Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist is dead tome]

is he wrong? you know, for us outsiders your word is as good as his, if yours is the true faith it should give you some perk over false faiths, though, or your god is as good as any non existing gods.

then i'll be persistent, do you mind if i ask the wiccan gods for a sign first? and how persistent should i be? when should i decide, well, this god aind gonna respond to me so i better move on to the next on the list, hey buddah! yo listnin, bro?

That sounds like it may be blasphemy.

Anyway. I don't have much experience in this department. but I guess you would have to really want to receive salvation. Like really want it. Make changes in you're life. That sort of thing.

I do believe that G-d told me something in a dream. Possibly twice.

And I don't think of atheists as outsiders I think of them as atheists.

[Phmcw]

I think the poeple that blew themselves in the WTC had a strong faith, and a VERY strong desire for salvation.
Answer this question then, will they be saved. If not, why?

[Shades]

It's not that religious people are special. It's that atheists actively deny G-d.

It's not that we deny god, it's that she isn't real it's like denying santa, ghosts or the invisible teapot orbiting the earth. And religious people are special and should be treated as such, we have institutions that can help delusional people.

I think the poeple that blew themselves in the WTC had a strong faith, and a VERY strong desire for salvation.
Answer this question then, will they be saved. If not, why?

Minority extremists of all religions tend towards violence but aren't a good sample of the whole in any case. Of course your right in that according to what they imagine to be true they will have their salvation.

[Phmcw]

Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?

[ECrownofFire]

Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?

They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.

[Shades]

They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.

According to them it's the word of their god. The fact it was the word of people doesn't make much odds really.

[Glowcat]

Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?

They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.

And you tell the difference... how?

[ECrownofFire]

Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?

They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.

And you tell the difference... how?

They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.

[Shades]

They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.

In your view. Not in theirs. There isn't a difference though.

[Andir]

Of course, it gets back to the omni-benevolence thing.  The true creator would not approve of such silly humans altering the structure of those shiny buildings and even those pesky viruses living inside.

Also, I know this was a page or so back... but for those saying something along the lines of attacking a holy book is bad:  As an atheist there's really no difference between any holy book and the latest edition of The National Enquirer in my eyes.  If I were to call that publication a worthless pile of feces, how is that any different?  You are treating "holy book" as something special in a world where equality is thrown out the window.

[Andir]

Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?

They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.

And you tell the difference... how?

They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.

(devil's advocate) The problem here... if I take the advice of my inner self, it tells me that I should kill the others so that I have more room to do my stuff.  Now, I'm not listening to others.  In fact, I hate the others because they have something I need.

[Shade-o]

Do we still take advice on taking religious advice, though?

However, wouldn't refusing to share the ultimate truths of the universe be rather selfish?

It appears we have a conundrum. Somebody get me a Moebius strip and a kitten in a box!

[Shades]

but for those saying something along the lines of attacking a holy book is bad:

Depends what they mean by attacking. Burning/destroying books I'm kinda against for various ingrained reasons. But I have no objection to people attacking it's content, the same way you should any fiction book that claims to be non-fiction. Or any non-fiction book that needs to be corrected as new information comes to light.

However, wouldn't refusing to share the ultimate truths of the universe be rather selfish?

Most religions are inherently selfish so that actually goes well with it

It appears we have a conundrum. Somebody get me a Moebius strip and a kitten in a box!

How about a möbius kitten?

[Shade-o]

Most religions involving more than one person involve some sort of Telling-People-Things. Preaching, evangelism, missionaries, services, pamphlets, all that. They are Right Path > Everybody gets on Right Path > Everybody Wins.

Keeping it to yourself means it's much more complicated. For example, it could mean that you have discovered the belief to be false and you don't want to drag other people down, you have discovered a horrible Cthulhu-esque truth and don't want to drag other people down, or you get satisfaction from seeing the rest of humanity dragged down from your own inaction.

[ECrownofFire]

Do we still take advice on taking religious advice, though?

However, wouldn't refusing to share the ultimate truths of the universe be rather selfish?

It appears we have a conundrum. Somebody get me a Moebius strip and a kitten in a box!

Not selfish, you should figure it out on your own. I'm not giving advice, I'm telling you to think for yourself. You want to find the gods, find them on your own. Be responsible for your self.

Not only that, but they have shown remarkable level of faith and followed the word of their god to the end., both being religious vertues, so where did they go wrong?

They followed the word of other humans, not the word of their god. That is where they went wrong.

And you tell the difference... how?

They listened to other humans. You never take religious advice from anybody except yourself. Religion should be completely personal.

(devil's advocate) The problem here... if I take the advice of my inner self, it tells me that I should kill the others so that I have more room to do my stuff.  Now, I'm not listening to others.  In fact, I hate the others because they have something I need.

You don't listen to yourself, you listen to the gods.

Of course, it gets back to the omni-benevolence thing.  The true creator would not approve of such silly humans altering the structure of those shiny buildings and even those pesky viruses living inside.

Also, I know this was a page or so back... but for those saying something along the lines of attacking a holy book is bad:  As an atheist there's really no difference between any holy book and the latest edition of The National Enquirer in my eyes.  If I were to call that publication a worthless pile of feces, how is that any different?  You are treating "holy book" as something special in a world where equality is thrown out the window.

A holy book is just more indoctrinated organized religion. You shouldn't need a "prophet" to tell you what to believe. Think for yourself. I'm not against believing in the books, I'm against blind belief without question.

Most religions involving more than one person involve some sort of Telling-People-Things. Preaching, evangelism, missionaries, services, pamphlets, all that. They are Right Path > Everybody gets on Right Path > Everybody Wins.

Keeping it to yourself means it's much more complicated. For example, it could mean that you have discovered the belief to be false and you don't want to drag other people down, you have discovered a horrible Cthulhu-esque truth and don't want to drag other people down, or you get satisfaction from seeing the rest of humanity dragged down from your own inaction.

Or it means that I believe that religion should be discovered on its own, without outside influence. Preaching tells somebody to believe. I want to tell people to question their beliefs, not blindly follow them. You can tell people that no matter what religion you are. The conundrum comes in when you look at those that use those tactics themselves.