This PPR forum could be enjoyable, but it's oten not.

Post Reply New Topic

Ah. I think you'll find that a lot of atheists believe that the idea that we are all lost to sin is just one of the central traps in religion. A belief that we NEED leadership and gospel and dogma to be good people, which is somewhat offensive to people who have found a way to be good people without external induction of fear or envy.

Also, many atheists suspect that the reason why many religious folk seem to believe that without religion we would devolve into some sort of boschian canvas of depravity springs from these same religious folk being amazingly twisted inside, and thus dependent on religion to keep from raping little children and whatnot.

Like the way that baptist preachers often seem to be convinced that godless gay men lust after little boys all day. None of the gay men i know are attracted to pre-pubescent features. But a surprisingly large percentage of pederasts who prey on boys lead otherwise heterosexual lives. I believe it is possible, for example, that Jerry Sandusky does not himself realize what he is, and may have a complex enough psychosis that he is able to convince himself that he has not done things that he has in fact done.

I should add that i am quite certain that there are an unknowably large number of people who were saved from a life of antisocial behavior by religion.

Just as there are millions of people who's lives are improved by antidepressants.

When Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses" he was living in an era when opium was the only truly effective pain killer. By "opiate" he didn't mean what we do now, when we refer to an opiate as something that gives you a euphoric feeling and allows you to take leave of your life.

He meant that religion takes away the pain.

I've said before, I don't want to deny anybody a positive thing that works for them. As long as they don't decide that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Vexcalibur wrote

I am not here to try to argue the point of whether God exists. I can't, so I won't bother. I just think people ought to be able to discuss a mutual interest without having their thread derailed. If the thread topic is specifically about whether God exists then fine, have at it, otherwise it's just a distraction.
I will put it in a different context. Suppose you are a hunting enthusiast and you are on a hunting forum because you want to discuss the best ways to tenderize game. You're having an interesting discussion with other hunting enthusiasts and along comes a vegan who states that hunting and eating meat are immoral and anyone with any compassion at all would not even consider doing so. Wouldn't you find that irritating? Wouldn't you like to continue the discussion about marinades and leave the discussion about the morality of hunting and eating meat for another thread?

Your metaphor would work if this were a hunting forum not an aspie forum.
A conversation in public gets public comment.

especially in a forum of discussion like this

This is my thread I make the rules! These are the rules...well, I can't think of any now, but if I did, they would be carved in stone.

Rule #1. No carving rules in stone. PETS will be mad (People for the Ethical Treatment of Stones).

This is odd, why dont you just limit participants to believers only, add something in the thread title and if someone violates ask mods to do something about it. Idk how that would work but you just cannot expect privacy in an open forum and open thread. For instance, add in every post that other opinions of non-believers are not welcomed and irrelevant.

Unfortunately atheists have had a very hard time throughout the history so you might want to consider it as a bad karma. People have a right to bash religion and I am very glad they do. However trashing believers'-only discussion is super impolite. On the other hand talking about religion in a place where majority is atheists is not really sensible either. You could unite your forces and try to convert us as your God tells to. Or doesn't it?

My "rules" post was a total joke...

Okay, so you do believe that only Christ can lead to salvation. That makes you much more Biblical than most of the Quakers I ever met in the UK. This throws up problems, however. Quakers don't generally believe in Original Sin (or Hell), right? Then what exactly do humans need saving from, if not that?

I refuse to believe I've done anything so awful that I need a godman to 'save' me. I also refuse to believe that a couple of mythical people chomping on a apple has anything to do with me. I'm more willing to accept the Buddhist notion that my ego causes me suffering and I need to let go of that. That's why I went to Zen dojos after leaving the Quakers, I'm fond of sitting silently and boring myself into submission. Buddhism at least doesn't claim that I'm totally depraved without offering any justification, or blaming it on two mythical naked people and a snake (yes, I'm aware that you guys don't take the Bible at all literally). I also know the Quakers aren't fond of claiming that humans are totally depraved, either (they're pretty anti-Calvinist), so I'm suprised that you seem to be claiming this.

When I was a Christian, I wanted nothing more than to be like Jesus. I could never understand what I needed Jesus to 'save' me from, so I wasn't asking for salvation. My thought was that I would only go to Hell if I deserve it, but then I realised that my former religion actually teaches that I've got to ask Jesus for salvation or I get some kind of punishment when I die (even if it's just annihilation or God ignoring me). I could never honestly ask Jesus for salvation because my brain is incapable of working out what that means. So the programme, which was running Christianity in my mind, crashed.

How has Jesus saved you?

EDIT: This line of thought takes me back to being an 8 year old sat in the confessional booth, trying hard to think of 'sins' that I might've committed.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 17 Nov 2011, 2:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The metaphor is fine. This particular subforum is about politics, philosophy and religion. Most conversations within this subforum have nothing to do with asperger's. Most of the regulars here don't even use the parts of the site for talking about asperger's.

This whole thread can be summed up with a question and an answer between one party and the other.

The question is: Why can't religious people have a conversation about religion or some aspect of religion without it turning into yet another atheist vs. the religious thread?

And the answers seem to be mainly along these lines: because we don't want to let you have that and why should we?

Yeah, and the thread it was created in reference to could be summed up as "You can't tell me that my personal perception of religion is wrong"

Which any fool could see would resort in people pointing out that they can.

I hope that is not how I am being read. I find the advantages of inclusion (vigorous dialogue)
outweigh those of exclusion (people only talking to those who agree with them)
with this said I do think it is rude to perform a drive-by your God does not exist.
when the discussion was Faith vs Works or which bible should I buy and I pray I have never done so.

Where did I say I was saved like you describe? Haven't I quoted repeatedly the Hell is not made for Man?



When I die, I will just stop. No spirit goes anywhere, the machine breaks and fails.

At some soon to pass future time, I will be remembered, restored and magnified to a new immortal existence that is tangible. Some have called it quickening.

So Jesus saves me from non-existence.

No it wasn't.

I started it because I wanted to talk with others about interesting events described in the bible. Not if they really happened, but rather what did they look like? Remember, I am an artist and I am very visual.

Okay, so you're an annihilationist. You still seem to believe either in Original Sin or some kind of innate human depravity (which is deeply unpalatable to me).

Also, why does God award these goodies of eternal life only to those who buy into His son's story? If He was so great, why would he care if I believed in him? If He was so benevolent, why would he be so petty?