Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

help me with my argument

nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:10:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

As a person who does have faith, the best thing i can tell you that might argue in a direction that he can best appreciate is to simply say you don't believe. It's generally considerate if you say that you respect his faith, and you are happy for him, but you simply don't share that faith. It would be really helpful to your relationship if he respected you too in your position on this.
GrabYoSocks
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:23:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As a person who does have faith, the best thing i can tell you that might argue in a direction that he can best appreciate is to simply say you don't believe. It's generally considerate if you say that you respect his faith, and you are happy for him, but you simply don't share that faith. It would be really helpful to your relationship if he respected you too in your position on this.

Agreed!
As an Atheist I say this is a battle niether side will win. He has his big book, you have your logic and reason and science. That battling of words will go on and on, until someone gets frustrated. I agree with Innomen keep it short and sweet if you can.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:24:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
thats the thing, i hate getting into religious debate, especially with family. Especially in a country where lack of faith is severely looked down upon. But thats all people seem to talk about here and its they who want to argue about it. I personally dont believe in trying to tear down someones faith when it gives them comfort, purpose, hope, etc. But i still need to be able to present my case when they ask...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:30:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

The basis of the argument is flawed. It is not about what is most beneficial or detrimental to believe. If we are rational we do not decide what to believe in, the case for something is either made or it is not. This seems to be a round-about way of getting to Pascal's Wager. Which is an argument for the desirability of faith, not an argument for faith itself.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GrabYoSocks
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:32:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
research the psychology of why people believe in god and religion all together. Start with Sigmund Freud. I would say he is credible. Research the bible it's self and look at why people believe the words to be true. Why is it necessary to believe in something that may or may not have happened so long ago. Is Jesus and god necessary in today's world compared to the world over 1000 years ago.
Personally I use my knowledge of what I learned or didn't learn when I was a protestant Christian.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:34:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:30:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

The basis of the argument is flawed. It is not about what is most beneficial or detrimental to believe. If we are rational we do not decide what to believe in, the case for something is either made or it is not. This seems to be a round-about way of getting to Pascal's Wager. Which is an argument for the desirability of faith, not an argument for faith itself.

- Yeah, don't use that as your argument.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:34:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
[Belief in God] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead." - Christopher Hitchens
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:39:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:30:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

The basis of the argument is flawed. It is not about what is most beneficial or detrimental to believe. If we are rational we do not decide what to believe in, the case for something is either made or it is not. This seems to be a round-about way of getting to Pascal's Wager. Which is an argument for the desirability of faith, not an argument for faith itself.

- Yeah, don't use that as your argument.

Why not? It invalidates her uncle's entire attack.
What part of it did you not understand?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:45:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:39:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:30:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

The basis of the argument is flawed. It is not about what is most beneficial or detrimental to believe. If we are rational we do not decide what to believe in, the case for something is either made or it is not. This seems to be a round-about way of getting to Pascal's Wager. Which is an argument for the desirability of faith, not an argument for faith itself.

- Yeah, don't use that as your argument.

Why not? It invalidates her uncle's entire attack.
What part of it did you not understand?

Because it's her uncle and it's a really irritating response unless you frequent DDO, and my guess is that he doesn't. Just keep it simple, and try to keep the relationship. Don't confront, but negotiate.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:45:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:39:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:30:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

The basis of the argument is flawed. It is not about what is most beneficial or detrimental to believe. If we are rational we do not decide what to believe in, the case for something is either made or it is not. This seems to be a round-about way of getting to Pascal's Wager. Which is an argument for the desirability of faith, not an argument for faith itself.

- Yeah, don't use that as your argument.

Why not? It invalidates her uncle's entire attack.
What part of it did you not understand?

Because it's her uncle and it's a really irritating response unless you frequent DDO, and my guess is that he doesn't. Just keep it simple, and try to keep the relationship. Don't confront, but negotiate.

1: Her Uncle is attacking.
2: It's up to her how much she values their relationship.
3: Correctly phrased it can be utterly polite. "I'd love to believe but I am not convinced, please still send me xmas money".
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:49:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:36:17 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is a joke.

And based on that quote, none too bright.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:55:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:49:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:45:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:39:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:30:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

The basis of the argument is flawed. It is not about what is most beneficial or detrimental to believe. If we are rational we do not decide what to believe in, the case for something is either made or it is not. This seems to be a round-about way of getting to Pascal's Wager. Which is an argument for the desirability of faith, not an argument for faith itself.

- Yeah, don't use that as your argument.

Why not? It invalidates her uncle's entire attack.
What part of it did you not understand?

Because it's her uncle and it's a really irritating response unless you frequent DDO, and my guess is that he doesn't. Just keep it simple, and try to keep the relationship. Don't confront, but negotiate.

1: Her Uncle is attacking.
2: It's up to her how much she values their relationship.
3: Correctly phrased it can be utterly polite. "I'd love to believe but I am not convinced, please still send me xmas money".

Well, if the relationship doesn't really mean anything, then you are correct, it doesn't matter what she says. #3 is fine.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 2:56:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
i think im going to go with innomen and keep it short, simple and inoffensive. Hes not much older than me so we can be pretty candid. I appreciate all the comments though.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2010 3:18:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:32:04 PM, GrabYoSocks wrote:
research the psychology of why people believe in god and religion all together.Start with Sigmund Freud. I would say he is credible. Research the bible it's self and look at why people believe the words to be true. Why is it necessary to believe in something that may or may not have happened so long ago. Is Jesus and god necessary in today's world compared to the world over 1000 years ago.
Personally I use my knowledge of what I learned or didn't learn when I was a protestant Christian.

Lolololololol.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 2:29:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 3:18:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:32:04 PM, GrabYoSocks wrote:
research the psychology of why people believe in god and religion all together.Start with Sigmund Freud. I would say he is credible. Research the bible it's self and look at why people believe the words to be true. Why is it necessary to believe in something that may or may not have happened so long ago. Is Jesus and god necessary in today's world compared to the world over 1000 years ago.
Personally I use my knowledge of what I learned or didn't learn when I was a protestant Christian.

Lolololololol.

Im a psych major. I lol'd at that part too.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 7:35:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

tell your uncle we would like to invite him on this sight, it sounds like he is quick to debate, we want members like that here. you could even request you only argue with you on the topic in a official debate on this site.

as far as the example argument you gave goes (your saying he's going to use that case right?) If your asking if its a legitimate way to prove something true or even something more likely true then no, however as a practical approach to life, sure. he might never be able to prove to you god is real and you might never be able to prove god is not real to him, but taking two steps a head of arguing proof, what are the expected consequences to us for each possible truth? if the consequences are better for how you might change your life because of one truth and there's really nothing stopping you from acting like either one is true by your choice, then shouldn't you choose that course?

It's called Pascals Wager and its only logically flawed in the sense that it does not prove God true or even more likely true. It's only a perspective argument to show that even if god is not true, it's not really going to come back and bite you for being wrong when you considered him real all your life. however the consequences are likely not the same if the case is the other way around.

I agree with innome though, if your uncle really understands what it means to be a believer then he should just respect that you don't have the grace of faith in your life right now. I may like to argue the existence of god, but faith and the assurance of that faith is an experience that simply cant be forcibly brought fourth by logic and reasoning. It's a matter of the heart that has to be squared with first for that assurance.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 7:42:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

by being an atheist: you lose the shackles of God's many "thou shalts"

you re-gain: your will... your Humanity
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 7:50:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
and you gain the chance of having true peace of mind through being able to act as you would... in any situation..

if their natural will is ever in conflict with "god's will" it must tear them up inside daily..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 7:51:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 7:50:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and you gain the chance of having true peace of mind through being able to act as you would... in any situation..

if their **(religious folks)** natural will is ever in conflict with "god's will" it must tear them up inside daily..

*until they fully beat themselves down/ FULLY reject themselves.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 8:15:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 7:42:35 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/16/2010 2:05:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
i apologize in advance for the typing---i am on a cell phone. So my uncle has just found out that i am an athiest, and has asked me to prepare an argument against him: basically, what do i have to lose (and gain) by being a christian even if God doesnt exist, and what do i have to lose (and gain) by being an athiest if God does exist. Now i've used this argument before, when i was a christian, and i know in my common sense it is flawed. Can someone please articulate a rebuttal for this or is it in fact a legitimate way to look at life? Again, sorry for the lack of paragraphs, etc.

by being an atheist: you lose the shackles of God's many "thou shalts"

you re-gain: your will... your Humanity

An odd thing to say, versus what?

By the way, this would be a terrible approach if she is looking to keep the relationship in tact.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 8:17:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 7:50:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and you gain the chance of having true peace of mind through being able to act as you would... in any situation..

if their natural will is ever in conflict with "god's will" it must tear them up inside daily..

you do not gain any peace of mind, as an atheist just looking at how people are acting today in the world you have every reason to believe it's inevitable that $#!t will hill the fans.
as a christian though that believes in the bible you have hope because it's scripture tells you everything will work out for the better in the end.

as an atheist, even forsaking the bible as a source to tell you legitimate 'should and should not' anyone that is human recognizes some degree of acts worthy of causing guilt, and as time goes on no matter what you yourself do it wont be enough to feel you redeemed yourself for your past darker moments.

as a christian you have hope though for you have a redeemer that can truly 100% get rid of that guilt so you can move on.

atheist if your consistent in your beliefs then you should understand that your life is short, and at its end only oblivion awaits.

Christians we know though our souls are an immortal being, death is only the beginning and great things await after we cross that line.

atheist you must pragmatically accept the existence of limitations for yourself, there are such things as a Kobayashi Maru http://en.wikipedia.org... , the impossible, the things you just cant do.

Christians, we know through god though all things are possible though. When we are confronted with the seemingly impossible, we still have hope.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 8:20:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Tell him "I don't believe. I don't have to. I don't want to debate on it. What do you have to lose if you believe there are purple fairies on Mars?" etc. (sorry thats just what I'd do. I hate when people do that to me.)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 8:32:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 7:50:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and you gain the chance of having true peace of mind through being able to act as you would... in any situation..


Way to confirm stereotypes that a lot of Christians have of atheists. Great job.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 8:39:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 8:32:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/17/2010 7:50:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and you gain the chance of having true peace of mind through being able to act as you would... in any situation..


Way to confirm stereotypes that a lot of Christians have of atheists. Great job.

Lol :)
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 9:03:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 8:17:01 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 11/17/2010 7:50:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and you gain the chance of having true peace of mind through being able to act as you would... in any situation..

if their natural will is ever in conflict with "god's will" it must tear them up inside daily..

you do not gain any peace of mind, as an atheist just looking at how people are acting today in the world you have every reason to believe it's inevitable that $#!t will hill the fans.

Indeed.

as a christian though that believes in the bible you have hope because it's scripture tells you everything will work out for the better in the end.

Yep, Christians should be insanely happy people.

as an atheist, even forsaking the bible as a source to tell you legitimate 'should and should not' anyone that is human recognizes some degree of acts worthy of causing guilt, and as time goes on no matter what you yourself do it wont be enough to feel you redeemed yourself for your past darker moments.


That depends entirely on whatever moral system you adopt. Indeed one could make a case that morality itself is incompatible with Christianity.

as a christian you have hope though for you have a redeemer that can truly 100% get rid of that guilt so you can move on.


Unfortunately Christ is presented as someone who can give us a pardon in the eyes of the cosmic court. True redemption is earned through suffering, self-correction and personal sacrifice. Christ as a redeemer is a very unsatisfying concept for the moralist.

atheist if your consistent in your beliefs then you should understand that your life is short, and at its end only oblivion awaits.


Yep.

Christians we know though our souls are an immortal being, death is only the beginning and great things await after we cross that line.


You don't know that, you assume that because the alternative is upsetting.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2010 9:04:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/17/2010 8:15:55 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/17/2010 7:42:35 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
by being an atheist: you lose the shackles of God's many "thou shalts"

you re-gain: your will... your Humanity

An odd thing to say,

I don't think so. Your will is a function of your humanity.
your humanity is your Human cares.... This is what your natural will is based in.

in believing in and worshipping 'God' religious folk put "God's Will" before their own.

their Spiritual Development is basically the process of suppressing those aspects of their will which don't fit with God's... and embracing God's will.

They basically toss their will and replace it with their notion of "god's will"
Toss their cares... and replace it with God's cares.

versus what?

Godly/Transcendant, Inhuman, and often times quite Inhumane, will.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."