Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[carltonchelsea]

So “atheism is a religion”, again?
Is that all they’ve got?
And, “I don’t have to justify or explain my beliefs, because they are as logical and true as your scientific facts that destroy them”.
Pisser, needed a good laugh, need another beer now!

 

[Evolved1]

So “atheism is a religion”, again?
Is that all they’ve got?
And, “I don’t have to justify or explain my beliefs, because they are as logical and true as your scientific facts that destroy them”.
Pisser, needed a good laugh, need another beer now!

Have one for crazy Vossy.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Have one for crazy Vossy.

At least Vossy was man enough to admit to his faults and learn and grow from them.
Not like these theistic culty types, they just keep spouting the same old shite and pretend it’s all dressed up in Gucci and fresh off the new spring couture rack!
Did somebody say rack….

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So what. At worse it was representation from which objectivity can and did evolve.

Do make the case that we needed the invention of a boogie man in order for objectivity to come into being.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You’re transferring again. Not everyone’s version or experience of Christianity is the way you’ve presented.
I believe in objectivity just as I believe in creating and relating.

What exactly am I transferring? I didn't anywhere suggest that is the sum total of all Christian experience, simply saying that if we don't agree on a rationalist standpoint with which to assess anything, the results are as much use as handlebars on a bowling ball.

I gave a couple of examples is all.

Do you understand the meaning of the term transference?

 

[Boston tiger]

Been reading Fr. Stanley Jaki have we?

The Enlightenment was largely born out of Renaissance humanism, which was largely derived from classical antiquity.

In reality though, the Christian scholars of medieval Europe owed much of their science to the work their Indian, Persian, and Greek forebears incorporated and expanded upon.



Athiests don't have to believe anything without supporting evidence.



I doubt atheists much care about what you define as 'evil'. The notion of 'evil' is a human construct and varies throughout time and across space. What is regarded as 'evil' in one society or by one group of people is not seen as such in other societies or other groups of people.

So one of the rules of atheism is not to ponder ?

 

[carltonchelsea]

So one of the rules of atheism is not to ponder ?

Not that I’m aware, the first rule of atheism is, “don’t talk about Fight Club”, the second rule is “make fun of religious people”, the third rule is, “don’t put pineapple on your ‘roasted baby pizza’, it ruins the texture”, the fourth rule is, “ponder ponder ponder”, I don’t know the rest of the rules because I was booted out for talking about Fight Club.

 

[Gethelred]

So one of the rules of atheism is not to ponder ?

Do you still think only Christians are capable of love?

 

[Boston tiger]

Thanks for your reply. Busy day today so I won’t be able to do it justice right away.

But for starters, can you please define “woke”? I’ve yet to see a satisfactory definition.

I see woke connected to the small c Catholic .. the universal rule … do unto others..

And woke is more about the instant showing of disapproval towards those not following the universal rule and less about the doing .
The more outraged the better the person you are.
Woke is good it’s just not great.

 

[Opine]

I'm not aware of the details and differences in legislation. I'm interested in hearing more if you want to elaborate.

Best way is to see for yourself, Bill is here; https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default...-draft-religious-discrimination-bill-2019.pdf and here https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-pr...eligious-freedom-bills-second-exposure-drafts
Also remember to see formal enactment if/when it goes through.

It hasn't passed as yet; therefore, it is incomplete and will likely change. Also, keep in mind that it's broader than State protection, so if there's a conflict between levels of protection, commonwealth one will take precedence to the extent of any inconsistency.

Main purpose is to protect those who face coercion impairing freedom to choose and lawfully express religious beliefs. Other than prescribed limitations that may apply, it'll 'make it unlawful to discriminate based on religious belief or activity in work, in certain other areas such as education, and in the provision of goods and services.

Remembering the expanded definition of religious belief will include theist atheist etc. What may constitute a lawful statement of religious belief seems as though it'll be objectively determined under a good faith threshold; e.g. applied to your previous post, the question is whether it is reasonably necessary for an atheist practising her/his belief to publicly refer to a fundamentalist Christian as a mosquito deserving of being squashed? If not then !!
it goes with out saying; atheists will also be protected against unlawful statements of religious belief.

 

[Opine]

Do make the case that we needed the invention of a boogie man in order for objectivity to come into being.

Neither of us can make the case for or against without guessing. However, objective assessment can be made about where that process has landed. Hence the value of looking to the effect of religion on norms and institutions.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Neither of us can make the case for or against without guessing. However, object assessment can be made about where that process has landed. Hence the value of looking to the effect of religion on norms and institutions.

You actually believe in Satan?
Really?
Why?

 

[Opine]

You actually believe in Satan?
Really?
Why?

I didn’t say that. I said that, at worse, its a representation the evolution of which has led to our current ideas about acceptable human conduct.

 

[Opine]

What exactly am I transferring? I didn't anywhere suggest that is the sum total of all Christian experience, simply saying that if we don't agree on a rationalist standpoint with which to assess anything, the results are as much use as handlebars on a bowling ball.

I gave a couple of examples is all.

Do you understand the meaning of the term transference?

I’m under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that it refers to imposition of one’s own belief or feelings upon another/s. Am I mistaken?

 

[carltonchelsea]

I didn’t say that. I said that, at worse, its a representation the evolution of which has led to our current ideas about acceptable human conduct.

Fantastic.
Do you believe in a gods/gods?
Do you believe in Lucifer?

 

[Opine]

Fantastic.
Do you believe in a gods/gods?
Do you believe in Lucifer?

I was born in a country with a church in the piazza of every province and town. On top of community indoctrinations even the value of learning was communicated to me using image of the liberal arts depicted on western portal of every cathedral. I'm comfortably open to the notion of a possible deity along side objective science.

 

[carltonchelsea]

I was born in a country with a church in the piazza of every province and town. On top of community indoctrinations even the value of learning was communicated to me using image of the liberal arts depicted on western portal of every cathedral. I'm comfortably open to the notion of a possible deity along side objective science.

Great, I was born in a country that can trace its homo sapien continued existence for more than 60,000 years and the Abrahamic psycho and his jewish dim witted kid never once paid them a visit in all that time, strange hey?

 

[Opine]

Great, I was born in a country that can trace its homo sapien continued existence for more than 60,000 years and the Abrahamic psycho and his jewish dim witted kid never once paid them a visit in all that time, strange hey?

Nah, just a good example of diversity.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I see woke connected to the small c Catholic .. the universal rule … do unto others..

And woke is more about the instant showing of disapproval towards those not following the universal rule and less about the doing .
The more outraged the better the person you are.
Woke is good it’s just not great.

OK, that hasn’t really helped much.

Considering how up in arms some people seem to get about “woke”, you’d think it would be pretty easy to define, but I still have yet to see a very workable definition of it.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Nah, just a good example of diversity.

Nahhhhh, it’s a good example of localised mythological belief creation.
One spread like a virus via the sword, many others stayed localised.
I love that story about the Chinese emperor who was appalled that this “so called god” hadn’t visited him when the missionaries had finally made it to his homelands to spread “christian love”, they were either slaughtered or quite rightly told to **** off.
Would love a bit more Chinese diplomacy on this right about now.

 

[western royboy]

What was it you were saying about transference?
Even that jury you suggested was still out will have given those supposedly deliberating the option of swearing by oath.

Affirmations are more common these days - no one is forced to swear to tell the truth by holding a fiction novel

 

[Opine]

Affirmations are more common these days - no one is forced to swear to tell the truth by holding a fiction novel

It doesn’t matter which is more common, the point is our standards and institutions are inclusive.

 

[Gethelred]

It doesn’t matter which is more common, the point is our standards and institutions are inclusive.

You're more than able to hold your own, so I'm not massively concerned.

Just letting you know: this thread is not a great place for discussion. It's a place in which atheists sit and claw at christians, and christians take whatever potshots they think they'll land before getting away as quickly as they can.

This thread is a shit place. No questions are asked worth a damn, and no answers are provided anyway.

 

[Opine]

You're more than able to hold your own, so I'm not massively concerned.

Just letting you know: this thread is not a great place for discussion. It's a place in which atheists sit and claw at christians, and christians take whatever potshots they think they'll land before getting away as quickly as they can.

This thread is a sh*t place. No questions are asked worth a damn, and no answers are provided anyway.

It appears the type of place on social media referred to recently as a “cowards palace”. Hopefully, the recent finding in Voller will bring about much needed change.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You're more than able to hold your own, so I'm not massively concerned.

Just letting you know: this thread is not a great place for discussion. It's a place in which atheists sit and claw at christians, and christians take whatever potshots they think they'll land before getting away as quickly as they can.

This thread is a sh*t place. No questions are asked worth a damn, and no answers are provided anyway.

If it dawns on many Christians who drop in here that much of their belief set is logically indefensible, that is a good thing surely.