Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » 101 Atheist Quotes 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 1:45 p.m. Salanis Dork

  fastEddie wrote:

  My beliefs appear to be almost identical to SVreX's - that is you can't work your way to heaven, the only way there is through the simple acceptance of Christ's death on the cross for your sins (no, it can't be THAT simple can it? Yes it can and is; why is it so hard to accept?) and nothing else, not child or adult baptism or good works or anything else will get you in thru those pearly gates. I also believe faith without works is dead but that still won’t change your salvation thru Christ once accepted. I believe Jesus Christ was and is the one true Son of God and not a liar or a lunatic and that he lived a perfect sinless life here on earth for about 33 years before dying on a cross for my sins.

  I also believe that the Bible in its current state is the inerrant Word of God. Yes it has been through translations and evolutions of languages over the centuries and there is lots of muddled history over parts being added or removed over the years (mostly by the Vatican whom I question to call “Christian” anymore – see my abbreviated list of Christian tenants above) but it all comes down to the single main difference between religion and science – FAITH.
  

  Thanks for the input. Not to put you further on the spot but:

  How did you come to believe what you listed above?

  I have a very hard time with the "accept Christ's death to get in to heaven" stance. And not just because I disagree with it. But from a purely practical perspective: what does that mean?

  I believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth. I have not problem referring to him as Christ. I believe he lived and died by being crucified. I what way exactly is one supposed to "accept" or "believe in" Jesus?

  Again, what of all the people who have never heard of him? Are people then automatically damned to hell because no one has ever told them this story?

  What about prior to the resurrection of Jesus? What happens to all of those people?

  Also, you reference the Bible "in its current state". Which state is that. There are multiple versions of the Bible in common print now and they are not in absolute agreement with each other. Which "current" Bible is "inerrant"?

  I don't want to put words into SVRex's mouth, but it sounds like your faith diverges from his. You put a lot more weight on the preeminence of Jesus Christ. SVRex sounded like he puts more emphasis on a higher power and the general flawed nature of humanity. He did not reference Jesus as gatekeeper.

  Obviously, my religious stance is very different from yours. I am not trying to be antagonistic. I just want some clarification and disambiguation on a few of your key points. Edit: I hope you consider this an opportunity to challenge yourself to examine why it is you believe what you do, and thus strengthen your faith, as you said you'd like to.

  Oh, bonus point trivia round! How many people did Jesus personally guarantee a spot in heaven to? Who were they?

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 1:48 p.m. jamscal HalfDork

  fastEddie wrote:

  I also believe that the Bible in its current state is the inerrant Word of God. Yes it has been through translations and evolutions of languages over the centuries and there is lots of muddled history over parts being added or removed over the years (mostly by the Vatican whom I question to call “Christian” anymore – see my abbreviated list of Christian tenants above) but it all comes down to the single main difference between religion and science – FAITH.
  

  Question:

  How can you say that the current Bible is the inerrant word of god, and at the same time say that it's been changed over the years by the almost non-Christian Vatican?

  At what point, roughly, did it become the inerrant word of God, and how great a role did the Catholics play in this?

  Also, even if it is unerring, don't we weak humans necessarily misunderstand or misinterpret a bunch of it, either by our own views and prejudices, or by way of the many translations?

  I think the bible is: A. Very important B. Very Beautiful and calling it the unerring word of God is sort of something that is commonly said but doesn't mean much from either a faith or practical prespective.

  Otherwise, thanks for posting your views.

  -James

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 1:53 p.m. Salanis Dork

  One more note on the "inerrant Bible" that is getting jumped on:

  Some stories in the Bible are parables. This is obvious since Jesus liked to illustrate points using parables.

  To what degree do you consider other stories in the bible parables vs. literal stories? (Was Jonah actually swallowed by a whale? Did Noah really gather up two of every animal?)

  How do you determine which stories in the Bible are fact and which are parable?

  If a story is a parable, is it really inerrant? Is it really possible to err or not err in fiction?

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 2:01 p.m. Salanis Dork

  As a note on the Bible: I view most stories in the Bible about the same way I'd view the Illiad. Both are recordings of historical events in a culture that got passed down and had high mythology folded into them. I imagine the Bible does recount a lot of true events. However the details are certainly blown out of proportion. Much as there was a Trojan war, and almost certainly the heroes named did fight in it. But I do not believe that Achilles had been dipped in the river Styx and gained invulnerability or that Odysseus had Athena giving him visions.

  Arguably, the Illiad also is a more trustworthy document in terms of literary authority. It was recorded much closer to the time the events it depicts and did not travel nearly as much distance, or undergo nearly as many translations, or jump cultures. Nor did the stories have to be hidden from the wider culture ever. We are able to find it and study it in its original language.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 2:06 p.m. Osterkraut Reader

  GregTivo wrote: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you and that solves most of the world's problems.

  On a whole, I don't want anyone doing anything to me, even if they'ed like it done to themselves.

  The quotation by Hobbes in my sig is more fitting.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 2:48 p.m. confuZion3 HalfDork

  I'm done all my work for the week, the phones in the office are down, the scanner / copier is broken, the postage machine has given up the ghost, the fax machine is on the fritz, and everybody in the office is pissed off. I want to go home early.
  

  But I need to stay here for some reason.

  Therefore, there can be no God.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 3:47 p.m. captainzib Reader

  jamscal wrote:

  That is just insulting and condescending. "Oh, you little people aren't indoctrinated enough to an opinion." So the rest of society has to wait for the High Priests to get their heads around the fact that we're not Neolithic goat herders any more to "be allowed" to move forward? Then when they have decided what to allow and tell us so from on high, then it's okay?

  I disagree. First of all, I had a smile where I said you little people don't have enough training :) :) :) Second of all. Here's my opinion about the church telling us things from on high:

  I have a religion with which I agree, even if I don't follow every tenet, don't agree with some, or don't understand some.

  I do believe they consider all sorts of moral, ethical and legal issues, and are in general very well educated. They consider them based on a faith I agree with.

  I thus defer some judgement to them on issues I don't have enough information on, or don't directly affect my life, etc..

  An analogy (probably a bad one) would be consulting a lawyer. You don't know him very well, you may not like his every move, but you are paying him for knowledge and judgement you don't possess, and further, you are putting your faith in him.

  Ok, wow the thread is moving, and I usually like to read all new posts before I reply, but I wanted to address this, and am not sure if someone already said what I wanna say.

  You say you have a religion which you agree with, but you can easily admit that not everyone agrees with. The problem is, certain powerful people that lead nations like to make rules that are based on religion, that can arguably not a matter of simple right vs. wrong. Simple meaning don't murder vs. murder, more complex being don't allow stem cell research vs. allow it.

  If I'm dying of something that could easily be fixed with more stem cell research, do you think it's legit that my life is in the hands of people that you agree with. People that you think are morally correct?

  I'm glad that Christianity makes you happy, but this falls directly against the views of many as don't force your beliefs on people that don't want them.

  If you're dying of something that could be fixed with the results of stem cell research, feel free to deny the treatment. As an adult, you have the right to this. Some states are allowing people as young as 14 to turn down treatment. But don't tell me that I can't do it, just cause you say it's wrong.

  As for the lawyer bit, would you want a lawyer forcibly representing you, when you already have decided from prior research that you don't like the way that lawyer makes arguments? Because that's what's happening when the Catholic church makes decisions that affect atheists negatively.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 3:49 p.m. jamscal HalfDork

  Osterkraut wrote:

  GregTivo wrote: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you and that solves most of the world's problems.

  On a whole, I don't want anyone doing anything to me, even if they'ed like it done to themselves.

  The quotation by Hobbes in my sig is more fitting.

  The problem with that is that until you were old enough to take care of yourself, at least a few people had to "do unto you as they would have done to them."

  Unless you were raised by wolves.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 4:26 p.m. alfadriver Reader

  Jensenman wrote: a whole lot of stuff about going to church and having an internal conflict..

  Interesing youth, Jensen. I can kind of relate- living in SE Idaho, the prominent Christianity was Mormonism, which is somewhat a little odd.

  Well, I hung out with the thinking crowd, and you could see a similar question in their beliefs, too. Only a few really waivered, but there was some serious thinking.

  Especially for the smarter women- being very generalistic, a momron woman's place was in the home with the 10-12 kids (the kids number isn't an exaggeration- some of my friends has 12 brothers and sisters with more on the way). I think some of them looked outside of the community and saw something different, and went that way.

  It seems pretty hard for the more "rigorous" religions to really maintain the groups, since as thought progresses, questions of "X" practice in inevitable. It's how Martin Luther got thinking, and branched off of Catholosism.

  Interesting how this is progressing...

  Eric

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 4:51 p.m. Salanis Dork

  If we're posting religious/philosophical backgrounds. Mine was fairly similar to J-man's:

  Much like J-man, I too was raised Christian, but was Episcopalian, so no really overwhelming fire-and-brimstone or proselytizing there. My mom and Step-father were the religious ones though. My dad was very Atheist/Agnostic (not sure how best to classify him), also into SF which I was introduced to. I was particularly a fan of Heinlein.

  Anyway, long-story short, family crisis involving my mom occurred. I held onto my religion purely by reflex until I looked at some journal writing I'd done and realized that my personal philosophy wasn't particularly Christian. This launched interest in metaphysical-new-age-weird E36 M3. This eventually led me to reading some work by the Zen Buddhist Monk, Thich Nhat Hanh. Read what he has to say. Even if you are not religious or Buddhist, it is amazingly profound.

  My spiritual interests got coupled with an interest in the kookyness that is Quantum Physics.

  Ultimately the combination of cutting edge science, Buddhist philosophy, personal experience, and something inside myself led me to view the world as an interconnected whole.

  I hold my mysticism and philosophy as a way to approach how I live my life and interact with the world around me, while maintaining a profound respect for the scientific method and the sobering power that comes with recognizing how little we actually know and that we have to constantly question, test, and evaluate what we think is truth. When we stop evolving spiritually, physically, and intellectually, we die.

  An interesting philosophical model from Buddhist philosophy, that I really like for explaining the nature of reality, is about the physical and invisible worlds being like waves on the ocean. The world we experience are the waves. The invisible worlds is like the ocean. A wave is a wave, but it is also the ocean, but it isn't the ocean. The ocean is all the waves, but it's not. Each wave is it's own wave, but its existence is defined by every other wave on the ocean, and the ocean itself. If one wave were different, all the others would be. When a wave disappears, it is not gone, it has changed forms into another wave and a part of the ocean, which is all it ever really was.

  I find this even blends well with much of our understanding that we're gaining from quantum physics. Physical matter does not seem to exist as quantum particles, but rather as probability waves that organize themselves into observable patterns.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 4:57 p.m. Osterkraut Reader

  jamscal wrote:

  Osterkraut wrote:

  GregTivo wrote: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you and that solves most of the world's problems.

  On a whole, I don't want anyone doing anything to me, even if they'ed like it done to themselves.

  The quotation by Hobbes in my sig is more fitting.

  The problem with that is that until you were old enough to take care of yourself, at least a few people had to "do unto you as they would have done to them."

  Unless you were raised by wolves.

  Of course. However, considering children in a religious thread...

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 5:22 p.m. GregTivo New Reader

  Osterkraut wrote:

  jamscal wrote:

  The problem with that is that until you were old enough to take care of yourself, at least a few people had to "do unto you as they would have done to them."

  Unless you were raised by wolves.

  Of course. However, considering children in a religious thread...

  Let's try not to derail what is an otherwise interesting thread. What was done was wrong, those who did it were hopefully punished and the religion will bear the scars. No one here would have condoned it, so its not productive to follow this train of thought to the detriment of the overall goal of the thread.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 8:14 p.m. seann Reader

  SVreX wrote:

  Here's a thought- Who is Jesus?

  He claimed to be God. That's a pretty big claim- I didn't know how to respond to that.

  There are only 3 conclusions:

  Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was who He said he was- God incarnate.

  I've read C.S. Lewis argue this. Many cult leaders and founders of religions have claimed to be at most prophets but only Jesus claimed to be God. His argument was that it was so unlikley that people would follow someone claiming to be God, that this was evidence evidence in support of him telling the truth.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 9:09 p.m. jamscal HalfDork

  Captainzib, I missed your post while posting earlier...

  In a nutshell, the church doesn't want to rush technologies that depend on the harvesting of what could possibly become human beings, for the benefit of human beings already alive. All of whom will die eventually.

  Yes, a bunch of those created embryos will never become human, and people will disagree with when life starts.

  I happen to agree that it is a very slippery slope.

  I am also probably weak in that I wouldn't refuse available treatment for my kids, but medical and governmental decisions are best made without emotion.

  In a different direction, we can use money to save millions of more lives in third world countries by improving basic living conditions.

  Osterkraut:

  I submit any crosses on the walls where abuse was committed were dire warnings and not sanctions of that behavior.

  Respectfully,

  James

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 9:54 p.m. NYG95GA Dork

  I've always heard that one should stay away from talking about sex, politics, and religion. For that reason I have hesitated from posting on this most interesting thread. It has come to my attention that many here have adopted a stance aginst religion, while there are only a couple of soldiers defending it.

  I want to go on record as saying that I fall on the same side of the fence as SVRex and fastEddie.

  I have never met fastEddie, but I have met SVRex, and I am absolutely certain that he is a man of deep faith and commitment to his fellow man, which is the whole point of our little life on this world. I cannot stand by and watch y'all 'dis' such dedication; it just isn't right.

  I was raised in a Southern Baptist atmosphere, but with Jewish and Catholic neighbors. When I went to Sunday school and was taught that "our" God was the only one, I asked my parents about it (since I didn't want my friends to go to Hell), and they were very forthcoming about it. They said it was up to each family/person to decide what they wanted to believe, and that sounded good to me.

  Those old folks filled my young head with countless unbelievable stories about burning bushes and parting seas and pillars of salt, but I had a hard time proccessing such bizarre information since I was just a child at the time.

  Then I hit puberty and started to mature. It took a friend my own age to explain it to me: Jesus may or may not have been the Son of God, but what was important was that he brought to this world a message that we are all brothers.

  If I knew nothing else about Christianity, that would be enough.. I was sold on the idea, and feel that way to this day, 40 years later.

  "Orginized" religion to me is a social institution; it's about people getting together and raising families and rearing children and supporting one another. This seems like a win/win situation from every angle, and I don't have a problem with it, I might not engage in it that often, but I feel I have an understanding of it, and feel it serves a purpose.

  In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that having studied many of the World's religions, I have come to decide that the one that makes the most sense to me is Taoism.

  Still, I continue to belive that one should do unto others as one would have done to themselves, which was Jesus' message to the world, and if that makes me a Christian, then crucify me.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 10:41 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork

  No religion is the sole owner of logical kind behavior.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 11:13 p.m. JohnSSC New Reader

  SVreX wrote:

  Here's a thought- Who is Jesus?

  He claimed to be God. That's a pretty big claim- I didn't know how to respond to that.

  There are only 3 conclusions:

  Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was who He said he was- God incarnate.

  Jesus never claimed to be God. The apostle Paul makes this claim on His behalf, but so far as I can tell, Jesus claims to be the son of God and the son of man - not to be God.

  Now let me make full disclosure here. My Sweetie has a Bible that is direct translation from Aramaic which is the language Jesus and the apostles would have spoken - and Aramaic has not changed much. My Sweetie has repeatedly tried to find any mention by Jesus where he makes a claim to be God and can find none. She has done more of the heavy lifting reading wise than I have.

  That said, calling oneself the "son of God" and the "son of man" is actually quite consistent for that time when the prophets or those who felt they were "chosen" by God came along. Jesus very much was one of thes.

  Remember: Judaism (the root of Christianity) is monotheistic - one God. For Jesus to claim He is God as well would be inconsistent with His teachings that we were to worship and pray to God and also inconsistent with what appears to be His continued observance of the tenets of Judaism.

  The early Christians, in fact, called themselves Christians not because they worshipped Christ, but because they followed the teachings of Christ in order to worship God better. They tried to emulate Christ to be closer to God.

  It was some of the apostles who portrayed Jesus as divine and later it was the various sects that grew up within Christianity that began to vie for theological supremacy with those who supported divinity for Christ winning. One need look no further than the concept of the triune God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) that made the emperor Constantine a Saint (by dint of his putting to death anyone who did not "believe" this) to see what happens when things start going off on theological tangents.

• 

  Aug. 29, 2008 11:29 p.m. seann Reader

  NYG95GA- I like what you wrote above and that is why, though I am interested in these types of discussions and understanding why religious people believe what they do, I am reluctant to debate it.
  

  I still don't understand the feeling of being dissed though. There have been a few jokes but I think for the most part the tone of this thread has been pretty respectful.

  The believers are definitely outnumbered on this particular thread though so perhaps your feeling ganged up on. For that reason I'm glad to see another believer chime in.

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 12:15 a.m. Osterkraut Reader

  jamscal wrote:

  Osterkraut:

  I submit any crosses on the walls where abuse was committed were dire warnings and not sanctions of that behavior.

  Refresh my memory, what are you responding to?

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 1:29 a.m. NYG95GA Dork

  seann wrote:

  I still don't understand the feeling of being dissed though. There have been a few jokes but I think for the most part the tone of this thread has been pretty respectful.

  Thanks for your frank reply. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about it, I just don't like to see the lack of plurality in such an educated group of people; ir sticks in my craw.

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 8:36 a.m. jamscal HalfDork

  Osterkraut wrote:

  jamscal wrote:

  Osterkraut:

  I submit any crosses on the walls where abuse was committed were dire warnings and not sanctions of that behavior.

  Refresh my memory, what are you responding to?

  You said "mentioning children in a religious thread..." (and I wasn't really clear on what you meant) then others said don't go there...I thought you were talking about the clergy sex abuse scandal.

  Sorry if I misunderstood.

  -James

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 9:15 a.m. Wally SuperDork

  http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=371915&type=Odd

  Lightning strikes as man takes oath By Yang Li | 2008-8-28 | ONLINE EDITION

  IN a bizarre incident, a man in eastern China was struck by lightning just as he lifted an iron bar over his head to swear that god would punish him if he had taken money from his friend.

  The man, who was identified as Xu, had borrowed 500 yuan (US$73.21) from a close friend surnamed Huang three years ago. Xu, who lived in Fuqing City, Fujian Province, later forgot all about it, according to a news Web portal in Fujian.

  But Huang remembered and complained before other friends that Xu had taken money from him.

  On Tuesday, Huang took a wooden rod and rushed to Xu's home asking him to return the money. Xu too confronted Huang with an iron bar and stood his ground.

  Huang then told Xu that he should swear before god that he was not in his debt. Xu lifted the iron bar over his head and said if he owed Huang money, the god would punish him. Just then he was struck by lightning.

  He was later taken to hospital, and doctors said his injuries were not serious.

  He works in mysterious and sometimes humorous ways

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 1:34 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  aircooled wrote:

  GregTivo wrote: ...Also, I'm glad you'd jump in front of a bus to save a child, however, my eternal soul is not about to be run over by a bus...

  I think the anology may be more akin to:

  They are tackling a person on a sidewalk because of an anvil they see falling from the sky.

  Not a lot of people appreciate being bowled over to protect them from Wile E Coyote attacks... some of us are not quite that big of Road Runner fans (unless they have a Hemi of course...)

  I seriously doubt you've ever been body slammed by a Christian. Hmmm... interesting idea. ;)

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 1:38 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  Duke wrote:

  belteshazzar wrote:

  SVreX wrote:

  I've come to believe the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians are probably not.

  qft.

  c.s. lewis said it.

  "many people have been exposed to just enough Christianity to inoculate them against the real thing. ."

  And many Muslims say that Muslim extremists aren't real Muslims, etc. etc. etc. I've heard it a million times. But I bet the vast majority of all religious people consider themselves "real" what ever it is they are. I'm sure there are some cynical manipulators who realize they are being false and are in it for their own reasons... but I'm fairly sure that most do not fall into that category.

  If I considered myself a sweet potatoe it wouldn't make much difference, regardless of how "real" I considered myself.

  I didn't say "real". Actually the distinction I used was whether or not I capitalized the word "Christian".

  I don't really care what people think of themselves. I also don't care about what I think of myself.

  I think Jesus gets to define what makes one a Christian. He did, and there are a lot of people who are not, though they think they are.

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 1:47 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  Duke wrote:

  I'm honestly not just busting your chops here. We're trying to understand, and while I realize that you're putting your faith out for inspection and that takes effort, your posts didn't explain much. You owe us nothing, but you owe it to yourself to have a crystal clear understanding of your choices.

  SVreX wrote:

  There are only 3 conclusions:

  Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was who He said he was- God incarnate.

  Examining history and evidence, probability overwhelmingly indicates that Jesus was some combination of the first two (at least on the subject of his divinity). After all, how many actual, proven children of god have there been in recorded history? Zero. How many liars and lunatics? A very large number.

  Come on, Duke. I've heard you do a much better job of defending statistics when they are in your favor. Wasn't it you that pointed out in evolution debates that you can't do the statistics backwards?

  So, how many actual proven Dukes have there been in recorded history? Prior to you, zero. By your argument, that makes the probability overwhelming that you do not in fact exist. ;)

You'll need to log in to post.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jump to
• Top
• Grassroots Motorsports
• Off-Topic
• Sprockets
• $200X Classifieds
• Classic Motorsports