Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths

[Ray Jones]

Well then I'm not sure what we were supposed to walk away with from this:

And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour.

I'm not sure how you are reading "I'll refuse to change position/consider evidence" into this? Where is it written that if I am given proof for the existence of a entity commonly know as "god", and accept it, I will also have to accept religion? That's what we are supposed to walk away with from this.

 

Since I'm not sure what you're arguing, I don't know if I would agree.

See above.

[Rogue Warrior]

If we can go back to what I was saying, I have a mate in the church community. His grandfather was a baptist minister, as much of a Christian as you can be, he left because of their attitude. A girl he knew left because of their attitude as well, and he wonders himself about remaining in the church. Yeah, okay, they might be weak minded fools who believe in god. My point is that I would hate people to turn away from atheism or be put off it to begin with because of their attitude, especially if I were to be the one responsible for it.

[Achilles]

I'm not sure how you are reading "I'll refuse to change position/consider evidence" into this? Where is it written that if I am given proof for the existence of a entity commonly know as "god", and accept it, I will also have to accept religion?

Ray Jones said:

And I said any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says.

 

Main Entry: re·li·gion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

 

Perhaps we simply have an instance where you said something other than what you meant to convey. It happens.

 

If we can go back to what I was saying, I have a mate in the church community. His grandfather was a baptist minister, as much of a Christian as you can be, he left because of their attitude.

Still a christian? If so, then I'm not sure how this applies.

 

My point is that I would hate people to turn away from atheism or be put off it to begin with because of their attitude, especially if I were to be the one responsible for it.

Best of luck with that.

 

AbE: Hey, and in the interest of getting this thread back on topic, here's a clip on "christian tolerance" by one of my favorite vloggers:

 

[Ray Jones]

I'm not sure how you are reading "I'll refuse to change position/consider evidence" into this? Where is it written that if I am given proof for the existence of a entity commonly know as "god", and accept it, I will also have to accept religion?

Ray Jones said:

And I said any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says.

So "any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says" equals "who accepts evidence for god to be existing has to accept religion?

 

Main Entry: re·li·gion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

And? Did you read me say worship, devotion, or faith anytime? Wouldn't evidence for god to be an existing entity kill god's supernatural status?

 

Perhaps we simply have an instance where you said something other than what you meant to convey.

Naaaah. You may misconceive my meaning, and thus I maintained a small graphic:

 

[Rogue Warrior]

Are you still on about me being Nancy? Okay, anyone buy a birth certificate?

 

Removed copy of document for safety/security reasons. --Jae

[Achilles]

So "any valid proof for any god must not mean that at least one of the religions is right with what it says" equals "who accepts evidence for god to be existing has to accept religion?

I'm asking you to clarify your argument. You can do so however you would like

 

This is the one I'm still stuck on:

"And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour."

 

And? Did you read me say worship, devotion, or faith anytime? Wouldn't evidence for god to be an existing entity kill god's supernatural status?

Indeed it would, but this wasn't about natural vs. supernatural status, rather existence vs. non-existence. Your argument seemed to be that you would continue do deny god's existence even if you had evidence. If this is not what you meant to convey or if you feel that I somehow misconstrued your argument, please just say so.

 

Naaaah. You may misconceive my meaning, and thus I maintained a small graphic:

Entirely possible

 

Like the cartoon! Hope god doesn't end up with back problems later in life. Oh wait...

[Ray Jones]

I'm asking you to clarify your argument. You can do so however you would like

 

This is the one I'm still stuck on:

"And seriously present me some proof for god or spiritual experiences all you want, no religion would be an option for me, even if god was my neighbour."

The figure has it all: proof of existence, neighbourhood, and no religion.

 

The 'spiritual experience' is on it too, but later. XD

 

Your argument seemed to be that you would continue do deny god's existence even if you had evidence.

Well, I'm not the type of guy who ignores evidence. Even less if it's evidence of boobs.

[Rogue Warrior]

Looking at the Ethical Atheist site again I see some posts that suggest people get off on upsetting others. There is even a thread that specifically states this. I turned to atheism because I consider it more moral than religion. How can we claim to be moral in light of this?

[Achilles]

How can we claim to be moral in light of the behavior of others? Not sure I understand the concern.

[Rogue Warrior]

I fear their actions may reflect poorly on atheism as a whole.

[Samuel Dravis]

Rogue, what other people do does not really matter for your actions to be moral (or not). You can't say that since some atheists are immoral, then all of them are - just as you can't say the same of religion. Similarly, no one could claim that since some atheists are moral, all atheists are moral. The conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises.

 

Does the actions of the few reflect poorly on the rest? Sure. That doesn't mean that it should be this way, however. Actions should not based on what some other atheist (or anyone else!) does or doesn't do - and if they aren't, then that "poor reflection" simply prejudice talking.

 

I think that atheists are perhaps more capable of being moral than someone dogmatically religious, due to their not being entirely free to act on their own volition. This being said, atheists are just as fallible as the next person, so I wouldn't count on them for an example unless you've examined and understand the reasons for their actions. Whether that example is good or bad depends on the person, not on their religious status.

[Rogue Warrior]

Hmmm, that is quite wise. It makes me wonder about pointing out religious acts and going 'see, see, religion is evil.'

[tk102]

Hmmm, that is quite wise. It makes me wonder about pointing out religious acts and going 'see, see, religion is evil.'

 

So would you say post #114 in this thread was one you made in your younger, naive days?

[Rogue Warrior]

By that should I be acting like we are at war against religion.

[tk102]

I don't think you should be acting like anyone other than who you are.

 

Do you or do you not feel that religion is evil and should be wiped from the earth? Were you joking when you wrote that or serious? If you say something one post and then reverse it another, you should provide explanation as to why so that you do not come across as nonsensical.

[Rogue Warrior]

I stand by my comment, and am content to simply state my stance on religion. I, this is just be by the way, do not feel the need to archive and pick faults.

[Rogue Nine]

You know, your 'friend' Nancy used to do the same exact thing. When confronted by a pointed statement or question, she would sidestep it by saying something nonsensical and/or ignoring it completely and starting down the road to a new topic.

 

This charade is getting really old, Nancy.

[Rogue Warrior]

How did I not answer the question? For that matter, if you are still on about me being Nancy then what would it take for me to prove I am not?

[Ray Jones]

What do you know about this thing called "Internet Protocol address"?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Check. If they match, she's a sock puppet. Otherwise, drop the subject.

 

The staff is evaluating the situation. Back on topic everyone, please. --Jae

[Ray Jones]

Call me whiny weener winnie, but is that always my posts gettin' deleted??? ;_;

 

 

XDDD

 

to the ontopic:

 

[Rogue Warrior]

Christianity is a religion of tolerance is it? If so then why is a girl tormented in the church community and when she leaves the members go on a character assassination?

[Ray Jones]

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask this particular question to the church community in question?

[Rogue Warrior]

A mate saw this and asked about it. The answer was there were a lot of new Christians finding their way. I dunno, does that excuse their actions or give atheists a big stick to beat them over the head with?

[Ray Jones]

Err, what? Would you mind to rephrase?