Atheism is Evil - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159379
@Godstud -- I cite the authorities on these things because they spent the overwhelming majority of their life dedicated to Christianity and studying these topics. It's not that "everything has to come from a book!," it's that the Bible is the most important book in the West and it has been studied extensively by the brightest minds for the last 1500 years...

To ignore this and try to just invent your own ad hoc theology is dumb.

I read books -- I found some places where the leading authorities of my Church discussed this, so I refer back to it...

Yuo know, I can't erase this stuff from my head, right? When I read the best explanation for what something is, I take that explanation as the true explanation. I don't think, "Geez, OK, I gotta now go and create my own theology/ethical philosophical/theory of evolution/Second Law of Thermodynamics to top this... If I don't, I'll just be a dumb-dumb that leans too heavily on the work of experts."

You write with petty arrogance and prideful ranting.


When I quote the Saints, "everything I say has to come from a book," and I am a brainwashed follower...

And when I free it up and write on my own, it's arrogance and prideful ranting.

Not a lot of options here for a guy like me.

There is no evidence that some other religion doesn't have it right, and that you're doing it wrong. There might even be no "gods", atall.


Imagine calling for empirical evidence at a time like this..!

We are discussing what is Goodness!, evil, theosis... This isn't exactly a convenient moment to have us drop everything and

show me concrete evidence that God even exists & your religion is true!

You know, it's possible to discuss something about religion without it getting immediately slapped down with OK, so prove it, RAIGHT NOW, by my epistemology.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159380
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you are factually incorrect.

Or perhaps you are assuming that Theosis is a unique mystical experience available only to Christians.

You should really define theosis now, since you do not seem to be using the word in its traditional sense, or as a synonym for a mystical and transformative union with the divine.


Yuo are right.

I use theosis in the Eastern Orthodox way.

Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation.


Orthodox Wiki

But I think... it can be conceived of in broader or narrower terms. I know, I know, I am not helping the clarity of the debate saying that, but we are talking about theological things that will be, by their nature, a bit opaque. We are not privy to the knowledge of everything.

Theosis would mean unity with God's energies, like the Saints have it, while never having his actual essence.

Like here...

"Further, that which participates in something according to its essence must necessarily possess a common essence with that in which it participates and be identical to it in some respect. But who has ever heard that God and we possess in some respect the same essence? St Basil the Great says, 'The energies of God come down to us, but the essence remains inaccessible.' And St Maximos also says, 'He who is deified through grace will be everything that God is, without possessing identity of essence.' Thus it is impossible to participate in God's essence, even for those who are deified by divine grace. It is, however, possible to participate in the divine energy. To this does the measured light of truth here below lead me, to behold and experience the splendor of God,' states St Gregory of Nazianzos. As the Psalmist says, 'May the splendor of our God be upon us' (Ps. 90:17. LXX). There is a single energy of God and the saints,' St Maximos clearly writes, who was one of their number; they are 'living icons of Christ, being the same as He is, by grace rather than by assimilation.'"

St. Gregory Palamas, in the Philokalia, Vol. IV

I think the Saints have theosis through being living icons through grace by assimilating into the single energy of God, but not participating in God's essence, which is impossible.

This could be conceived of as the narrower idea of what theosis is.
By Pants-of-dog
#15159382
@Verv

This idea about “essence” seems fanciful.

It does not seem like a real and practical difference in terms of theists being more moral or in any other way better than atheists.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159393
I suppose the most moral people are those that believe in a god that committed genocide on humans he created (flood, killing firstborns, plague, brimstone), that is obsessed with mutilation (circumcision) and death, rape, that allows for slavery and has a guide of how to "properly do it". Hitler was not an atheist, NAZI Germany certainly was not, THEIR FUCKING NAZI BELT BUCKLES HAD "GOD WITH US" :lol: very atheist thing to say. What did the pope Pius XXII did regarding Hitler? What did the church do in regards to Hitler... I'll give you two options. Did they a) excommunicate Hitler for being a murderous bitch? or b) Celebrate his Birthday? Please.
Stalin was raised an orthodox Christian, go figure how much of his mind was poisoned by the twisted teachings! :knife:
At the end of the day. To the extent that religious groups were prosecuted under any of these regimes has NOTHING to do with religion at all. It had to do with power. All of these people at some point or another realize that the church is just another source of political power so they have to either have absolute control of the cleric class or they have to do their best to eliminate them or weaken them if they wish to succeed as a dictator.
It has nothing to do whatsoever with the actual beliefs of people. In fact, as others have noted before, often time the religion gets replaced by some sort of cult of personality such as North Korea (people actually believe the leader is a divine being), Fidel, etc. It is just 1 religion that worships a man replacing a religion that worships an imaginary being.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159395
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Verv

This idea about “essence” seems fanciful.

It does not seem like a real and practical difference in terms of theists being more moral or in any other way better than atheists.


Essence can also be understood as nature, and we have been talking about the nature of Christ as both divine and human for a long time...

Understanding the divine energies and the essence of God also does not seem like it is fanciful or an exaggeration when you understand that quotations from the Bible talk about God's omnipresence
- Do I not fill the heavens and earth? (Jer. 23:24)
- He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col. 1:17)
- For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

And this is being believed also by people who believe that spirits populate the world and witness what we are doing.
- Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles (Heb. 12:1)

And who believe in the demonic...

So, there is an entire world beyond the visible according to the Bible, which God fills totally, but is also inhabited by other spiritual beings and realities... Correct?

So, at some point this is going to be explained further by the Saints, and we cannot understand that without the explanation of St. Gregory Palamas and other theologians.

XogGyux wrote:I suppose the most moral people are those that believe in a god that committed genocide on humans he created (flood, killing firstborns, plague, brimstone), that is obsessed with mutilation (circumcision) and death, rape, that allows for slavery and has a guide of how to "properly do it". Hitler was not an atheist, NAZI Germany certainly was not, THEIR FUCKING NAZI BELT BUCKLES HAD "GOD WITH US" :lol: very atheist thing to say. What did the pope Pius XXII did regarding Hitler? What did the church do in regards to Hitler... I'll give you two options. Did they a) excommunicate Hitler for being a murderous bitch? or b) Celebrate his Birthday? Please.
Stalin was raised an orthodox Christian, go figure how much of his mind was poisoned by the twisted teachings! :knife:
At the end of the day. To the extent that religious groups were prosecuted under any of these regimes has NOTHING to do with religion at all. It had to do with power. All of these people at some point or another realize that the church is just another source of political power so they have to either have absolute control of the cleric class or they have to do their best to eliminate them or weaken them if they wish to succeed as a dictator.
It has nothing to do whatsoever with the actual beliefs of people. In fact, as others have noted before, often time the religion gets replaced by some sort of cult of personality such as North Korea (people actually believe the leader is a divine being), Fidel, etc. It is just 1 religion that worships a man replacing a religion that worships an imaginary being.


First off, Gott mitt uns predates the Nazis by hundreds of years, and even transcends Germany:

"Gott mit uns ("God with us") is a phrase commonly used in heraldry in Prussia (from 1701) and later by the German military during the periods spanning the German Empire (1871 to 1918), the Third Reich (1933 to 1945), and the early years of West Germany (1949 to 1962). It was also commonly used by Sweden in most of its wars and especially as a war cry during the Thirty Years' War."

What did the pope Pius XXII did regarding Hitler?


What did a fallible human being do about Hitler? How does that reflect on God?

I suppose the most moral people are those that believe in a god that committed genocide on humans he created (flood, killing firstborns, plague, brimstone), that is obsessed with mutilation (circumcision) and death, rape, that allows for slavery and has a guide of how to "properly do it".


These are very classic arguments, plus the word 'brimstone.'

This is too much to go into depth on, but the world is flooded so that it can return to innocence; Pharaoh causes God to display His full power in order to avoid further bloodshed; circumcision is no more mutilation than piercing your ears; everybody dies in nature; and slavery was essentially a social safety net.

"B-b-b-but how can slavery be a social safety net?"

If you cannot think about how the economy of bronze & iron age civilizations functioned, you were terribly failed in your formative years. This is basic knowledge. You should be very angry right now that nobody taught you the realities of premodern life.

Stalin was raised an orthodox Christian, go figure how much of his mind was poisoned by the twisted teachings! :knife:


Yeah, he was even in the seminary...

But this is really a flipping amazing statement :lol: -- when a murderous dictator is pulled between the influence of Eastern Orthodoxy & Communism, and he goes on to become a Communist who murders millions & specifically victimizes Eastern Orthodox people in many circumstances, we ae to think that the nefarious influence on him must've been the religion of Jesus Christ.

The boldness of this statement would make atheists on Reddit blush.

To the extent that religious groups were prosecuted under any of these regimes has NOTHING to do with religion at all. It had to do with power.


You totally recognize the reverse of this, too, right?
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159399
Verv wrote:Essence can also be understood as nature, and we have been talking about the nature of Christ as both divine and human for a long time...

Understanding the divine energies and the essence of God also does not seem like it is fanciful or an exaggeration when you understand that quotations from the Bible talk about God's omnipresence
- Do I not fill the heavens and earth? (Jer. 23:24)
- He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col. 1:17)
- For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

And this is being believed also by people who believe that spirits populate the world and witness what we are doing.
- Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles (Heb. 12:1)

And who believe in the demonic...

So, there is an entire world beyond the visible according to the Bible, which God fills totally, but is also inhabited by other spiritual beings and realities... Correct?

So, at some point this is going to be explained further by the Saints, and we cannot understand that without the explanation of St. Gregory Palamas and other theologians.



First off, Gott mitt uns predates the Nazis by hundreds of years, and even transcends Germany:

"Gott mit uns ("God with us") is a phrase commonly used in heraldry in Prussia (from 1701) and later by the German military during the periods spanning the German Empire (1871 to 1918), the Third Reich (1933 to 1945), and the early years of West Germany (1949 to 1962). It was also commonly used by Sweden in most of its wars and especially as a war cry during the Thirty Years' War."



What did a fallible human being do about Hitler? How does that reflect on God?



These are very classic arguments, plus the word 'brimstone.'

This is too much to go into depth on, but the world is flooded so that it can return to innocence; Pharaoh causes God to display His full power in order to avoid further bloodshed; circumcision is no more mutilation than piercing your ears; everybody dies in nature; and slavery was essentially a social safety net.

"B-b-b-but how can slavery be a social safety net?"

If you cannot think about how the economy of bronze & iron age civilizations functioned, you were terribly failed in your formative years. This is basic knowledge. You should be very angry right now that nobody taught you the realities of premodern life.



Yeah, he was even in the seminary...

But this is really a flipping amazing statement :lol: -- when a murderous dictator is pulled between the influence of Eastern Orthodoxy & Communism, and he goes on to become a Communist who murders millions & specifically victimizes Eastern Orthodox people in many circumstances, we ae to think that the nefarious influence on him must've been the religion of Jesus Christ.

The boldness of this statement would make atheists on Reddit blush.



You totally recognize the reverse of this, too, right?

Let me see... should I take advice about ethics and morals from a guy professing his belief in a religion whose center pillar scripture and thus morality comes from a book written mostly by anonymous sources, plagiarized from countless previous myths? A book that is full of incest, killing, rape, mutilation, slavery, genocide?
90% of the characters in that book would be in jail in modern society and you trying to dangle your nonsense? How dare you throw rocks at your neighbor's roof when yours is made out of fucking tenjudo paper.
Atheists are evil? We don't fantasize about the genocide of humanity on a flood, or a "rapture times", we don't fantasize about hell for eternal punishment and torture of people... atheists are evil? No. You are delusional.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159400
This would be a very heated debate that would go nowhere, so I will bow out of this one, frand.

But I will say this: I have not said that atheists are evil. I have argued in other place that atheists are fully capable of being moral, rational, kind, warm, excellent people, and are Christ-bearers. You're made in the image of God.

I assume you have good ideals, and, if it cost you nothing, you would always choose to do generally great things for other people.

The issue is just that you are a human, like me, and thus ultimately selfish & vain. So, just like me, atheists will occasionally have affairs, steal, drink & drive, hit & run; and, in desperate situations, they will kill without remorse. This is because man is reduced to an animal very quickly when his stomach is empty or ego is threatened.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159401
Verv wrote:The issue is just that you are a human, like me, and thus ultimately selfish & vain. So, just like me, atheists will occasionally have affairs, steal, drink & drive, hit & run; and, in desperate situations, they will kill without remorse. This is because man is reduced to an animal very quickly when his stomach is empty or ego is threatened.


Precisely, the human condition already explains this, there is no need to appeal to divinities.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15159417
Verv wrote:the economy of bronze & iron age civilizations

So you are more the moral skeptic. A nihilist, if anything, to be honest.

What is good and evil are far from being universal absolutes.

What is 'good' today may be 'evil' tomorrow.


:)
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15159422
ingliz wrote:So you are more the moral skeptic. A nihilist, if anything, to be honest.

What is good and evil are far from being universal absolutes.

What is 'good' today may be 'evil' tomorrow.


:)

For anyone over the age of about 30, we have seen this happen even in our own lifetimes.
#15159439
Verv wrote:Essence can also be understood as nature, and we have been talking about the nature of Christ as both divine and human for a long time...

Understanding the divine energies and the essence of God also does not seem like it is fanciful or an exaggeration when you understand that quotations from the Bible talk about God's omnipresence
- Do I not fill the heavens and earth? (Jer. 23:24)
- He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col. 1:17)
- For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

And this is being believed also by people who believe that spirits populate the world and witness what we are doing.
- Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles (Heb. 12:1)

And who believe in the demonic...

So, there is an entire world beyond the visible according to the Bible, which God fills totally, but is also inhabited by other spiritual beings and realities... Correct?

So, at some point this is going to be explained further by the Saints, and we cannot understand that without the explanation of St. Gregory Palamas and other theologians.


Anyway, this does not show that Christians or Christianity is any getter than atheists or atheism from a moral perspective or any other objective comparison.

All you seem to be saying is that Christians are better according to their own mythology.
By late
#15159445
Crantag wrote:
Religiousity is evil.



Religiosity can be evil.

But the language is limited and awkward. Don't get me wrong, I made a similar mistake, and it colors my thinking, in a negative way, to this day.

I see it as an intellectual limit. We seem unable to devise a system that includes everyone, and the rest is just denouement.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159530
XogGyux wrote:Precisely, the human condition already explains this, there is no need to appeal to divinities.


Yes, the human condition completely affirms the Christian perspective on man's depravity. And it's a very tricky kind of depravity, one in which the Chief is a really great guy when there's enough taro root and the hunts go well, but can quickly transition into a man who torture kills the opposition and demands dawn raids of the neighboring village to get men to cannibalize and women to add to he and his mates harem when there's an existential threat.

Understanding this, we can understand the need for Christ. Or, we can reject him, and merely be at peace with the fickle structure of our fallen world.

One day you'll be an amazing Christian.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159532
ingliz wrote:So you are more the moral skeptic. A nihilist, if anything, to be honest.

What is good and evil are far from being universal absolutes.

What is 'good' today may be 'evil' tomorrow.


:)


I'm actually literally saying that bronze and iron age civilizations practiced slavery as a mercy.

What do we do with the conquered tribe? If we let them wander away freely, they're an existential threat. If we kill them all to a man, we are merciless. So, we'll make them slaves.

Same with the people's who show up at our door during famine. Indeed, even our own people will have systems for selling themselves into slavery.

Keep in mind, the differences between an illiterate herdsman who has no assets beyond his clothes and clans herds is not so different.

But sure, this has a nihilistic quality.

No one can be expected to behave the same way they do now as how they would in these circumstances.

How we measure morality has to be based on the person's will, and with the knowledge that a dude typing an internet post on a smartphone about how bad iron age middle Eastern tribes were in their moral codes is going to totally miss the mark if he's historically illiterate.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159535
Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, this does not show that Christians or Christianity is any getter than atheists or atheism from a moral perspective or any other objective comparison.

All you seem to be saying is that Christians are better according to their own mythology.


Yes, except the mythology part, plus two other distinctions...

Christians have the same inclinations and weaknesses as everyone else, and will also fall victim to choosing evil things out of a perceived necessity.

But Christians also repent, and sincere contrition counts for something.

I also think there's the distinction that Christians are more morally sensitive. Not necessarily about animal rights or something, but coomers gonna coom, and Christians gonna try to not be addicted to internet porn. This is also a big distinction.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15159544
Verv wrote:Yes, the human condition completely affirms the Christian perspective on man's depravity. And it's a very tricky kind of depravity, one in which the Chief is a really great guy when there's enough taro root and the hunts go well, but can quickly transition into a man who torture kills the opposition and demands dawn raids of the neighboring village to get men to cannibalize and women to add to he and his mates harem when there's an existential threat.

Understanding this, we can understand the need for Christ. Or, we can reject him, and merely be at peace with the fickle structure of our fallen world.

One day you'll be an amazing Christian.

Actually the most depraved of all characters of Christian mythology, is in fact, god. He commits genocide, encourages killing, murdering, rape, infanticide, incest.
Tell you what, would you want we get on skype and I tell the tale of Soddom and Gomorrah to your kids, I'll read it to them, I'll explain them to them when the words get a bit too confusing, and maybe I'll show them pictures of what it is being described... you know... how two daughters got their old father drunk so they could rape the old man. Or perhaps, we can tell the story of how Jephthah murdered and burned his own daughter in offering to God.
What is with God's obsession with foreskins offerings anyway? And why is it that apparently we can use foreskins as currency to buy wives... :lol:
So you have no issues at all if we sit one afternoon on skype and I tell these beautiful stories to your kids, right?
Please.
#15159545
Verv wrote:Yes, except the mythology part, plus two other distinctions...

Christians have the same inclinations and weaknesses as everyone else, and will also fall victim to choosing evil things out of a perceived necessity.

But Christians also repent, and sincere contrition counts for something.


Atheists also repent and feel sincere contrition.

I also think there's the distinction that Christians are more morally sensitive. Not necessarily about animal rights or something, but coomers gonna coom, and Christians gonna try to not be addicted to internet porn. This is also a big distinction.


This supports my point about practicing morality according to one’s worldview.Yes, Christians may be more moral about not watching porn, but that is because not watching porn is a big deal for Christians. Atheists may be more moral about animal rights, as you say, because their atheist worldview thinks that is more important than porn.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159550
Pants-of-dog wrote:Atheists also repent and feel sincere contrition.


In one sense of the word, they can repent; of course, they can feel regret, and wish to make a change.

But, if you do not believe in sin, you do not repent in the Christian meaning of the word, and you are not contrite in the Christian sense of the word. All sins are sins against God, and failing to show contrition and to ask forgiveness to God is a failure to repent within the Christian meaning of it.

This supports my point about practicing morality according to one’s worldview.Yes, Christians may be more moral about not watching porn, but that is because not watching porn is a big deal for Christians. Atheists may be more moral about animal rights, as you say, because their atheist worldview thinks that is more important than porn.


There are plenty of Christian vegs, but sure. I was pointing out that atheists will often embrace a cause like vegism, but I imagine there is very little opposition to what the lads are calling 'PMO.'

People who do not have a strict sense of sexual ethics they try to live by are actively sinning, even if they can be regarded by many as ethical, which is an extremely important observation when we are talking about goodness & theosis.

People who fall short of the glory of God at all, fall short of it completely. And that's everyone.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159553
XogGyux wrote:Actually the most depraved of all characters of Christian mythology, is in fact, god. He commits genocide, encourages killing, murdering, rape, infanticide, incest.
Tell you what, would you want we get on skype and I tell the tale of Soddom and Gomorrah to your kids, I'll read it to them, I'll explain them to them when the words get a bit too confusing, and maybe I'll show them pictures of what it is being described... you know... how two daughters got their old father drunk so they could rape the old man. Or perhaps, we can tell the story of how Jephthah murdered and burned his own daughter in offering to God.
What is with God's obsession with foreskins offerings anyway? And why is it that apparently we can use foreskins as currency to buy wives... :lol:
So you have no issues at all if we sit one afternoon on skype and I tell these beautiful stories to your kids, right?
Please.


OK, would you like to arrange a Skype meeting to have a debate about these things?

I do not have any kids yet, but if you are struggling to interpret the Bible, you can pick some areas you have issues with, have a debate, post it here, and put it on YouTube.

Of course, feel free to create a throwaway account, never show your face, choose a pseudonym to be called, etc., I don't really care.

We can also do this and just never put it on YouTube, either. It wouldn't matter.
By Pants-of-dog
#15159554
Verv wrote:In one sense of the word, they can repent; of course, they can feel regret, and wish to make a change.

But, if you do not believe in sin, you do not repent in the Christian meaning of the word, and you are not contrite in the Christian sense of the word. All sins are sins against God, and failing to show contrition and to ask forgiveness to God is a failure to repent within the Christian meaning of it.



There are plenty of Christian vegs, but sure. I was pointing out that atheists will often embrace a cause like vegism, but I imagine there is very little opposition to what the lads are calling 'PMO.'

People who do not have a strict sense of sexual ethics they try to live by are actively sinning, even if they can be regarded by many as ethical, which is an extremely important observation when we are talking about goodness & theosis.

People who fall short of the glory of God at all, fall short of it completely. And that's everyone.


I do not think you understand my point.

Yes, Christians will seem more moral to other Christians because they are acting in accordance with Christian beliefs about morality.

But a non-Xian rational observer would not see Christians as more more moral than atheists because the non-Xian rational observer is not judging morality according to Christian beliefs and teachings.
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 37

I am not so sure I would want Russia leading the […]

https://i.imgur.com/bJHoJui.jpg[…]

"A year into the pandemic, many others are jo[…]

I wonder if all the Russia-watchers who confident[…]