Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

A question to unbelievers:


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 231 posts in this discussion
Posted on 18 Feb 2013 22:42:19 GMT
Obelix says:
Gods are human creations, not the other way round.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 00:33:08 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 10:15:35 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori: The "tradition" of commiting suicide is not based solely on a belief in reincarnation, but in a belief in Karma. In breif,o do something wrong is, in most societies, considered to bring shame and dishonour on the whole family. In Japan, this dishonour is rectified by the guilty partys sicide. The "bad karma" (to use a western term), the bad consequences of the sucides deeds, are removed from the family. It is Karma that benefits us, leading to our incarnation in a future state of Being. Since, as I explained, the present person no longer exists in a future life, a belief in reincarnation is quite redundant, but a belief in Karma, and a belief that Karma benefits or detracts from a future life, is the central belief behind these suicides. We will never know our future generations of children and they will never know us, but we, in the present do all we can to ensure their future welfare (well, some of us do). The same morality can be applied to our future generation of the Being of Self and others. By commiting suicide in order to remove bad Karma from ones family, one is ensuring thier own present Karma and thier future incarnations. The concept of Reincarnation is quite complex, involving quite a lot of related aspects, unlike Christianity, which simply states that Heaven and Hell exist with no supporting argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 10:17:58 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"The concept of Reincarnation is quite complex, involving quite a lot of related aspects, unlike Christianity, which simply states that Heaven and Hell exist with no supporting argument. "

I don't care which has the more supporting argument I want to see one shred of supporting evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 10:23:33 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 10:40:50 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 10:41:43 GMT
G. Heron says:
DB

"So, you read an unrelated piece of fiction and assume that it tells you everything about a religious persons life. It doesn't."

Are you sure :-

"But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 10:51:25 GMT
Spin says:
CL: There is no "judgement" in Buddhism. Nothing is "worthy" or "unworthy". Nor is there "good" or "evil". There is no deity "watching" you or manipulating events. Rewincarnation is not concerned with who is "worthy" or "unworthy". No-one is being judged by anyone or anything. It is Karma which dictates the state of ones Being. Reincarnation is a "natural process" that occurs along with all other natural processes. One does not ask how DNA judges which gene to pass on.

Posted on 19 Feb 2013 10:54:18 GMT
Just thinking about 1984 depresses me greatly

As for a "head Atheist" is there such a thing? I don't think there is, Atheists simply share similar thoughts and hold weight to certain theories (Evolution for example) but there certainly is no dogma, if something comes along that proves these things wrong then any right thinking person would simply accept those findings with reasonable proof

That's the real crux of it though, can a religous person just change their mind on their God? For argument sake lets say proof arises that God doesn't exist, what do the religious do?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 10:56:51 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 11:16:11 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"One does not ask how DNA judges which gene to pass on. "

DNA replicates itself completely so there is no picking and choosing. You postulate a mechanism called Karma but provide no evidence for it.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 11:16:56 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"G: Evidence for what?"

Evidence that reincarnation is more than a fairytale.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 11:36:06 GMT
Spin says:
G: The evidence is in the act itself. If you do good then there are good consequences, not necessarily material consequences, for both Self and others. Do bad and there are bad consequences. That is known by everyone with experience of life. Karma is not a mechanism. You are placing western conceptions on these eastern philosophies and thus misunderstanding them. Karma is no more a mechanism than, for example, "dimension" is. "Forward/Backward" is a "dimension", but in order to discen "forward" one must discern "backwards". If you move forwards you will continue to move forward, in opposition to backwards unless something halts your motion. This is not a mechanism but a state of Being consisting of complex inter-relations between the body and its environment. So it is with Karma; it involves the necessary duality of "Right/Wrong". Do good and good will happen to oneself and others until one is stopped by one or more of a wide and complex variety of other phenomena. On a practical level, the evidence for this is found in your own morality; you only consider some things to be moral and others immoral because of thier consequences. Your own moral principles are based on your belief in Karma. Therefore, if you reject the idea of Karma, that actions have good or bad consequences for Self and others, yiou will have a tough time justifying your own morality.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 11:36:37 GMT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning,

I wouldn't say I fear God - as in being afraid of Him - but I am afraid to get things wrong for Him. That's a desire to please, rather than a fear of getting things wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 11:43:36 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 12:11:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Feb 2013 12:14:59 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"How about if we make Big Brother the head Atheist."
Actually that would be a very interesting experiment. Why don't you assume the character Big Brother as the atheist type deity and criticise it accordingly. We'll then see how many of those arguments can be transposed to the god you actually do worship.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:26:43 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:31:15 GMT
AJ Murray says:
So Diane, your biggest criticism of atheists and atheism is that it sometimes resembles your religion?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:38:41 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

I accept that my actions have consequences but it is not as simple as you present in karma, A bad action can have good consequences and a good action can have bad consequences. I believe human morality is a product of evolution rather than some cosmic system of balances.

The main problem that karma has is that we often see people doing bad things and having a great time doing them ( the late Jimmy Savile springs to mind), and a great many good deeds seem to go unrewarded or even punished, imagine an old man who pushes a young girl out of the way of a car and is struck himself and dies in agony on the road. Faced with these issues you have 1 of two choices, abandon karma or invent a post death compensation system and that is why the idea of re-incarnation was invented; the old man is reborn into wealth and comfort and karma fixes it for Jim to come back as a dung beetle. The only problem as I have mentioned earlier is that there is no evidence for re-incarnation.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:39:03 GMT
Why would Dawkin's be this "Big Brother?" Why not Sam Harris? Neil De Grasse? Christopher Hitchens?

There is no sole leader because Atheists don't have nor need one, that is where the anology falls apart I'm afraid

The anology works in the case of the major religions because they have their figureheads, they have their leaders

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:39:50 GMT
DB says:
Aj

Nope. but it does pretend not to be a religion.

BTW. Are you on here evangelising AJ?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:42:22 GMT
it's a fallacy to say unbelievers are united. they are exactly everything and anything but that. This is arguably the problem with unbelief is it not?

so the concept cannot realistically be reversed. if anything it shall only feed into the unbeliever's delusion that he has anything in common with his "comrades", who shall desert him at the drop of a hat when crunch time arrives. How could it be any other way?

To insinuate they follow a common road is nonsense. Just look around. Even unbelievers with a common geographical nation or football team fall to deserting one another and "every man for himself" when it's time to bite the bullet. It's not possible it be any other way. Including breaking family ties since there is no ideological cement to bind them together given by study of rocks.

This is just the "atheism is not a belief" argument. Haven't you learnt anything yet, DB? Just because there may be a tenuous, present "unbeliever fashion" does not mean all unbelievers ascribe to it. In fact it's more likely they will find points to disagree with each other about. Is this not painfully and plainly apparent in fragmented, unbelieving society?

Please. Let us get back to the topic of fear of God.
Peace with you

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:43:06 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:51:01 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"Nope. but it does pretend not to be a religion."

It isn't though, and only through generalising do you manage to try a comparison.

-"BTW. Are you on here evangelising AJ?"

No. I wouldn't wish you an atheist, you'd only embarrass us.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2013 13:59:06 GMT
DB - I understand where your coming from but I simply named 3 other prominent Atheists off the top of my head, I could have named 3 others it wouldn't have changed my point

People can believe they are the leaders of something if they wish, it doesn't make it true. Your God however IS the leader of your church, Dawkins just wants to be a leader theres quite a difference

The Big Brother anology just doesn't apply
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  231
Initial post:  12 Feb 2013
Latest post:  25 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions