Atheists hope (don't pray) to bring ads to Toronto (G&M)

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Digi... er.... I mean "discreet", following that statement (which you edited out), I explained why he couldn't make that claim. We both have every right to claim what we want and then back it up.

i'm pretty sure my claim is backed up by having an evolutionary explanation.


tell me this, why do children, that do not know how to speak or understand words, why do they share? and do good things? where do their morals come from? from the words of jesus? but how? they can't read or understand language. you said morals come from the words, how is the goodness of a child ignorant of christianity possible?

 

[urbanboom]

LUKE 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This is in reference for Jesus to help those who were lost. Matthew was a roman tax-collector, the most hated and most corrupt members of that society. Yet Jesus called upon him to be saved. The man repented and became his disciple. The ones who are filled with the most hate, can also be filled with the most love.

 

[discreet]

following that statement (which you edited out),

I can't edit your posts.

 

[urbanboom]

I can't edit your posts.

I said "you can't claim that they were already there, BECAUSE...
You cut out the explanation in your quotation, which is editing.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

LUKE 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This is in reference for Jesus to help those who were lost. Matthew was a roman tax-collector, the most hated and most corrupt members of that society. Yet Jesus called upon him to be saved. The man repented and became his disciple. The ones who are filled with the most hate, can also be filled with the most love.

well, i'll give you this much. depending on which version of the bible you read, either jesus says "if you don't love me more" or "if you don't hate, etc...

but is asking someone to love you more than anyone else a moral thing? if my girl friends says she loves her mother more than me, would it be moral of me to say she can't be my girlfriend unless she loves me more than her mother? especially if her mother is a good person? why would a moral person put someone they love to such hard testing?


again, i stand by what i said. morality is something that comes from within, not from words. people were good well before the old testament or new testament.

 

[discreet]

I said "you can't claim that they were already there, BECAUSE...
You cut out the explanation in your quotation, which is editing.

You don't seem to have much of an argument, if this is what you're focused on.

 

[urbanboom]

You don't seem to have much of an argument, if this is what you're focused on.

I was just telling you that you did edit my post. And yes he can make claims and then back it up. And yes, it was you who brought me off topic...

 

[urbanboom]

well, i'll give you this much. depending on which version of the bible you read, either jesus says "if you don't love me more" or "if you don't hate, etc...

but is asking someone to love you more than anyone else a moral thing? if my girl friends says she loves her mother more than me, would it be moral of me to say she can't be my girlfriend unless she loves me more than her mother? especially if her mother is a good person? why would a moral person put someone they love to such hard testing?


again, i stand by what i said. morality is something that comes from within, not from words. people were good well before the old testament or new testament.

I love how you added an "s" to girlfriend .

To reply to the fist part: I think that a love of God is the same thing as a love for a child, friend, family or even stranger. It is stated in the Bible that "Loving God means loving others." I personally don't believe that God competes in that way. In many ways loving God and loving others is one in the same.

To reply to the second part: I think morality come in many different forms. I myself am a very different person then I was. I consider my self to be a moral person now, but not then. So yes, in a sense my morality came from the word, the word of Christ.

For many people, morality is a mix. Many kids need to be told that they need to share their toys (to bring up the example you cited before). Of course there will be exceptional people who do so naturally, but many people (unfortunately) do not.

It's an interesting subject that was brought up in "The Dark Knight" or "Lord of the Flies": If you took away all of the structure and order that we as a collective society so difficultly laid down, would man still be inclined to treat one another with general love? My guess is that it would vary person to person. Whatever the outcome, it would be a very interesting social experiment.

You say that people were Good before the old Testament, that may be true, but I say that the world is a lot better than that time. To them, the concept of love without levels and different classes was foreign. Today the struggles continues...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

dude! don't condemn me for a typo! i value monogamy. though having many wives would be a nice sexual fantasy, it wouldn't be fair.


if jesus and god made you a better person, i respect that.

but remember:

religion is like a lift in your shoe. if you need a lift in your shoe to feel comfortable, cool. need it for a week? a month? a year? fine. maybe you need it all your life? don't put it in my shoe. and lets not send missionaries to africa and have them nail lifts to the natives' bare feet.

-GC.

 

[urbanboom]

dude! don't condemn me for a typo! i value monogamy. though having many wives would be a nice sexual fantasy, it wouldn't be fair.


if jesus and god made you a better person, i respect that.

but remember:

religion is like a lift in your shoe. if you need a lift in your shoe to feel comfortable, cool. need it for a week? a month? a year? fine. maybe you need it all your life? don't put it my shoe. and lets not send missionaries to africa and have them nail lifts to the natives' bare feet.

-GC.

Thank You.

That Quote got me thinking...
The point of missionaries should be to present them options, not to force. I have however heard stories of churches that do it differently. Jesus weeps.

 

[Hydrogen]

All I'm saying is that there are many factors as to why different sets of people have different value systems. Much of it the same, but a lot of it is different. I'm not saying that one set of values is better than another; I'm saying that the largest factor in choosing values as a society is religion.

Similarities stand out over the differences.

Of course there will be differences - which would suggest that some of the contents of religion is always local. That, in turn, suggests that religions are the products of people, and not something originating from somewhere above,

 

[MisterF]

You say that people were Good before the old Testament, that may be true, but I say that the world is a lot better than that time.

You think that Jesus is responsible for that? After Jesus, things got a whole lot worse for a long time before they got better again. Roman society of Jesus' time was paradise compared to the Middle Ages. Do you think that Medieval Christians were better people than pagans in Rome? If so, what do you base that belief on?

Living standards for the average person didn't reach Roman standards until, by some estimates, the 19th century (obviously that's arguable, but it was relatively recently in any case). All out warfare didn't stop until the mid-20th...and secularism has been on the rise ever since. To suggest that Jesus or his teachings are responsible for the world being a better place is dubious at best.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

the ads were covered on citynews:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=aRKf4_0j_Jw

 

[syn]

If anything the atheist billboard is rather tame because it says there's probably no god.

Yeah, it's not really an atheist ad at all. It's an agnostic ad.

I don't really care if they put ads up. I can't see many people complaining either.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Yeah, it's not really an atheist ad at all. It's an agnostic ad.

I don't really care if they put ads up. I can't see many people complaining either.

actually, an agnostic ad would probably read:

"it is unknown whether god exists or not. it doesn't matter".

which is probably the position most atheists have. i haven't seen many atheists that are convinced and know 100% that god or gods can't exist. i think canada would be a better place if were an agnostic state.

it seems to me like agnostics of the 1800's used the word agnostic because it sounded nicer. i know that i used the word to describe my views in the beginning because it sounded alot nicer than atheist. atheist simply means you don't believe in a deity. if there is no evidence for something, there's no reason to believe in it.


the "probably" part comes in because it is impossible to disprove the existence of god. like i said before, you'd have to observe everything all at once, forever. i don't believe anyone can do this. again, i don't believe anyone can do this because i have seen no evidence that anyone can do this and nothing i know suggests that anyone can do this.


i think the united church of canada is releasing ads that state: "there probably is a god".

i don't know if it's correct to say this. it would be like me saying to somebody, "you're probably gonna die if you drink this glass of water". where did i conclude this probability from? it could be possible but i would have to have some evidence that something is wrong with the water. do i know if it's poisoned? etc. now someone can say they believe "you can die if you drink this water" or "it could be possible you'll die if you drink this". but what's the point of taking positions there is no basis for? would anyone tell their kids as they leave for school that "they're probably going to be abducted by aliens"? that's a really extraordinary statement to make.

a better ad the church can run IMO is "it is possible that there is a god" or "we believe there is a god".

to say there probably is a god? i don't know about that one.


maybe there is probably bars of gold under my mattress? or there is probably no gold under my mattress. which position makes more sense? there could be or could not. but in the absence of any real evidence, which is more likely?

p.s, if there are bars of gold under my mattress, i will believe in god.