with my car, for my sins he has made it impossible to get into reverse ..again!. :D

..."we", (your kind), shall be proven right. I said how so,.. Let's try again shall we? How would the inclusion of 'teaching' atheism in RE classes "prove that we, (your kind), are right"?My apologies; I sometimes, wrongly, assume that others and I are on the same wavelength. None-the-less, to give the a,b,c answer... many theists and even agnostics on this forum have contended that atheism is a religion... thus my previous statement. Whatever you mean by "your kind"... I suggest your erase it from you mind if possible."In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world?"

Impressionable children being taught that a lack of belief in god is normal, and safe can surely do more to damage religion than to aid it, or as you quoted "prove it right"?This statement would be a contradiction in terms. Atheism is a religious view. I was having so much fun I decided to drop that notion... I thought it was obvious.Is it a surprise then to see Germany very low on the list of countrywide religiosity?It wouldn't be low if it included atheism now would it? ;)Kindly try and remember that there is more to life and more to this thread than just you. And if it's at all possible, try answering the questions. Thanks.Does MarcAC seem that egotistic? One thing I do is speak for myself as much as possibe. I know there is more to life and people's beliefs than what I believe and I'm not of such arrogance to impose my beliefs on others, thus my reference to me, "as a Christian". I notice there is an atheist fraternity on this forum where the term "we" is often used to refer to "you" vs the theists - I recognise those as the ones who became atheistic through peer pressure and sheer rebellion - wagonists. I do hope you notice the "we" in my post did not refer specifically to theists it referred to those who have contended in so many threads before, that atheism is a religion.Well, they sit in school learning about the "dead jew" that doesn't exist, so what's the difference?You tell me... aren't you the one expounding on the major changes that will be effected once atheism is officially realised to be a religion?

Me and you both know who the "dead jew" is. What we don't know is who the "booga mooga" is... and you just missed the point;
However, on a serious note: Since when did atheism have anything to do with someone called "booga mooga"? And you dare call me a comedian?Why go on and on about something that doesn't exist? Don't you get it? Without God there is no atheism. I consider myself a comedian in the sense that I always try to highlight the humourous aspects of other people's posts.I always have a nice day. Undoubtedly however, it would be a nicer day if you'd answer the actual questions.Or try to make you understand the answers... 6 = 3 x 2... all depends on how you look at it. Have a nicer day. :)

MarcAC
Secondly, literary devices are supposed to help clarify communication. Not all do, as you show quite clearly in your statements that "Hinduism = Atheism" and "Atheism included".Very true... the '=' is an element of idiolect. Of course, read in context, the statement is rather clear, however some would try, as stated, to isolate, (mis)interpret, and therefore err.Of that latter point, you seem to be reaching for some sense of personal satisfaction, although that assertion could easily be countered by reconsidering the point about Hinduism; it could simply be that you're so wrapped up in theopolitik that you're suspending conventional definitions of words in order to feel superior about yourself.Intersting psychology. The fact is, the conventional definitions of words are being suspended, however, it is not to facilitate some feeling of superiority, but to bring a point across about a personal belief. It is generally unwise to speak for anyone but oneself. It is hoped one will notice the use of the personal reference in all cases?Freedom of religion does not mean you have to subscribe to a given subset of theosophical considerations.Yet one has to (subscribe to some anchoring set of beliefs) anyway; failing that one would be emotionally unstable and possibly seen as insane.Hinduism = Atheism for the empty-headed. But then again, Christians, too, were called atheists for the simple reason that their vision of God was so absurd that it constituted no God whatsoever.One would be careful with the former statement. The teacher will often communicate in language that he thinks the student will understand. He may use oversimplified terms but that doesn't mean his understanding is at the level of those terms. For a Christian, Hinduism may as well be the equivalent to atheism... because regardles... the Hindus don't believe in God according to Christians... that's why the post stated "as a Christian". It might have been better to include "may as well be equal to", however the onus was terseness. The equal goes for Hindus... in-so-far as they do not recognise God as a god. Of course, this restricts the definition of theism and atheism to the God that one believes exists.The kind of "atheism" that "equals Hinduism" is the atheism perceived by egocentric myopia.

Most revealing, MarcAC, is the pleasure--that egocentric delight--you display without ever providing any basis; it merely reinforces the longstanding prejudice that theists, while human in their passions, think even less than their atheistic neighbors.It would be assumed that 'egocentric myopia' = 'unbridled faith' in this sense? Of course, that myopic vision is easily reflected by even the use of the term in the first place. It was stated in the post previously that;
atheists... tend to underestimate the impact and influence of faith.The disparity between theistic and atheistic views on life and the implications when discussing should never be far from ones mind. Especially when such terms as "fantasy", "dogmatism", "arrogance/'egocentric myopia'", and the like are employed. Thus the usual references; "me", "I believe" and "as a Christian". Thus one should be clear that their notion of the view that 'Atheism = Hinduism' is an indication of "egocentric myopia" inherrently displays an "egocentric myopia" in their view of the whole issue, where, of course, one defines egocentricity as some function of faith (in oneself). Christians have faith in God. The whole idea is that the definition of a word or view may not be the absolute one which everyone will recognise. I would hope one employs their insights and doesn't only state them.

many theists and even agnostics on this forum have contended that atheism is a religion... thus my previous statement.

Religion:

1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

-- Well, atheists don't believe in a supernatural power regarded as creator and governer of the universe. As such, this definition of 'religion' does not apply.

2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

-- Atheists don't have any personal or institutionalized systems grounded in such beliefs and worships. As such, this definition of 'religion' does not apply.

3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

-- This cannot apply to atheists, because they're not in a "religious order".

4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader

-- This cannot apply to atheists because they don't have a set of beliefs or practices based on the teachings of a 'spiritual leader'. This however, is open to some petty debate.

5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

-- This could apply to anyone, from photographers to porn stars.

--------------------

As you can see, regardless to what some people have contended on this here forum, the dictionary would show that atheism is not a religion by any means. Ok, number 4 is slightly dubious, and number 5 can relate to anyone on the planet, but the definitions are overly against atheism being a religion.

As for atheism being taught in RE, it simply involves saying "some think god doesn't exist". This is a disagreement to a religious claim, not a religious claim.

Whatever you mean by "your kind"... I suggest your erase it from you mind if possible.

You kept saying "we", obviously referring to more than one of you, and as such I used "your kind", to refer to the "we" that you were referring to. I can erase it from my mind if you erase "we" from your mind, unless in future you explain who that "we" refers to exactly. Oh, and on the same post if possible instead of 2 pages later.

This statement would be a contradiction in terms. Atheism is a religious view.

No it isn't. So far all you've managed to provide in support of your claim is "some other people on this forum said it was". Come now, even you should understand it takes a little bit more than that. While I have become accustomed to religious people thinking something like that suffices, it doesn't make it any better.

I was having so much fun I decided to drop that notion... I thought it was obvious.

It was obvious? Why, because "some other people on this forum said so, and yes, even agnostics"? Lol.

It wouldn't be low if it included atheism now would it?

But it can't because atheism isn't a religion. Oops I forgot; you heard someone say it was..

Besides, now you're just being petty and ignoring the actual questions I posed. Is it possible once you have recovered from your need to do so that you could actually answer the questions?

Does MarcAC seem that egotistic?

Absolutely. What's with the third person btw?

I notice there is an atheist fraternity on this forum where the term "we" is often used to refer to "you" vs the theists

'our kind' vs 'your kind'?

I recognise those as the ones who became atheistic through peer pressure and sheer rebellion - wagonists.

I can't believe anyone would make such a nonsensical statement. Peer pressured into atheism? Actually I confess, just the other week a bunch of atheists knocked on my door, burnt a bible and said "believe there's no god or burn in hell!".

Just so you understand, I shall explain it to you. Kindly pay attention, because this information is important to know:

There's no evidence for any of it. Only a complete raving nincompoop would accept it and believe it because a book happens to say so. It is no different for anything else, or any other books.. From the vedas to the koran, from the enuma elish to the epic of gilgamesh.

There is no peer pressure, there is no rebellion.. There just is no evidence. Any sane individual would understand this completely. You can't just go through life saying "that's true" whenever something takes your fancy, be it gods, leprechauns, aliens, fairies at the bottom of the garden, or that Sauron is taking over middle-earth.

It is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard, and yet that's what people try to force me into. Giving up my sanity to believe the word of a dead shepherd without so much as a solitary droplet of evidence. It is without doubt the biggest act of lunacy much of humanity is afflicted with.

I guess to a degree you're actually right though. When someone tells me to become a mentally void individual, you're damn right I would rebel.

I do hope you notice the "we" in my post did not refer specifically to theists it referred to those who have contended in so many threads before, that atheism is a religion.

It doesn't matter who you refer to, you're still wrong.

You tell me... aren't you the one expounding on the major changes that will be effected once atheism is officially realised to be a religion?

I wasn't 'expounding' anything. I asked a question. They end with '?'. I was after your opinion, I wasn't giving a statement. I understand now though why you didn't answer it. It's because you were confused.

Me and you both know who the "dead jew" is. What we don't know is who the "booga mooga" is... and you just missed the point;

I also know who Harry Potter is and don't believe he's real either. What is your point?

Why go on and on about something that doesn't exist? Don't you get it?

This was your point?

I guess you haven't asked this before, or never payed attention to the answer. People make a claim - other people debate the claim. It's really quite simple at the end of the day. If your mother came up to you and said "I believe in fairies", yes you'd know what fairies are, but you'd still debate the issue, (most likely). If not, fair enough.. but debating a claim doesn't mean you believe in the claim - it actually means the exact opposite.

I hope this has solved your query.

Without God there is no atheism.

This is a fallacious statement. Let me correct it for you: Without the claim of a god/s, there would be no 'atheism' definition. Technically however, we'd all be atheists.

I consider myself a comedian in the sense that I always try to highlight the humourous aspects of other people's posts.

Admittedly I did call you a comedian. That doesn't mean I found you funny. Might I suggest you get better and more relevant material?

Or try to make you understand the answers... 6 = 3 x 2

You haven't even answered the questions, so there are no answers you can try to make me understand. Your post managed little more than to show me you haven't even grasped the very basics. Once you have successfully navigated this, we can move on to bigger and better things.

Have a nicer day.

I will when you finally manage to answer the questions properly.

Here you go again Snakelord ...

Refusing to enter the Kingdom of God yourself and making just as sure as you like that no one else will have it either. It is for this reason that I yoke you with the Pharisee's and for this reason I call you a viper. The very reason Jesus called the Pharisee's vipers. Look again ...

Matthew 12:34-37 - The New American Standard Bible

34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 "The good man brings out of {his} good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of {his} evil treasure what is evil. 36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Here you go again Snakelord ...

Cool. As I'm not on ignore, do you think you could manage to answer my questions in the other thread? Thanks.

Refusing to enter the Kingdom of God yourself and making just as sure as you like that no one else will have it either.

A) What do I have to do with anyone else getting into this supposed kingdom of god?

B) The refusal is based on the absolute lack of any evidence to support the claim. I'd give you the exact same answer if you asked why I don't believe in el chupacabra.

It is for this reason that I yoke you with the Pharisee's and for this reason I call you a viper.

Judge not others. Do jesus words have any meaning for you?

Matthew 12:34-37 - The New American Standard Bible

34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 "The good man brings out of {his} good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of {his} evil treasure what is evil. 36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Snakelord 1:1 - 1:10 - The New Snakelord book of sanity

There is no such thing as god, or mothmen, or martians. Toys do not come to life when you leave the room, nor does your car get possessed by demons and then fall in love with you. All of these lack any form of evidence whatsoever, and until such time where evidence can be provided, all of the above must, for any sane person, be confined to the "fantasy" room along with goblins, dragons and flying bananas. As a consequence, Matthew 12:34-37 is completely worthless, as is the rest of the bible.

5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

-- This could apply to anyone, from photographers to porn stars.They're all religious then.Ok, number 4 is slightly dubious, and number 5 can relate to anyone on the planet, but the definitions are overly against atheism being a religion.Atheists are on the planet...."some think god doesn't exist". This is a disagreement to a religious claim, not a religious claim...Regardless, they are included by default. Definition 5). Welcome to the flock.No it isn't. So far all you've managed to provide in support of your claim is "some other people on this forum said it was". Come now, even you should understand it takes a little bit more than that. While I have become accustomed to religious people thinking something like that suffices, it doesn't make it any better.It was obvious? Why, because "some other people on this forum said so, and yes, even agnostics"? Lol.But it can't because atheism isn't a religion...It doesn't matter who you refer to, you're still wrong.Refer to your quoted definition above. It seems you said it too in the 'canonical' dictionary quote.You kept saying "we", obviously referring to more than one of you, and as such I used "your kind", to refer to the "we" that you were referring to. I can erase it from my mind if you erase "we" from your mind, unless in future you explain who that "we" refers to exactly. Oh, and on the same post if possible instead of 2 pages later.Besides, now you're just being petty and ignoring the actual questions I posed. Is it possible once you have recovered from your need to do so that you could actually answer the questions?You haven't even answered the questions, so there are no answers you can try to make me understand. Your post managed little more than to show me you haven't even grasped the very basics. Once you have successfully navigated this, we can move on to bigger and better things.I would advise you to re-evaluate the "haven't answered" statements. I do not answer questions to which the answers are obvious and effectively irrelevant. Thus, my answer to the question about the low 'religiosity' in Germany; It wouldn't be low if atheism were included now would it? Now if you think for a while as is the characteristic attributed by some to atheists in general, I'm sure you'd get the point. I'm sure you know a rhetorical question may serve as an answer to a question or statement... as is illustrated below...'our kind' vs 'your kind'?Or try to serve as an answer... so when you stated 'your kind' you were referring to those who see the fact that atheism is under the religious umbrella. Fair enough.I wasn't 'expounding' anything. I asked a question. They end with '?'. I was after your opinion, I wasn't giving a statement. I understand now though why you didn't answer it. It's because you were confused.Less time spent teaching religious nonsense in preference of teaching "there is no god". In time nobody will care for the spoutings of ancient shepherds, but will be much more interested in hearing about atheism and how there is no god. A while after that, religion will be on it's way to extinction.I would advise you to hone your memory, to the standard of your thinking ability as assessed by some, in-so-far as you're an atheist. Dull memory leads to confusion.I also know who Harry Potter is and don't believe he's real either. What is your point?This was your point?I guess you haven't asked this before, or never payed attention to the answer. People make a claim - other people debate the claim. It's really quite simple at the end of the day. If your mother came up to you and said "I believe in fairies", yes you'd know what fairies are, but you'd still debate the issue, (most likely). If not, fair enough.. but debating a claim doesn't mean you believe in the claim - it actually means the exact opposite.I hope this has solved your query. This is a fallacious statement. Let me correct it for you: Without the claim of a god/s, there would be no 'atheism' definition. Technically however, we'd all be atheists.In your model, religious claims for God's existence fade away and only atheism prevails (see above). You get the point but it seems you're in some sort of denial. Are you saying that there would be atheism or there wouldn't be? What is the difference between an 'atheism definiton' (new phrase for me) and an atheist (focusing on the descriptive aspect)? Doesn't the definition of atheism apply to atheists? Interesting. You seem to be advocating the notion that if there are no claims of God existing... no 'god definition' God might still exist. I think you got a bit too technical there.Admittedly I did call you a comedian. That doesn't mean I found you funny. Might I suggest you get better and more relevant material?Only if the comedy were specifically aimed at you. I would refer you back to one of your posts above about "...you not being the only person in the world..." and "...it's not all about you..."... etc.I can't believe anyone would make such a nonsensical statement. Peer pressured into atheism? Actually I confess, just the other week a bunch of atheists knocked on my door, burnt a bible and said "believe there's no god or burn in hell!".

Just so you understand, I shall explain it to you. Kindly pay attention, because this information is important to know:

There's no evidence for any of it. Only a complete raving nincompoop would accept it and believe it because a book happens to say so. It is no different for anything else, or any other books.. From the vedas to the koran, from the enuma elish to the epic of gilgamesh.

There is no peer pressure, there is no rebellion.. There just is no evidence. Any sane individual would understand this completely. You can't just go through life saying "that's true" whenever something takes your fancy, be it gods, leprechauns, aliens, fairies at the bottom of the garden, or that Sauron is taking over middle-earth.

It is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard, and yet that's what people try to force me into. Giving up my sanity to believe the word of a dead shepherd without so much as a solitary droplet of evidence. It is without doubt the biggest act of lunacy much of humanity is afflicted with.

I guess to a degree you're actually right though. When someone tells me to become a mentally void individual, you're damn right I would rebel.Interesting nerve I hit there; I would invite the psychologist to offer a psycho-analysis. I would also invite you to be honest with yourself.I will when you finally manage to answer the questions properly.Or when you finally manage to understand... or maybe accept... the answers...

The fact is, the conventional definitions of words are being suspended, however, it is not to facilitate some feeling of superiority, but to bring a point across about a personal belief. It is generally unwise to speak for anyone but oneself. It is hoped one will notice the use of the personal reference in all cases?

Are you familiar with the theological concept that one of the few limitations of God is that It cannot be something that is mutually exclusive to itself? A classic rhetorical example is that God cannot make a "square circle" because the two definitions necessarily contradict one another. Another classic example is whether God can make a stone too heavy for God to lift.

Your personal belief is your personal belief, but it makes communication rather quite difficult when you randomly assign definitions to words.

Hinduism is a theistic assertion. You can call it infidel, pagan, false, whatever. But the one thing it is not is an atheistic assertion. Hinduism is just as atheistic as Christianity.

The teacher will often communicate in language that he thinks the student will understand.

:rolleyes:

Of course, this restricts the definition of theism and atheism to the God that one believes exists.

I wouldn't know where to begin with that one.

It would be assumed that 'egocentric myopia' = 'unbridled faith' in this sense?

No, it would imply egocentrism founded on an exceptionally limited sense of personal vision.

Such as your Hinduism/Atheism comparison. It's the same rhetorical device by which Christians were called atheists. As a Christian, it appears easier for you to just ignore all distinctions and hold everyone in equal contempt.

Why cut yourself off from communication? Why render your evangelization mute?

The disparity between theistic and atheistic views on life and the implications when discussing should never be far from ones mind. Especially when such terms as "fantasy", "dogmatism", "arrogance/'egocentric myopia'", and the like are employed. Thus the usual references; "me", "I believe" and "as a Christian". Thus one should be clear that their notion of the view that 'Atheism = Hinduism' is an indication of "egocentric myopia" inherrently displays an "egocentric myopia" in their view of the whole issue, where, of course, one defines egocentricity as some function of faith (in oneself). Christians have faith in God. The whole idea is that the definition of a word or view may not be the absolute one which everyone will recognise. I would hope one employs their insights and doesn't only state them

I suppose I should take the word of a Satanist like you, eh?

:rolleyes:

Look, if something's not worth your time to understand, it's not worth your effort to disrespect. When you pray to your Devil, do you pray that you might infect innocent minds with the ******** Gospel of your Dark Lord?

Or are you going to try to tell me there's a difference between you and a Satanist?

Because, frankly, having been both Christian and Satanist in the past, I can tell you they're pretty much the same damn thing. Although Satanism's just a hair more honest.

You know, I like this Satanic method of argument you've got going on. It's a lot easier than explaining that you're rather quite disrespectful and ought not take that tone with me.

:rolleyes:

I mean, look at yourself: you, you believe, as a Christian. So, as a Christian, you redefine words for your convenience in order to teach other people to think as simply as you do? The simple fact is that you're selfishly (egocentric) blurring what you see by insisting on recognizing only that which is in extremely near-orbit (myopia).

A circle is not a square; an apple is not an orange; a man is not a woman; a dog is not a cat.

You responded to the assertion that "religion will be on its way to extinction" with, "Atheism included of course". Now, maybe that felt as good as the smilie might suggest, but it's a dumb line because it's a contradiction in terms.

It should be simple enough, should it not, to point out that humans are religious and will continue to be?

But come the day that religion somehow becomes extinct, the word that will describe the condition of human thought as relates to God will be "atheisic".

Do you realize what you do to your evangelical-communicative potential when you muddle your terms intentionally because you think you should be able to?

So now I see Tiassa.
Has been both Satanist and Christian.

And you claim Tiassa that Satanism was more honest.
That is because you despise self-control and all the other fruits of the Spirit of God.
Yes Satanism is more aligned to your human nature but it is like a thief handing you a loaf of bread that he has taken and saying "See, it tastes much better when you havn't had to pay for it doesn't it"
You just nod and eat and say to yourself "Well it is true. I havn't had to pay for anything. The thief is right!"
And you call this honest. Tut tut.

Yo c20,

You are not judging are you? A honest Christian would know not to judge. You also now seem to know Tiassa and his nature intimately. Not cool.

Are you familiar with the theological concept that one of the few limitations of God is that It cannot be something that is mutually exclusive to itself? A classic rhetorical example is that God cannot make a "square circle" because the two definitions necessarily contradict one another. Another classic example is whether God can make a stone too heavy for God to lift.These are not limitations. If one knew of a way possible to do these then they may be considered limitations. A limit is defined by a comparison right?Your personal belief is your personal belief, but it makes communication rather quite difficult when you randomly assign definitions to words.It may be difficult, yes. But some things (word meanings) have to be assumed as rather obvious, and thus when one employs certain methods of communication one would expect that some other meaning may be intended (unless of course one just wants to go off into some random rant). For example: You finish playing a video game with your wife, you won, she says; "I hate you." What does hate mean? Will you then request a divorce?Hinduism is a theistic assertion. You can call it infidel, pagan, false, whatever. But the one thing it is not is an atheistic assertion. Hinduism is just as atheistic as Christianity.I hope you note the content and nature of your two statements, but yes, I see your attempted point. I will not be a difficult one today.I wouldn't know where to begin with that one.Oh it seems you do... Yes, that does suggest a great degree of dogmatism, but as is seen in the examples just above (quoted and stated), word meanings may be suspended to facilitate some form of communication.No, it would imply egocentrism founded on an exceptionally limited sense of personal vision.Any supporting comments? Or should it be taken on faith?Such as your Hinduism/Atheism comparison. It's the same rhetorical device by which Christians were called atheists. As a Christian, it appears easier for you to just ignore all distinctions and hold everyone in equal contempt.Yes it is, except the word contempt would not apply in this specific case. Regardless, this comment doesn't support the assertion above.Why cut yourself off from communication? Why render your evangelization mute?This is an odd comment if the meaning I get is indeed the intended one. The same method of communication which seems to be the object of criticism was employed in a quote above.Because, frankly, having been both Christian and Satanist in the past, I can tell you they're pretty much the same damn thing. Although Satanism's just a hair more honest.Any supporting comments on this or should the word of an admitted former Satanist be taken on faith?You know, I like this Satanic method of argument you've got going on. It's a lot easier than explaining that you're rather quite disrespectful and ought not take that tone with me.Care to expound? Or... see below...So, as a Christian, you redefine words for your convenience in order to teach other people to think as simply as you do?Is this the "Satanic method of argument" that is referred to, because, then, it seems some elements of Satanism are also present in the post being replied to - from an admitted former satanist - no big surprise.The simple fact is that you're selfishly (egocentric) blurring what you see by insisting on recognizing only that which is in extremely near-orbit (myopia).This statement (rather humorous) would indicate an intimate knowledge of the individual being referred to (almost being the person), in which case, rather obviously, it can be dimissed as a baseless rant. Unless, it seems, one is, again, in arrogance, and in the most partially sighted of ways trying to project their own self-analysis unto another individual? After all, this same method of communication was used above (just to rub it in).A circle is not a square; an apple is not an orange; a man is not a woman; a dog is not a cat.

You responded to the assertion that "religion will be on its way to extinction" with, "Atheism included of course". Now, maybe that felt as good as the smilie might suggest, but it's a dumb line because it's a contradiction in terms.

It should be simple enough, should it not, to point out that humans are religious and will continue to be?

But come the day that religion somehow becomes extinct, the word that will describe the condition of human thought as relates to God will be "atheisic".

Do you realize what you do to your evangelical-communicative potential when you muddle your terms intentionally because you think you should be able to?Amen former Satanist. Actually the point was brought across quite well as illustrated by the myriad of responses (in admonishment) to it. And yes, here the psycholofy makes some amount of sense - it was the most gratifying statement to state; "Atheism included of course" which really puts a twist on "contradiction in terms".

They're all religious then.

O...k. Perhaps they should start teaching people about porn movies in RE. That would most certainly take the students focus off sky daddy.

Atheists are on the planet.

Really?

Regardless, they are included by default. Definition 5). Welcome to the flock.

This is where the faulty brain slips up. By default you would have to include number 1 from the list, and there's a specific reason as to why it's number 1 on the list. While number 5 does include everyone on the planet, and as such, in your eyes, would make a serial killer religious by default, it is worthless without number 1.

Of course I get the feeling you already knew this but were just being silly in the hope that it would save you from the tremendous mess you've got yourself into by thinking atheism is a religion.

Refer to your quoted definition above. It seems you said it too in the 'canonical' dictionary quote.

If you can't figure it out by yourself, I can't help you do so. You'd probably complain once RE is full of stamp collecting lessons, train spotting lessons, and fellatio lessons.

I would advise you to re-evaluate the "haven't answered" statements.

Aww, you want me to cheer you up and say you have answered, even when you haven't? I can feel all that childlike innocence streaming from your pores.

I do not answer questions to which the answers are obvious and effectively irrelevant.

But if that's how you feel, then you shouldn't have butted into this thread.. no? So in essence you just came here to claim that "your kind" are right, even though you don't even understand the word 'religion' and nothing more? Some people..

Thus, my answer to the question about the low 'religiosity' in Germany; It wouldn't be low if atheism were included now would it?

But it can't because atheism isn't a religion. No more so than dog walking is a religion.

Now if you think for a while as is the characteristic attributed by some to atheists in general, I'm sure you'd get the point.

"In general" is completely irrelevant. In general people think ostriches bury their heads in sand. It doesn't change the fact that they don't.

I'm sure you know a rhetorical question may serve as an answer to a question or statement...

Sure, but your rhetoric is irrelevant and doesn't actually answer anything. While it 'may', yours 'doesn't'.

Or try to serve as an answer... so when you stated 'your kind' you were referring to those who see the fact that atheism is under the religious umbrella. Fair enough.

Fact? Come now, even you should know better than to do that.

I would advise you to hone your memory, to the standard of your thinking ability as assessed by some, in-so-far as you're an atheist. Dull memory leads to confusion.

I wonder why you're purposely being misleading. I'm sure you'd resort to your standard comment when you get yourself in a pickle: "It was just humour", but we both know that's not the case.

The text I provided was an example to the question, (which ends with ?). If you go back and look, you'll notice the question. It comes just before the example that highlights the question. I further wonder why, after going to such trouble to quote my text, you missed including the actual question. I find that quite cowardly. Here it is again:

"In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world?"

The thing is that RE aside, a large majority of children will be 'given' a belief by their parents, and will grow up in an environment where that belief is imprinted upon them daily. Many such children don't feel in a position to debate their parents ideals and beliefs, but perhaps the teaching of atheism would allow that. Once they realise that a person can not believe in a god, still have morals and still be accepted by society he might be more inclined to explore that angle of approach. It would perhaps be a refreshing change from all the "do as we say and believe this" he received as a child.

So, to ask again.. do you feel atheism being taught could perhaps hinder or damage religious views of the world?

In your model, religious claims for God's existence fade away and only atheism prevails (see above). You get the point but it seems you're in some sort of denial. Are you saying that there would be atheism or there wouldn't be? What is the difference between an 'atheism definiton' (new phrase for me) and an atheist (focusing on the descriptive aspect)? Doesn't the definition of atheism apply to atheists? Interesting. You seem to be advocating the notion that if there are no claims of God existing... no 'god definition' God might still exist. I think you got a bit too technical there.

You've lost the plot. It would seem that I did get a bit too technical for you, as you rightly state. Let me simplify it if I can..

If nobody believed in a god, they would technically all be atheists - but without any belief in gods, the term "atheist" would be redundant. As you've said, an atheist can only be defined because there are theists, and while an absolute lack of theists would technically make everyone an atheist, nobody would be using the term atheist. Is that less technical?

Interesting nerve I hit there

I apologise, but I am allergic to stupidity, and that's all your "peer pressure" comment promoted.

I would invite the psychologist to offer a psycho-analysis.

That happens to be my profession. Would you seriously like to me explain it all for you, or is this some more of your humour?

I would also invite you to be honest with yourself.

I would ask the same in return. Peer pressure... ehehehehe.

Or when you finally manage to understand... or maybe accept... the answers...

Or perhaps when you actually answer them.

And you claim Tiassa that Satanism was more honest.

Just a hair.

That is because you despise self-control and all the other fruits of the Spirit of God.

One of Satanism's vital faults it that it celebrates to what I consider an inappropriate degree the animalistic aspects of humanity. Nonetheless, Satanism does try to deal affirmatively with human nature, where Christianity vilifies it.

Additionally, although a minor point, Satan and God both appear in the Bible. One interesting difference is that Satan doesn't lie.

These are not limitations. If one knew of a way possible to do these then they may be considered limitations. A limit is defined by a comparison right?

I'll grant you that. I do not object. The point it lends to works just as well as it is. Mutual exclusion is a central theme.

Compared to the idea of "omnipotence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm)", what God cannot do must necessarily be intrinsically impossible. You'll notice two points listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance:

As intrinsically impossible must be classed:
1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.

New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm)

Both are to be applied practically; according to the first, God cannot sin, cannot reverse decrees, and cannot create an absolutely best creature. The second is quite obvious at the outset.

However, the first point, at least as the Catholic Encyclopedia has it, is questionable. Certainly, that God cannot sin is a result of God's authority in the relationship between sin and God. And the obscure point about an absolutely best creature essentially creates a comparison that could easily include it as a mutually exclusive element. But that God cannot reverse decrees--this is extrabiblical, both directly in the case of God repenting of Saul's kingship, and also insofar as arguments regarding free will often tread a dangerous line in comparing God's knowledge and wisdom--and thus also God's understanding and compassion--to human choices. One comes to realize that God, knowing what He knew, chose to create humans with the knowledge of what would happen at Eden, and thus intended that man should live in separation, dependent on Christ for salvation.

Which brings us to a common misconception: God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so. Many people tend to consider the idea of God committing evil out of harmony with the Goodness of God. Yet that's the point. Why did God call home a child? Worry not, for it is good. Why did God allow/cause/&c. an earthquake/locust swarm/&c.? Worry not, for it is good.

Hence the phrase: "The Lord works in mysterious ways".

Such as Genesis, or Job, or 1 Samuel. What God does, while sometimes evil, is not a sin.

At any rate, I digress. But then again, while it changes little of the aspect of this discussion it addressed, this point was about the only thing worth addressing in that post. Although I will make one other note:

Care to expound? Or... see below...

Actually, it would be better to look up a couple paragraphs:


Or are you going to try to tell me there's a difference between you and a Satanist?

Christian and Satanist describe two mutually exclusive things, at least in the sense we consider the square circle. However, Satanism and Christianity, being four-dimensional to the shapes' two, and being dynamic, are not independent of one another; while Satanism seems like a natural rebellion against the Christian yoke, it's more akin to sitting in one's room and sulking. The Nine Statements are actually more valuable for their humor than their wisdom; that ain't much.

The point being that it is equally as absurd for me to call a Christian a Satanist as it would be for me to call either an atheist. Regardless of one's opinion of the God they worship, there is a practical absurdity in calling the faithful atheist.

And such it is with abusive, demeaning assignations such as "Hindu = Atheism", although I defer to your acknowledgment of the point as well as your missing it.

This is where the faulty brain slips up. By default you would have to include number 1 from the list, and there's a specific reason as to why it's number 1 on the list. While number 5 does include everyone on the planet, and as such, in your eyes, would make a serial killer religious by default, it is worthless without number 1.I will leave you with that opinion and advise you to review a few dictionary definitions.

God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so.Interesting statement; you have God, evil, sin in it. The question is which is at the root; sin or evil or are they in essence one and the same? They both use God as the ultimate reference. They are referenced by God's will and are against it. God cannot sin, God cannot be evil. God will not go against God's will. God is good. God wills No square circles, as long as it isn't God's will.
-
Btw, I did see the net effect of your rantings (you disagree that they were?). However, the bolded parts of the quotes in my previous post seemed rather unrelated to the intended net effect. I think you fell into your own trap there but will we ever know...?

God is not good, if he is anything he is perfect.

God is not good, if he is anything he is perfect.I would contend God is good, but perfection doesn't exist.

I will leave you with that opinion and advise you to review a few dictionary definitions.

Any specific dictionary or were you just making a wild guess as to what these few dictionaries actually say?

But no, wtf am I thinking? Of course dog walking is a religion. Only a fool would think otherwise.. :bugeye:

The question is which is at the root; sin or evil or are they in essence one and the same

I see it differently: Evil is a relative result. What God does is good; yet God does not escape the results of His actions or decisions. To wit, Job: God does not escape responsibility merely because he sent Satan to do the job anymore than you or I would escape responsibility for someone's death were we to hire someone else to do it.

Does the child's death seem evil? Yes. Does God have His reasons? Yes.

However, the measure of sin is in the offense against God. Should God will leukemia unto the child, or perhaps a terrorist; the destruction of a life might seem evil, but as it is God's will, it cannot offend God.

Thus, God can order the extermination of an entire people (1 Samuel 15), and while genocide itself is evil, it cannot be said that the Jews sinned against God in carrying out His order; nor can it be said that God sinned against Himself in giving the order. In fact, the Bible records that the failure to carry out the genocide constituted a sin against God, who would repent of Saul's kingship over the matter.

What is there in all Creation that escapes God's authority? Neither Death nor Devil nor Nothing At All.

Is God extraneous? I sincerely doubt it. God does what He must, else He would do it differently.

Eden, for instance. And the giving of the Son.

God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so.

Since when did God stoop to mere man's level and start having double standards?

§outh§tar

Oh, pretty early on, I would imagine. By the end of Genesis 3, maybe.

Actually, how is it a double-standard? As I see it, it's a matter of definitions. In this case a double-standard only exists by isolating sin as a concept that exists without God. I accept that definition, but don't think it really applies to these considerations.

Since when did God stoop to mere man's level and start having double standards?
in regards to ...

God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so.

If we can start by accepting that God is 'love' I will explain the statement made so that you may be able to put it away safely.

Yesterday I was in a supermarket. My little boy (bless him) and I were leaving with our shopping in a cart down an escalator. My little boy is just 4 years old and is a fiery little character to boot. He has no fear when he is with me at all (Daddy will you come to the toilet with me, I am scared on my own).
The trouble is that because he feels no fear, he can get a little carried away and will run off. He did just that very thing. Now just at the bottom of the escalator are automatic sliding doors, I am sure you know the ones that I mean. This means that he could go straight through them without anyone physically having to open them and outside is a very very busy road.
I had to leave my trolly of shopping on the escalator (it is kind of stuck to the belt by magnets) and run hell for leather after him so afraid was I that he would run out into the road. I yelled angrily at him to stop and he turned and looked at me from the entrance of the automatic doors and he stopped (thank God). I took him by both hands (completely forgetting that my trolley was about to be delivered to me as it slid off the escalator) and admonished him strongly for running off, holding him squarely by his shoulders as I did so, furious that he had caused fright in me such as he did. He looked afraid because he could see the fear in my own eyes and started to cry ashamed of what he had done.
Just at that moment an elderly white haired couple walked into the shopping centre and both smiled at the scene that was before them i.e. a young dad telling his kid off for running away. The old lady said five words to me in all kindness, she said "You were like that once".
It could be said that I were a hypocrite for shouting at my son and making him cry because I too were the same once upon a time. It could be said that I was evil for shouting at him and making him shake when he was not aware of any wrongdoing, innocent child that he is. There are sentimentalists out there who would say that I have no right to punish a little innocent child and that it is 'evil'. But I saved him from certain death such was his will to be free.
I have absolutely no doubt that this will not be the last time this scene occurs. God tends to like things to go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round :)

peace

c20

Yo c20,

You are not judging are you? A honest Christian would know not to judge. You also now seem to know Tiassa and his nature intimately. Not cool.

I speak as I find and Tiassa speaks against the truth of the Gospel. If I am punished by God for defending the work of Christ so be it.
I cannot be any more honest than that.

peace

c20

I see it differently: Evil is a relative result. What God does is good; yet God does not escape the results of His actions or decisions.Sure, but relative to what? God's will right? Otherwise I do not understand what you would reference evil to as opposed to sin.Does the child's death seem evil? Yes.Why? But then, the disparities between the non-theistic and theistic (afterlife) views on life will ultimately end in disagreement on this issue.However, the measure of sin is in the offense against God. Should God will leukemia unto the child, or perhaps a terrorist; the destruction of a life might seem evil, but as it is God's will, it cannot offend God. But why or how does it seem evil? Because it just seems that way?

My view on this is that God's love is integral to God's nature. God's will is refernced to God's nature. Thus what is against God's will is against the 'harmony of love' which is integral to God's nature and that is the origin of sin and evil.

Thus the question then is; Does death in all cases go against that 'harmony of love'? I contend it doesn't. The only 'absolute evil' (if you will) is going against the Will of God; everything else is relative.

On a (humourous) side note, there is psychology and psycho-logy... and there are psychologists and psycho-logists. I find that one of the main motives to enter such a profession (psychology) is to understand oneself. I find it the most unnerving thing to discover logic in the mode of a psychopath's thinking (psycho-logy).

No ideology or religion should be taught in schools.

No ideology or religion should be taught in schools.

Jesus went further. He said "Dont call anyone teacher!"

Sure, but relative to what? God's will right? Otherwise I do not understand what you would reference evil to as opposed to sin.

Evil is relative to perception. It may well be God's will to call the child home, but a dead baby will seem an evil outcome to many nonetheless.

Why? But then, the disparities between the non-theistic and theistic (afterlife) views on life will ultimately end in disagreement on this issue.

The reason why depends on the person. But to God, it's all a matter of Will, and inherently Good. The perception of evil is invested independently of God's will. A discord of faith, it is perhaps the fruit of Eden.

There is an old philosophical tale that tells of the soul of a child, entering Heaven, who asks God why another soul ahead of him entered a higher plane of Paradise. "He had more time to do more of my work, and earn his reward in Heaven," explained God. "Why was I not given time to do your work?" asked the child. "Because," said God, "I knew that a disaster would befall you, and you would be led into temptation. I could not let that happen." Whereupon there came a mighty wail from down below, a chorus of the damned: "Lord, why did you not call us home before we were led into temptation?"

Regardless of the theological presumptions leading to its superficial value, there is a simpler, deeper current there: God moves in mysterious ways. An ageless principle reflecting the mysteries that move us to worship gods in the first place.

But why or how does it seem evil? Because it just seems that way?

I've been loath to ask a parent who has lost a child whether or not they got an answer when they asked God why it had to be their child. But even Job cursed the day of his birth. Evil is relative:

Thus the question then is; Does death in all cases go against that 'harmony of love'? I contend it doesn't. The only 'absolute evil' (if you will) is going against the Will of God; everything else is relative.

And thus is evil for you. While I find a certain abstract agreement, I generally don't leave it so simply, as that results in confusion over what the Will of God actually is. If people come to somehow understand God's will, less will seem evil.

But each person understands life differently: what they consider evil is the result of each person's experience and assessment. Even as a question of God's will, He reveals himself to each person according to their own understanding.

Evil is relative to perception...No disagreements. I do believe the Will of God guides us through an absolute morality (which I believe exists independent of our individual 'moralities' - dependent on culture society and what-not). I believe our task is to 'discover' or maybe 'tune into' that absolute morality which is governed by God's Will. Far from an easy task I contend, but then, that is one reason, I believe, God showed us grace in Jesus - to make the job a bit easier.

No disagreements. I do believe the Will of God guides us through an absolute morality (which I believe exists independent of our individual 'moralities' - dependent on culture society and what-not).

Okay. Good. We can work with that. Now, however, comes the tricky part, and for once I don't say that sarcastically.

• God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so. Many people tend to consider the idea of God committing evil out of harmony with the Goodness of God. Yet that's the point. Why did God call home a child? Worry not, for it is good. Why did God allow/cause/&c. an earthquake/locust swarm/&c.? Worry not, for it is good.

• However, the measure of sin is in the offense against God. Should God will leukemia unto the child, or perhaps a terrorist; the destruction of a life might seem evil, but as it is God's will, it cannot offend God.

• In this case a double-standard only exists by isolating sin as a concept that exists without God.

• Even as a question of God's will, He reveals himself to each person according to their own understanding.

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 5.18-26 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvMatt.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=5&division=div1)

In the famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs that one who is angry with his brother will answer divinely, and that one should seek to reconcile with their accuser.

Do we remove God from the equation between brethren? Is it merely the sin of one against the other? Is there not an actual truth, despite what either might believe, that is known to God? Does that actual truth matter at all?

Catholics teach the young (http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/html/article149.html) that sin is "a deliberate turning away from God and God's goodness" Sin is, in 1 John, "lawlessness (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Rsv1Joh.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=3&division=div1)" or transgression of the law. Who would argue that this law referred to is not the law of God? 1 John 3.15-20 reiterates Jesus' explanation of redemption in Matthew 25.31-ff (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvMatt.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=25&division=div1). The offenses we commit against one another that constitute sin are deemed sinful because they offend God. Whatsoever any one of us does or does not do unto the least of His brethren, so also we do unto Him.

To remove God from the equation, sin becomes mere offense. Perception of offense, as anyone who has spent more than a day or two around Sciforums is well aware, is thoroughly subjective. And it's not just our corner, either. It's the rest of the world as well.

Thus the perception of offense is individually invested; the individual perceives that s/he has been sinned against; the stain of evil is in the eye of the beholder.

God can be evil, if that's how one chooses to perceive God, for He reveals himself to each according to the gifts He has bestowed upon them; that is, according to His will and the individual's faculties for understanding. But it does not mean that God has committed any sin.

It’s fine to argue about whether or not atheism is a religion, but in the end it’s just a pointless semantic argument.

The real ideological conflict here is quite simple; either you believe in god, or you don’t. How you choose to define ‘religion’ or ‘belief system’ is rather beside the point.

No disagreements. I do believe the Will of God guides us through an absolute morality (which I believe exists independent of our individual 'moralities' - dependent on culture society and what-not). I believe our task is to 'discover' or maybe 'tune into' that absolute morality which is governed by God's Will. Far from an easy task I contend, but then, that is one reason, I believe, God showed us grace in Jesus - to make the job a bit easier.

Apparently as we look in retrospect, grace from Jesus has not been effective as the epistles would have us know. Of course, I understand the retort is: those weren't genuine Christians.

If granted God has offered us grace through the work of the cross, it certainly is a shame that He was not mighty enough to share it with West Africans and South Americans in a timely manner.

Apparently as we look in retrospect, grace from Jesus has not been effective as the epistles would have us know. Of course, I understand the retort is: those weren't genuine Christians.

If granted God has offered us grace through the work of the cross, it certainly is a shame that He was not mighty enough to share it with West Africans and South Americans in a timely manner.

But who are you, a human being, to question the will of Almighty God?

Romans 9:19-23 “You will say to me then, ‘Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will’ But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--”

a non-existant thing has no will, so what is he questioning again.
I would like to see a non-existant thing show its wrath, now that would be a feat.
tell us when it's going to happen, and we'll get the worlds press to record it.
no that would be a waste of time, as you would'nt be able to see it.
smite me, smite me NOW.




ouch, arrgggg.__________________________________________ _____

a non-existant thing has no will, so what is he questioning again.
I would like to see a non-existant thing show its wrath, now that would be a feat.
tell us when it's going to happen, and we'll get the worlds press to record it.
no that would be a waste of time, as you would'nt be able to see it.
smite me, smite me NOW.




ouch, arrgggg.__________________________________________ _____

You are like a worker whose boss has left for the day, saying to yourself "See there is no one around. I can do what I like, who is going to punish me."

How terrible it will be for you when the boss returns and finds you have done nothing.

You are like a worker whose boss has left for the day, saying to yourself "See there is no one around. I can do what I like, who is going to punish me."

How terrible it will be for you when the boss returns and finds you have done nothing.

Its seems like you would derive an emense amount of pleasure if your non existing god would return and catch us all skiving. All your posts seem to say the same "look god there the ones, they don't believe in you , not like me god ,i told them but they would'nt listern,are you going to punish them now? can i watch? can i help? me,me me god i'll do it !" Do you not understand, if we are atheist, it means we do not. Now open your mind REALLY wide here, absorb these words, i repeat ,atheists do not believe in god. Therefore your theats of swarms of locusts, boils , and other such nonsense is not really going to sway us into thowing ourselves prostrate before a nonexistent entity :rolleyes:

Therefore your theats of swarms of locusts, boils , and other such nonsense is not really going to sway us into thowing ourselves prostrate before a nonexistent entity :rolleyes:

Then you will not be bothered in the slightest by what I say. You will just let me continue in my merry way :)



Revelation 20 :: New International Version (NIV)

The Dead Are Judged

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Given that the dead will be judged as written in the book of life need you fear this?

15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

just a thought. No need to prostrate yourself. You might do yourself an injury ;)

How terrible it will be for you when the boss returns and finds you have done nothing.

"Terrible" would have no relevance if your boss was 'all-loving'.

It's always strange to see the religious person use the word "love" whenever they so get the chance, and yet have no idea as to what actual love is. To further explain their warped view of what 'love' is, they speak of terror, hell fire, wrath and judgement - all of which are meaningless to 'love'.

this is me calling c20 from hell, I was smited earlier.
it's great down here all the best people are down here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39484
check it out and come and join us. we wish you were here. the devils awaiting his best deciple.

"Terrible" would have no relevance if your boss was 'all-loving'.

It's always strange to see the religious person use the word "love" whenever they so get the chance, and yet have no idea as to what actual love is. To further explain their warped view of what 'love' is, they speak of terror, hell fire, wrath and judgement - all of which are meaningless to 'love'.

Do you take the pis* out of someone who is all-loving towards you? And if you do, how long do you think they should show you grace for? How long should they be patient with you? Forever?

If you say 'Yes of course, forever!', should you really continue to take advantage of their patience? Is that loving on your part?

Awaiting your response

c20

Do you take the pis* out of someone who is all-loving towards you?

It would be inconsequential to the 'someone' who is 'all-loving'.

I am 'all-loving' when it comes to my daughter. She could be rude to me, hit me and so on, but it wouldn't change any aspect of my love towards her in the slightest. If it did, then I could no longer be classified as being 'all-loving' when it comes to my daughter.

And if you do, how long do you think they should show you grace for? How long should they be patient with you? Forever?


Yes, forever. If now you claim 'all-loving' has boundaries, then it's no longer 'all-loving'. We are just humans; imperfect and ignorant. Invariably there will be times that we don't do the best things, don't make the best choices, and indeed do not reciprocate love that is shown to us. However, this can in no way affect 'all-loving', and if it did, then it wouldn't be 'all-loving'.

If you say 'Yes of course, forever!', should you really continue to take advantage of their patience? Is that loving on your part?

As mentioned above, not reciprocating something is inconsequential to 'all-loving'. Whether you should take advantage or not, doesn't mean anything from the perspective of 'all-loving'. It would be 'all-loving' regardless to what you did or felt.

Let me post a story I wrote and see what opinions you have concerning it. It is a mere first draft and is not finished. Anyway, let me know what you think.

----------

'Perfection'

Many people have told me that in order to find God, one must seek him. To me this has always seemed somewhat bizarre a notion. The world’s most powerful, and arguably the world’s most loving being, and he resorts to hiding in the shadows. This being that many would claim is the source of light, seems more comfortable in the darkness, in the void where man cannot reach.

However, I came to the conclusion that God is somewhat similar to Bigfoot. Three hundred years Bigfoot has roamed this planet, and yet he has only been seen a dozen times. Those of us who truly seek Bigfoot must truly search for him. You don’t just wake up one day and find Bigfoot, so there’s no reason to believe God would be any different. And so eventually I found myself searching: I looked under the sofa, I shuffled through the closet, and I picked up every rock that lay in my garden for sign of this being. I bought a submarine and explored the depths of the ocean, I stole the Hubble Space Telescope to view the depths of the big black expanse above us, and I purchased a dune buggy that was on special offer in Toys R Us to search the arid desert regions. All of this ended up in futility, and having explored this planet and beyond to an extreme degree, I couldn’t even find a molecule going by the name of God.

And then my son died.

You would be amazed at how sobering the death of a son can be. You would be amazed at how many questions scurry through your mind like ants on a summer night. You would be amazed at how much you need answers. There was no anger, which comes later in the process, just a general lack of understanding. I asked the doctors, and they gave me an explanation. I asked the priest who also gave me an explanation. I asked the rabbi, the philosopher, the Buddhist, the man who painted my fence and the woman at the bus stop. All of them gave me an answer. As you will know, no human is perfect, and yet they all answered me. The one being that is perfect declined from comment. What does this say of perfection?

When I really sought an answer, everyone helped. God hid. When I really needed help, everyone tried their best, even with all their imperfections. God hid.

What do we conclude about the all loving, perfect being that seems to find hide and seek so enjoyable, even at a time when man is at his very lowest? Do we claim him loving or caring, or even all knowing, when at best he cannot help when people ask, he cannot speak when people need to hear, he cannot feel when people need a shoulder to lean on?

I would of course dare one man to say I was not humble. To that man I would ask he experience the death of a son to know what humility is. To know what it is like to be powerless, and yet to seek answers, and to seek help. I did just that, and those who answered did not hide, but became more visible. God just crawled further into the void. It was incredible to see all the people that came to me. They did not ask that I seek them and they did not ask that I must find or want them. They came to me without asking, and simply out of love and out of kindness. Where was God through all of this? Nobody knows. Perhaps he was vacationing in a galaxy far far away. The strange thing is though, that my mother, who was vacationing far far away, still managed a response.

The very word ‘love’ becomes as worthless as a car with no wheels, and ‘perfection’ can only be seen in the imperfect. And so we have something to think about. In this case, isn’t the imperfect perfect? And isn’t the perfect imperfect? Where the perfect has failed, which goes against the very definition of perfect, the imperfect has succeeded. While we have no need to expect anything from imperfection, that luxury does not extend to perfection which by very definition does not have a choice in the matter.

I have the feeling that eventually I will meet God and ask him why he wasn’t there when I needed him most. To this he will undoubtedly respond: “Nobody’s perfect”.

---------

You love your son. Love never fails. Ever! Although you do not see him now, you know that the love between you can never be seperated. Love never dies you see. This is the simple message of Jesus in which I have FAITH. Ressurection is the HOPE of the Christian.
We all LOVE our families. Whether taken early or living to old age, our LOVE for our family is a very very blessed thing. I cannot accept that LOVE perishes. It must not. It is GOOD. What is mortal must be made IMMORTAL. This is the Good News that the Christian tried to share. It is hard for the Christian to overcome unbelief. It is a constant battle for him, until he dies himself and returns to dust.

God bless you and your son.

peace

c20

God can be evil, if that's how one chooses to perceive God, for He reveals himself to each according to the gifts He has bestowed upon them; that is, according to His will and the individual's faculties for understanding. But it does not mean that God has committed any sin.Interesting sentiments - the key differences in our views, it seems, being these;
You seem to take that evil might not be a sin, however, in Bible verses too numerous to isolate evil and sin are one and the same - and I will concur with them. You seem not to want to isolate sin from God (impossible in any event), but you will isolate evil - I differ - I cannot isolate sin or evil from an offence against God's will because then, in your scenario evil becomes beauty. To some a snake can be a beautiful creature, or it can be one of the ugliest, scaly, most disgusting venemous creatures on the planet. You state sin is an offence against God... or do you state it's an offense against the individual? You don't know? I say it's both; an offense against God's creature is an offense against God, hence Jesus' words. Thus when you state an offense is a relative perception, yes, it is true to some degree, but the basic idea is to show love for your fellow human. You seem to read the text you quoted with a surface understanding. Nowhere does it indicate that an offense, although relative to perception, doesn't have an absolute quality; the lack of love and in that the lack of respect.
Matthew 5: 23-24 - CEV - "23. So if you are about to place your gift on the altar and remember that someone is angry with you, 24. leave your gift there in front of the altar. Make peace with that person, then come back and offer your gift to God."
Be "reconciled to your brother", "make peace with that person". The trick here is to realise that you can be one person, or the other. Hence Jesus, words about the Eukaryotic cell in my eye and the California Redwood in yours, do unto others..., the statements about humility, the parable of the man who was thanking God for how righteous he was compared to the other. It's all a self-check routine. Check yourself; be humble, love yourself, love others, love God. The statement "do unto others etc." ultimately leads to a harmonic existence, if only it was followed - even in such an existence (however) some are still doomed to isolation from God (leave them to their beliefs) - such is the case when you isolate, (mis)interpret, err.

You love your son. Love never fails. Ever! Although you do not see him now, you know that the love between you can never be seperated. Love never dies you see. This is the simple message of Jesus in which I have FAITH. Ressurection is the HOPE of the Christian.
We all LOVE our families. Whether taken early or living to old age, our LOVE for our family is a very very blessed thing. I cannot accept that LOVE perishes. It must not. It is GOOD. What is mortal must be made IMMORTAL. This is the Good News that the Christian tried to share. It is hard for the Christian to overcome unbelief. It is a constant battle for him, until he dies himself and returns to dust.

God bless you and your son.

Alas, it seems the very point is lost to you.

From site:
"LONDON (Reuters) - The government has endorsed the teaching of atheism as a belief system for the first time, in a religious education plan warmly welcomed by the country's religious groups."

Huummm.... two things that I've "learnt" from this statement.
1) Atheism is a belief system.
2) Religious groups are tolerant to atheism. Is atheism tolerant to religious groups?

Alas, it seems the very point is lost to you.

Not at all. I have lost a daughter, my first born, albeit in a different way. I do not give up hope but rather trust that things will be made good. I am sorry for you. It must be terrible. It is terrible. But you must trust in the love in your heart that burns so very very brightly for your son. It is not a perishable thing, and whilst we are perishable now, we will be made imperishable then. This is the Good News of The Christan Faith that I share with you. Jesus made it possible for us. His ressurection means we will be ressurected. Without the ressurection the message of Jesus is nothing at all.

God is good. Do not doubt Him. You will see. Father God knows your heart. He is a Father too.

There is no need for you to repent. You are innocent of wrongdoing. He calls you "Innocent". God is love. I hope you open up to Him from your heart.

Blessings upon you and your household

c20

As I said, you didn't even get the point. You can say the story is good, or the story is shit, but I really don't want your preaching.

I think we need Ned Flanders in here :)

"And when you tell this people all these words, and they say to you, 'Why has the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? What is our iniquity? What is the sin that we have committed against the LORD our God?' then you shall say to them: 'Because your fathers have forsaken me, says the LORD, and have gone after other gods and have served and worshiped them, and have forsaken me and have not kept my law, and because you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, every one of you follows his stubborn evil will, refusing to listen to me; therefore I will hurl you out of this land into a land which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor' . . . .

Jeremiah 16.10-13 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvJere.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=16&division=div1), RSV

For the record, in the English language, the word "evil" in 16.10 appears as "terrible things" in the New Living Translation, "calamity" in the New American Standard, "disaster" in the New King James, and "evil" in the King James, Revised Standard, Webster, Robert Young, J. N. Darby, American Standard, and Hebrew Names versions (see BlueLetter (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1099991896-6825.html#10)). The Hebrew (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1099992448-8123.html#10) is translated to "evil", as well.

Note that God will not respond, "Because it is not evil," but rather, "Because you have forsaken me". God has no qualm with the idea of visiting evil upon a people.

Nonetheless:


You seem to take that evil might not be a sin, however, in Bible verses too numerous to isolate evil and sin are one and the same - and I will concur with them.

Pick a few. Running through a concordance of "sin" and "evil" isn't the most profitable research.

You seem not to want to isolate sin from God (impossible in any event), but you will isolate evil - I differ - I cannot isolate sin or evil from an offence against God's will because then, in your scenario evil becomes beauty.

Why would God's will not be beautiful?

Even if you manage to walk perfectly in the steps of Christ (admittedly impossible), you will still manage to offend some people, hurt their feelings, alienate them, &c. Have you really sinned against them? Perhaps they perceive evil, but have you truly offended God by walking in the steps of Christ? I would think that rather silly, though I am the one who reminds that God moves in mysterious ways.

Nothing in Creation should be expected to inherently make sense to us. One of the greatest unspoken arguments against the Bible in general is the literary principle that truth is necessarily stranger than fiction because fiction must necessarily start making sense at some point. Reality is not similarly obliged. What makes sense to God has no obligation to make sense to you or me.

You seem to read the text you quoted with a surface understanding. Nowhere does it indicate that an offense, although relative to perception, doesn't have an absolute quality; the lack of love and in that the lack of respect.

Do you think God's up on high getting heebie-jeebies every time sodomites go at it? The lack of love and lack of respect qualifies as a sin specifically because it is conduct off the beaten track of God's love. It is a choice to conduct oneself in a manner not reflecting God's will, which was the whole damn problem at Eden. In the end, Grace will come from God, from the forgiveness of Christ's love. The judgments of human minds are merely that. In offending the brother, one also offends God. If the brother is offended for no reason, angry by false pretense, it is still a good thing to make peace with h