Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Are Atheists Evil?
134 Answers
A few years ago God was very much part of the lives of people. Even if one had doubts they were kept to oneself. Today there is almost as much pressure not to believe in God as there was to believe in him.
Is what is happening in the world today a result of man's trying to get along without God?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by idiosyncrasy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Phew, that's that one cleared up.
As to "tolerating" religion... If people are entitled to their own opinions on certain matters, even if they are wrong opinions, that presumably includes religion too. As long as it is kept private and doesn't interfere with public decisions, or laws, or education of children, then there's a limit to the harm someone's religious views can do. Indeed it can drive some people to do good things, and although you can (and should) question the motives you can't question the results. I'm not sure what's gained from attacking, or not tolerating, such people. It just makes me angry, and them hurt, and I lose a friend. Not worth the effort, I don't think.
It's complicated a bit by the fact that, as you probably have already noticed, I'm still not quite ready to "let go" entirely. In time this may pass, though.
There are other, equally wacky, views, that I expect you might tolerate that I do not. Scientific and numerical "illiteracy" are my pet hates currently...
As to "tolerating" religion... If people are entitled to their own opinions on certain matters, even if they are wrong opinions, that presumably includes religion too. As long as it is kept private and doesn't interfere with public decisions, or laws, or education of children, then there's a limit to the harm someone's religious views can do. Indeed it can drive some people to do good things, and although you can (and should) question the motives you can't question the results. I'm not sure what's gained from attacking, or not tolerating, such people. It just makes me angry, and them hurt, and I lose a friend. Not worth the effort, I don't think.
It's complicated a bit by the fact that, as you probably have already noticed, I'm still not quite ready to "let go" entirely. In time this may pass, though.
There are other, equally wacky, views, that I expect you might tolerate that I do not. Scientific and numerical "illiteracy" are my pet hates currently...
//as you probably have already noticed, I'm still not quite ready to "let go" entirely. //
Thank you. Your posts have been confusing and that's what I've been attempting to ascertain. You claim to be an atheist, but you're not - and that's fine. People are entitled to their own opinions - as long as their opinions don't affect anyone else.
Thank you. Your posts have been confusing and that's what I've been attempting to ascertain. You claim to be an atheist, but you're not - and that's fine. People are entitled to their own opinions - as long as their opinions don't affect anyone else.
Depends what you want to do about it. If you've decided you don't believe in God, examine your reasons for reaching that conclusion. If they're rational, then there's no contest. As an ex-Christian, all I can really say to you is that since the God of Abraham, the one you've been taught about, is most definitely not a God of love and compassion - and certainly not omnipotent - he cannot possibly be the 'God' that so many claim him to be. Whether or not a creator exists, I really don't know - and, despite their claims, neither does anyone else. You may be experiencing a sense of spirituality, but I think that is innate in human beings – it’s normal - but to equate it with that God, who was introduced to us in childhood, is, in my opinion, a mistake. I hope you find your way.
I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
I have not see a happy Atheists, and yet John wrote: Happy is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. The prophecy he is referring to is the one recorded in the book of Revelation. And “the appointed time” is the time when this Revelation prophecy must be fulfilled. John’s words have deep significance for Atheists and us today.
I thank God I'm not a Atheist.
I thank God I'm not a Atheist.
Jake - //As written 2,000? years ago!//
How could you have known this, Similarly, how can you know what time it is today, How can you tell whether we are near to that foretold ‘day of judgment’ or not.
You see people often say, I should have done it sooner, or possibly in hindsight, I should have waited.
Because a proverb says A bad person will not go unpunished. (Prov. 11:21)
How could you have known this, Similarly, how can you know what time it is today, How can you tell whether we are near to that foretold ‘day of judgment’ or not.
You see people often say, I should have done it sooner, or possibly in hindsight, I should have waited.
Because a proverb says A bad person will not go unpunished. (Prov. 11:21)
Going to respond to some of ideosyncracys responses later - too buy at the moment to frame a proper response.
Goodlife on the other hand is easy to respond to now. Douglass answer as to why you have never seen a happy atheist could well be true - its certainly funny - but I am willing to bet that you rarely if ever actually associate with atheists - So how can you form a valid opinion?
Most atheists I know exist on the usual spectrum of happiness, from gloomy to euphoric, with all shades inbetween, but for the most part are happy rather more than sad.
Thats because they can take pleasure our of their life - their family, their vocation, their friends, and all of those things that go to make up lifes rich tapestry. They are not reliant upon some mythical supernatural being to grant them happiness in return for slavishly believing or praying to it.
And the point you miss about Jakes comment is simply this - many of those prophecies you cling to come from the bible - a book written around 2000 years ago, The day of judgement still has not arrived, despite numerous attempts by your particular cult to claim it was coming. Its the little boy that cried wolf all over again, except that, unlike him, who falsely claimed threat from actual danger, your prophecies are just made up nonsense...
Goodlife on the other hand is easy to respond to now. Douglass answer as to why you have never seen a happy atheist could well be true - its certainly funny - but I am willing to bet that you rarely if ever actually associate with atheists - So how can you form a valid opinion?
Most atheists I know exist on the usual spectrum of happiness, from gloomy to euphoric, with all shades inbetween, but for the most part are happy rather more than sad.
Thats because they can take pleasure our of their life - their family, their vocation, their friends, and all of those things that go to make up lifes rich tapestry. They are not reliant upon some mythical supernatural being to grant them happiness in return for slavishly believing or praying to it.
And the point you miss about Jakes comment is simply this - many of those prophecies you cling to come from the bible - a book written around 2000 years ago, The day of judgement still has not arrived, despite numerous attempts by your particular cult to claim it was coming. Its the little boy that cried wolf all over again, except that, unlike him, who falsely claimed threat from actual danger, your prophecies are just made up nonsense...
//Religious studies are too much a part of peoples' cultures to be ignored entirely. Religious Education usually focuses on the Cultural Aspect at Primary School,//
I agree with Jim360's point .
It is not so much the teaching of a particular religion but the encompassing of all the different religions in order to have an insight as to how they work especially as we live in a multi cultural society.
It is not a case of Jack of All Trades but Master of None, but just being able to understand what they believe and why.
I do not believe in "Faith Schools". I attended a C of E school and all I can remember of my RE studies was that the RE teacher was obsessed with Abraham and the fact he moved from Ur to Mesopotamia living in a tent. What the point was I don't know, even now decades on. The only thing I remember is the teacher's name, and Abraham. I have to say I failed my RE exams!!
I remember watching a programme on TV some years ago about the Islamic schools -mainly in London but the schools were only indoctrinating hatred of infidels.
This is the danger with these schools - they have a closed mind with regard to other peoples beliefs.
I agree with Jim360's point .
It is not so much the teaching of a particular religion but the encompassing of all the different religions in order to have an insight as to how they work especially as we live in a multi cultural society.
It is not a case of Jack of All Trades but Master of None, but just being able to understand what they believe and why.
I do not believe in "Faith Schools". I attended a C of E school and all I can remember of my RE studies was that the RE teacher was obsessed with Abraham and the fact he moved from Ur to Mesopotamia living in a tent. What the point was I don't know, even now decades on. The only thing I remember is the teacher's name, and Abraham. I have to say I failed my RE exams!!
I remember watching a programme on TV some years ago about the Islamic schools -mainly in London but the schools were only indoctrinating hatred of infidels.
This is the danger with these schools - they have a closed mind with regard to other peoples beliefs.
Goodlife, //How can you tell whether we are near to that foretold ‘day of judgment’ or not.//
//……. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.//(Matthew 16: 27, 28)
Either that ^^ is wrong – or some of those listeners are still around today – which would make them pretty ancient – so which is it? Right or wrong? At 2000 plus years old, telegrams from the Queen would have nothing on them!
//……. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.//(Matthew 16: 27, 28)
Either that ^^ is wrong – or some of those listeners are still around today – which would make them pretty ancient – so which is it? Right or wrong? At 2000 plus years old, telegrams from the Queen would have nothing on them!
Before I start I ought to say that I don't necessarily believe any of what follows. But still, the interpretations of that verse offered below oughtn't be rejected out of hand.
1. "which is not to be understood of his personal coming in his kingdom in the last day, when he will judge quick and dead ... rather, of the appearance of his kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven;" (Gill's Exposition of the Bible).
2. Some idea that it might be to do with the destruction of Jerusalem about 40 years after the events of Jesus' life are meant to have occurred. -- various commentaries.
Both are in their way plausible, but the fact that they are different ought to be enough to raise alarm bells. It's also notable that both sources quoted above start with "this cannot be about the judgement", or a note to that effect, without really explaining why -- other than, of course, that Judgement hasn't happened yet.
Matthew 24:34 is the other one: again, that's linked to the destruction of Jerusalem rather than the judgement. Gill (op. cit) insists that there is a "full and clear proof" that it is about Jerusalem's destruction; other sources suggest that "generation" refers to Jews as a whole.
I've never been convinced and think that it's just weedling out of the most likely explanation, that Jesus got it wrong but that, conveniently, there is something else that happened that can be linked to what he said instead. So the verse is "rescued", but I think it's a convenient rather than an accurate rescue.
1. "which is not to be understood of his personal coming in his kingdom in the last day, when he will judge quick and dead ... rather, of the appearance of his kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven;" (Gill's Exposition of the Bible).
2. Some idea that it might be to do with the destruction of Jerusalem about 40 years after the events of Jesus' life are meant to have occurred. -- various commentaries.
Both are in their way plausible, but the fact that they are different ought to be enough to raise alarm bells. It's also notable that both sources quoted above start with "this cannot be about the judgement", or a note to that effect, without really explaining why -- other than, of course, that Judgement hasn't happened yet.
Matthew 24:34 is the other one: again, that's linked to the destruction of Jerusalem rather than the judgement. Gill (op. cit) insists that there is a "full and clear proof" that it is about Jerusalem's destruction; other sources suggest that "generation" refers to Jews as a whole.
I've never been convinced and think that it's just weedling out of the most likely explanation, that Jesus got it wrong but that, conveniently, there is something else that happened that can be linked to what he said instead. So the verse is "rescued", but I think it's a convenient rather than an accurate rescue.
Jim. Yes, I know that’s been said, and by many, but it makes no sense. Seeing “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” does not, to me, suggest the destruction of a ‘holy’ city.
The reason that people like the 18th century theologian you quote (whom, I believe, regarded the bible as the infallible word of God) say these things is because the prophesies haven’t materialised as foretold, and therefore, rather than concede that the bible is in any way in error, they find an alternative explanation. It’s par for the course for religion. Just look at the number of times the Jehovah’s Witness have predicted the date of the end of the world – and they find excuses for every failure.
Therefore, I disagree with you. Explanations such as this should be rejected – and firmly. If religion claims the bible is accurate, then we have to assume it's accurate. Religion cannot have it both ways.
The reason that people like the 18th century theologian you quote (whom, I believe, regarded the bible as the infallible word of God) say these things is because the prophesies haven’t materialised as foretold, and therefore, rather than concede that the bible is in any way in error, they find an alternative explanation. It’s par for the course for religion. Just look at the number of times the Jehovah’s Witness have predicted the date of the end of the world – and they find excuses for every failure.
Therefore, I disagree with you. Explanations such as this should be rejected – and firmly. If religion claims the bible is accurate, then we have to assume it's accurate. Religion cannot have it both ways.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Body & Soul38 mins ago
