Why do non-theists post on TOL?

[Swordsman]

According to the dictionary: Theology = The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

So, if you are an atheist, agnostic, or anything of the like, why do you post here? I'm not coming down negatively on you, but just am curious on why you spend a lot of time on a forum where different theologies are spoken when you don't believe in any theology.

Someone enlighten me please. Or, if this has come up before, please point me to this thread. Thank you.

[Duder]

Swordsman -

I can think of some good reasons.

There's a site devoted to atheism at infidelguy.com. I Used to go there from time to time and post, even though I'm not an atheist. Discussing my opinions and the reasons why I think the way I do with people who disagree with me is a good way to test my beliefs. We all cherish our own beliefs, and we are not too good at testing them ourselves.

God is one of the most intersting topics around. And it's even more interesting to talk about Him in a non-believing forum. You'll get more back than "Yep, yep, that's true, uh-huh!"

I think an atheist will enjoy arguing here for about the same reasons. The atheist thinks God is a very relevant topic - I mean, he's interested enough in God to go to the trouble of deciding He doesn't exist. And so he wonders why other people reach the opposite conclusion. He's also intersested in finding the weaknesses in his thinking, so he exposes his ideas to attack by theists.

[PureX]

Maybe they find lunatics fascinating. *smile*

[cur_deus_homo]

I know this is going to sound like Orwellian double-speak, but I'll say it anyway. The meaning of the term "theology" has taken on much more meaning than what you suggested. And just because a "theology" is an "a-theology" doesn't make it less of a "theology" than any other kind of "theology." :)

Some of the atheists that post here can scream or moan or groan or stamp their feet or whatever until they're blue in the face :crackup: that they're not arguing for or against the idea that "there is a God." They simply do not have "god-belief." Right. This is tantamount to saying that I am an "a-Zeus-ist" or "a-devil-ist" or "a-Other-ist" (solipsist) because I simply do not have the "Zeus" or "devil" "belief." Please. Give it up already. Stop being such a chicken and admit you believe there is no "God." If you are one of the atheists I describe, then drop the "atheist" label and call yourself a "nauralist" or a "materialist" or an "agnostic" or some such thing.

No doubt we'll see an "atheist" or two or three show up here and complain that CDH is trying to define the terms of debate. Duh! So what? Why should I or anyone else let you, the atheist, do it? The real question is, how do we define our terms without appearing to do so through power plays.

I've made my case...

[oliverdread]

Everyone wants to be right. How much more does one want to be right in regard to their own convictions in relation to the existence or non-existence of the living God or another god. Not to mention opinions and beliefs are like bellybuttons- everyone's got'em! and usually love to tell'em.

Personally, I trust in the LORD and his means ;)

in HIS grip,

O.D.

[Nietzschean]

Originally posted by Swordsman

According to the dictionary: Theology = The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

So, if you are an atheist, agnostic, or anything of the like, why do you post here? I'm not coming down negatively on you, but just am curious on why you spend a lot of time on a forum where different theologies are spoken when you don't believe in any theology.

While your definition is correct, your premise is wrong. You assert that a religion cannot exist without a God-figure, and this is where you go off the rink. You see, theology as you defined it includes "the nature of ... religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions." Given this definition - and taking God out of the picture - I am able to see two purely rational reaons (and a plethora of non-rational but very true reasons) why a non-theist would speak on a theology forum.

1. The atheist has for himself some sort of religion that does not include a God-figure. There exist several such religions, which include Secular Humanism, Animism and Pantheism. Some would argue that Buddhism and other eastern faiths have aspects of atheism in them. Some can even turn philosophical argument into their own religions; for example, Nietzschean Existentialists. In this way, the person is able to speak on terms of his own religion amidst other people and their religions.

2. The atheist seeks to exercise the full definition of theology: a study of the nature of religious truth, and a rational inquiry into religious questions. Anyone can do this, and in fact many Christians do this in regards to religions that are not their own. A Christian will look upon Islam, Satanism, Legalism, Taoism, or any other religion large enough to have an agreed-upon name, and argue its faults on the basis of their own religion. Atheists can do the same, with or without the advantage of arguing on the merit of pure reason and secular knowledge. Which is to say, the atheist may have a religion of his own that holds certain beliefs - for example, a non-divine method of reincarnation - and argue based upon them; or, he may shun any sort of non-secular belief and argue for or against any religion he chooses on the basis of pure reason and academia.


And then you get into the non-rational reasons, which are too many to effectively explain.

Some people just like to stir trouble; while this is a small portion of atheists and agnostics in general, it is the perceived stereotype by most theists. By the same token, most Christians are not militant rightist extremers hell-bent on a Christian Theocracy that spans the entire world; but that is the perceived stereotype according to most atheists and non-Christian theists.

Some people - like me - actually take amusement and pleasure in making people think, in confusing them and making them question what they believe. Of this sort, there are various motives. Some people do it just for kicks, some people do it - like Zakath, I presume - to help people realize what it is that they actually believe, and some people aren't coherent for any time period sufficient enough as to evaluate their motives.




In short, the reasons for a non-theist to post on this message board are as many - if not more so - and as valid - if not more so - than the reasons for a theist to post on it. Where as a theist tends to be (at least to some degree) blinded to reason as a side effect of his faith in whatever it is he believes, a non-theist does not have that problem and can more thoroughly fulfill the difinition you provided: sic, a study of the nature of religious questions, and a rational - that's the key word here - inquiry about religious questions.

[Cyrus of Persia]

I dont want to lead the theme away, but i didnt wanted to made separate thread for it either. I'm just puzzled that the Forum what calls itself theological is almost purely focused on Christianity. And when there is separate corner for those who believe the Bible to be Word of God (Exclusively Christian Forum), i dont see anywhere corners for Buddhists, Judaists, etc...

[Kiwicottonball]

Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

I dont want to lead the theme away, but i didnt wanted to made separate thread for it either. I'm just puzzled that the Forum what calls itself theological is almost purely focused on Christianity. And when there is separate corner for those who believe the Bible to be Word of God (Exclusively Christian Forum), i dont see anywhere corners for Buddhists, Judaists, etc... I have wondered this same thing.

While I consider myself for the most part Christian, I have studied several other religions and find them wildly interesting. I had hoped this site would be a great kick off point for when I begin studying theology in a few months. I was looking forward to discussions on Buddhism, Islam, The Priory of Sion, Gospels of Thomas, Hare Krishna's, oh, just about everything. But so far all I see is Chrisitianity and discussions about Christian ideas/rules/beliefs. Not to say those aren't good to talk about. But I was just surprised that the board is called "Theology" online and really only applies to Christianity.

Not an attack, I promise! I still find the conversations interesting! Just something curious. :chuckle:

[Balder]

Hi, Kiwicottonball,

May I invite you to browse or join our discussion on this same forum? I'm a Buddhist, and I've been enjoying my conversation with Dave and other Christian friends. The thread is "Our Essential Nature," under "General Theology."

Best wishes,
Balder

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nietzschean

In short, the reasons for a non-theist to post on this message board are as many - if not more so - and as valid - if not more so - than the reasons for a theist to post on it. Where as a theist tends to be (at least to some degree) blinded to reason as a side effect of his faith in whatever it is he believes, a non-theist does not have that problem and can more thoroughly fulfill the difinition you provided: sic, a study of the nature of religious questions, and a rational - that's the key word here - inquiry about religious questions.

Excellent post. Thank you.

I guess you see little if no difference between the sociology of religion and theology.

"blinded to reason as a side effect of his faith"

Sometimes. No different than...

blinded to faith as a side effect of his reason

[Nietzschean]

Thank you, and yes I can agree on that. The best stance, I believe, is a moderate one. Unless of course you're open enough to realize that no stance really matters, since the end result (whatever that may or may not be) will remain the same regardless.

[firechyld]

Theology = The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.


I'm a religious studies student. I'm fascinated by religion... all religion.

Why do I come to this board, specifically?

TOL offers me an insight into a perspective that I can't find anywhere else in life... I simply don't know enough fundamentalist Christians. *grin* I appreciate the diversity we have amongst the non-fundies, and the non-Christians. While the balance is weighted heavily in favour of fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Christians (a plus in my book... I can't find them elsewhere!) the non-Christians tend to be vocal and individual enough to make up for it.

My "bottle friends" on these boards allow me to view issues, arguments, discussions and problems through their eyes. To someone with my interests and field of study, this is invaluable.

I'm also quite fond of the friends I've made over the years. :)

[Wootenfan]

This is an old thread but I thought I'd respond since it's relevant to me.

I post on this theology forum because I'm fairly sure there is no personal creator god and I'm scared religion is going to end humanity.

[Knight]

This is an old thread but I thought I'd respond since it's relevant to me.

I post on this theology forum because I'm fairly sure there is no personal creator god and I'm scared religion is going to end humanity.And what do you intend to do about it? :think:

[elohiym]

I post on this theology forum because I'm fairly sure there is no personal creator god and I'm scared religion is going to end humanity.Shouldn't you be more concerned about abortion ending humanity, or are you okay with that?

[chrysostom]

Shouldn't you be more concerned about abortion ending humanity, or are you okay with that?

That is true
Abortion has killed more than religion has

[chrysostom]

Abortion has killed more than homosexuality has prevented

[chrysostom]

Abortion is the enemy of the future

[chrysostom]

Why should we worry about Wootenfan?

[chrysostom]

Maybe we can save him

[chrysostom]

Wootenfan

Would you like to be saved?

[elohiym]

Why should we worry about Wootenfan?Let me hear what he has to say about abortion compared to religion, then I'll let you know my opinion.

[chrysostom]

ok let Wootenfan speak

[Granite]

According to the dictionary: Theology = The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

So, if you are an atheist, agnostic, or anything of the like, why do you post here? I'm not coming down negatively on you, but just am curious on why you spend a lot of time on a forum where different theologies are spoken when you don't believe in any theology.

Someone enlighten me please. Or, if this has come up before, please point me to this thread. Thank you.

For the free beer and loose women, duh.

:noid:

I post here because some people on TOL are very perceptive, bright, and intellectually stimulating. It's a source of entertainment, amusement, and occasional enlightenment.

[rexlunae]

Abortion is unlikely to trigger World War III. Religion could, and it even shows signs of an attempt.

[elohiym]

Abortion is unlikely to trigger World War III.Does that make it acceptable? You appear fearful of religion destroying you by an imagined WWIII, but accepting of abortion which is actually happening, resulting in the deaths of millions of unborn children. Where are your priorities?

Religion could, and it even shows signs of an attempt.Were World Wars I and II triggered by religion? :think:

[Granite]

My God, how did we get from a simple question to World War III and abortion?

[JustinFoldsFive]

I post hear because I enjoy learning about protein folding. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

[rexlunae]

Does that make it acceptable?

That's a separate issue that I'm not going to discuss in this thread.

You appear fearful of religion destroying you by an imagined WWIII, but accepting of abortion which is actually happening, resulting in the deaths of millions of unborn children. Where are your priorities?

It doesn't take too much imagination to see Muslim clerics advocating holy war, enjoying vast popular support, and the US president claiming we have a divine purpose in fighting them to see the potential for war as great. We have already had two major conflicts in the last six years, and the problem we are stepping into is more than just one nation against one other, or even many nations against one.

Were World Wars I and II triggered by religion? :think:

No. And your point is...?

[Damian]

1. The atheist has for himself some sort of religion that does not include a God-figure. There exist several such religions, which include Secular Humanism, Animism and Pantheism.

Pantheism literally means "All-is-God-ism".

Animism is the belief that all of nature is "animated" with spirits. In the absence of a creator God, the "spirits" qualify as gods or goddesses.

Also, any individual who relegates God-belief to that of believing in the "IPU (Invisibile Pink Unicorn)" while subscribing to some form of animism is either disingenuous or completely ignorant of comparative religions and theology.

Some would argue that Buddhism and other eastern faiths have aspects of atheism in them.

Buddhism is not atheistic but pantheistic and/or polytheistic. (Buddhism is really not much different than Advaita Vedanta (Hinduism)).

Some can even turn philosophical argument into their own religions; for example, Nietzschean Existentialists. In this way, the person is able to speak on terms of his own religion amidst other people and their religions.

I am willing to bet that there are nihilists and existentialist atheists who would take issue with the notion that nihilism and existentialism are religions.


The atheist seeks to exercise the full definition of theology: a study of the nature of religious truth, and a rational inquiry into religious questions. Anyone can do this, and in fact many Christians do this in regards to religions that are not their own. A Christian will look upon Islam, Satanism, Legalism, Taoism, or any other religion large enough to have an agreed-upon name, and argue its faults on the basis of their own religion. Atheists can do the same, with or without the advantage of arguing on the merit of pure reason and secular knowledge. Which is to say, the atheist may have a religion of his own that holds certain beliefs - for example, a non-divine method of reincarnation - and argue based upon them; or, he may shun any sort of non-secular belief and argue for or against any religion he chooses on the basis of pure reason and academia.

In the absence of a creator God, the individual who is undergoing reincarnation qualifes as a god. (The belief in reincarnation suggests a belief in a soul or at least some spiritual realm. I supposed that you can argue for materialistic reincarnation, but this really smacks of intellectual dishonesty.)

Some people just like to stir trouble; while this is a small portion of atheists and agnostics in general, it is the perceived stereotype by most theists.

BINGO! This is not the minority but the vast majority.

By the same token, most Christians are not militant rightist extremers hell-bent on a Christian Theocracy that spans the entire world; but that is the perceived stereotype according to most atheists and non-Christian theists.

True. But many fundamentalists are.

[elohiym]

That's a separate issue that I'm not going to discuss in this thread.I know that abortion is destroying humanity in reality, and you think religion threatens "World War III" in nonexistence. If we can discuss your imagined problem blamed on religion on this thread, I think it is reasonable to compare it to an actual problem being opposed by religion on this thread.

It doesn't take too much imagination...But it takes some imagination, which is my point. You are bent out of shape over an imaginary problem you blame on religion, as if all religion was responsible for this imaginary problem, while you blatantly ignore real problems that are being caused by secular humanists.

No. And your point is...?Do I have to spell it out for you? If world wars I and II were not caused by religion, even though religion existed during those periods of history and was arguable more conservative than today, then it weakens your argument that religion could or will cause a third world war.

[Real Sorceror]

This is an old thread but I thought I'd respond since it's relevant to me.

I post on this theology forum because I'm fairly sure there is no personal creator god and I'm scared religion is going to end humanity.
What, like religion in general? I'm more concerned with zealotous fundamentalists (such as the Muslim and Christian variety) than I am with religion. The average Christain, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever is pretty harmless.
I am slightly concerned with the eagerness to accept faith over empirical evidence, but I don't consider that to be an immediate, or particularly dangerous, threat.

[Real Sorceror]

My God, how did we get from a simple question to World War III and abortion?
This is TOL. We make leaps not even Superman could jump. :chuckle:

[Wootenfan]

Wow, I see my post stirred up quite the comotion.
And what do you intend to do about it? :think:

Not much. Through conversations I hope to persuade people of the illogicality in the beliefs in the supernatural and the benefits of a society that is driven by reason and not dogma.

[Wootenfan]

Shouldn't you be more concerned about abortion ending humanity, or are you okay with that?

I can't possibly believe abortion could end all of humanity.

[Wootenfan]

That is true
Abortion has killed more than religion has

chrysostom, care to qualify that statement? I'd like to see the stats on both and references on where you got them. :)

[Wootenfan]

Wootenfan

Would you like to be saved?

From the horror filled future religion no doubt will give us, why yes I would.

[Wootenfan]

I know that abortion is destroying humanity in reality, and you think religion threatens "World War III" in nonexistence. If we can discuss your imagined problem blamed on religion on this thread, I think it is reasonable to compare it to an actual problem being opposed by religion on this thread.
But it takes some imagination, which is my point. You are bent out of shape over an imaginary problem you blame on religion, as if all religion was responsible for this imaginary problem, while you blatantly ignore real problems that are being caused by secular humanists.
Do I have to spell it out for you? If world wars I and II were not caused by religion, even though religion existed during those periods of history and was arguable more conservative than today, then it weakens your argument that religion could or will cause a third world war.


I must have some wild imagination because I could have sworn there were two really tall buildings in New York that were knocked down by 19 men motivated by their religion to punish infidels. I could probably list at least 10 more things in my imagination that makes me think religion is a problem. Seriously, elohiym, do you want me to continue or are you willing to admit your error?

[Wootenfan]

What, like religion in general? I'm more concerned with zealotous fundamentalists (such as the Muslim and Christian variety) than I am with religion. The average Christain, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever is pretty harmless.
I am slightly concerned with the eagerness to accept faith over empirical evidence, but I don't consider that to be an immediate, or particularly dangerous, threat.


The moderates give shelter to the extremists by declaring the issue a nontopic for discussion because it's faith and personal. They'd like to muddy the issue by saying the problems are socio-economic or demographic. Beyond that they don't contribute to the global threat but like you said the eagerness to accept faith over evidence is also a charge that needs to be addressed. Even the beliefs of the moderates have real world implications on issues like stem cell research and condom use in places like Africa, to both the religious are opposed.

[elohiym]

I must have some wild imagination because I could have sworn there were two really tall buildings in New York that were knocked down by 19 men motivated by their religion to punish infidels. I could probably list at least 10 more things in my imagination that makes me think religion is a problem. Seriously, elohiym, do you want me to continue or are you willing to admit your error?The problem is not religion, but idiots who do idiotic things in the name of their particular brand of religion. I have never suggested that religious idiots are not a problem, only that the secular humanist idiots are a much bigger problem that actually threatens humanity.

You want to focus on the world trade center and the deaths of around 3000 people at the hands of some religious idiots, while you ignore the the deaths of millions of people through abortion and world wars at the hands of secular humanist idiots. Also, it's not religion that is using the environment as a privy, but secular institutions.

Open your eyes. Use your head. You want to make religion into a boogie man while you ignore the demon in your own closet.

[SUTG]

I post hear because I enjoy learning about protein folding. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

I'll second this.

[elohiym]

I can't possibly believe abortion could end all of humanity.Then you should study the consequences of depopulation.

[Skeptic]

Why do non-theists post on TOL? Because atheism, agnosticism and many other non-theistic philosophies are theological positions.

[Damian]

Because atheism, agnosticism and many other non-theistic philosophies are theological positions.

Why aren't you posting on the "SantaClausologyOnline" forum? Isn't a-SantaClausism a SantaClausological position?

[Skeptic]

Why aren't you posting on the "SantaClausologyOnline" forum? Isn't a-SantaClausism a SantaClausological position? I would if I could. But, alas, there is no "SantaClausologyOnline" forum.

Perhaps you should start one! :idea:

BTW, good analogy! ... I've always liked the God/Santa comparison.

:chuckle:

[Quincy]

i post cause i think the site is rather well put together and some of the people on it are excellent. just because i dont believe in a god in the traditional sense doesnt mean i dont think i can learn from traditionalist (fundys). at least the rational ones. as for world war 3 i think a split amongst the united nations may one day lead to it. abortion...............arrrghhhhh i get tired of preaching decent chastity to horndogs so i refrain.

[Quincy]

u know skeptic, i like ur signature, but the last one isnt a lie. i mean we cant with all our super powerness topple the mighty car bomb.

[rexlunae]

I know that abortion is destroying humanity in reality, and you think religion threatens "World War III" in nonexistence. If we can discuss your imagined problem blamed on religion on this thread, I think it is reasonable to compare it to an actual problem being opposed by religion on this thread.

We can discuss the problem of religious war, and the possability of it destabilizing the world in this thread because it is a valid reason for an atheist to be interested in debating with theists that has been mentioned by an atheist. I don't think any atheist has mentioned abortion as a reason for posting here, and it certainly isn't a counter to the problem of religious violence. I would be happy to discuss abortion with you in another thread, but in this one it's just off topic.

BTW, I haven't even stated my position on abortion.

But it takes some imagination, which is my point. You are bent out of shape over an imaginary problem you blame on religion, as if all religion was responsible for this imaginary problem, while you blatantly ignore real problems that are being caused by secular humanists.

So we should never make any speculation about the future and just assume everything is hunky-dory? There are, right now, some very dangerous religious elements in places of power who oppose each other, and who have already cause significant carnage for the sake of religion. I want to see an end to that. I want to see an enlightened period that rejects dogma and embraces reason. Abortion is relevent to none of that.

Do I have to spell it out for you? If world wars I and II were not caused by religion, even though religion existed during those periods of history and was arguable more conservative than today, then it weakens your argument that religion could or will cause a third world war.

World War I and World War II weren't caused by the same things either, there's no reason that a third one would have to be a result of the same things. The point is, world wars occur when there are many-on-many wars.

Anyway, WWIII is just a worst-case scenario in which the present polarization of the world continues to its logical conclusion. Plausible, but not certain, and there can be any number of interventions in the interim. There is violence in significant amounts caused directly by religion, which is the important part of the problem.

[Skeptic]

u know skeptic, i like ur signature, but the last one isnt a lie. i mean we cant with all our super powerness topple the mighty car bomb. Bush and his neocon buddies should have thought of that before they unnecessarily and unjustifiably invaded Iraq.

[Quincy]

Bush and his neocon buddies should have thought of that before they unnecessarily and unjustifiably invaded Iraq.

:thumb:

[Damian]

I would if I could. But, alas, there is no "SantaClausologyOnline" forum.

Perhaps you should start one! :idea:

BTW, good analogy! ... I've always liked the God/Santa comparison.

:chuckle:

Nice try.

[Vern Reed]

According to the dictionary: Theology = The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.


The words I put in italics made me laugh! How rational are the more vocal and fundamental members of this site?

Otherwise, as an agnostic, I'm very interested in God and have been for large parts of my life. Coming to a site like this reminds me why I left the church but also why I'm still interested in the whole sphere of religion and theology.

[chrysostom]

chrysostom, care to qualify that statement? I'd like to see the stats on both and references on where you got them. :)

You will just have to believe me

[Wootenfan]

You will just have to believe me

That's what the guy said when he sold me the Brooklyn bridge. Come on, chrysostom. You made the claim. I'm sure you wouldn't do so without knowing it to be true because there are facts to back it up.

[Wootenfan]

The problem is not religion, but idiots who do idiotic things in the name of their particular brand of religion. I have never suggested that religious idiots are not a problem, only that the secular humanist idiots are a much bigger problem that actually threatens humanity.

Many religious moderates try to play this game. They say the extremists pervert the true message of their religions but when you look at the books themselves you'll see they are including the parts the moderates simply ignore. The Qu'ran and Hadith do say in many, many places to kill the infidel and to defend Islam in any way necessary. The bible is the same in regards to Christianity. Read the books, elohiym. I dare you to show me I'm wrong.


You want to focus on the world trade center and the deaths of around 3000 people at the hands of some religious idiots, while you ignore the the deaths of millions of people through abortion and world wars at the hands of secular humanist idiots. Also, it's not religion that is using the environment as a privy, but secular institutions.

As I said the WTC attack is just an example of a list of attrocities religion has caused. I brought it up because it was an obvious omission on your part. If you wish we can discuss others. Again, abortion does not pose the threat of ending humanity that religion does. I simply cannot see how you think it does. If you want we can discuss the role religion played in Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin's reigns of dogmatic terror. I know those are favorites to theists. Please, for the sake of discussion, name some secular institutions that are affecting the evironment negatively. This should be a good laugh as I think you're confusing the definition of the word secular to mean "not implicitly religious". For instance you cannot say Ford Motor Company is secular just because it claims no official religion just as I cannot say it is a religious company because a great majority of it's employees do claim a particular religion. Secular means explicitly nonreligious.


Open your eyes. Use your head. You want to make religion into a boogie man while you ignore the demon in your own closet.
I'm afraid your eyes are closed to reality as can be demonstrated if you simply read the books of Islam and Christianity without parsing out the parts you wish were not there. They make completely incompatible claims about reality and instructs the believers to kill anyone who don't believe. As I said before you have the chance to prove me wrong by cracking the books open.

[chrysostom]

That's what the guy said when he sold me the Brooklyn bridge. Come on, chrysostom. You made the claim. I'm sure you wouldn't do so without knowing it to be true because there are facts to back it up.

I didn’t realize you bought the bridge
It will be a long time before you believe anyone again

[bigbang123]

I dont want to lead the theme away, but i didnt wanted to made separate thread for it either. I'm just puzzled that the Forum what calls itself theological is almost purely focused on Christianity. And when there is separate corner for those who believe the Bible to be Word of God (Exclusively Christian Forum), i dont see anywhere corners for Buddhists, Judaists, etc...

it goes without saying that a TOL forum originating out of india or china (for example) would have a different dominate slant reflecting the majority theological view of those non-western countries.

[Wootenfan]

I didn’t realize you bought the bridge
It will be a long time before you believe anyone again

So are you unwilling or unable to provide facts that support your claim?

[chrysostom]

So are you unwilling or unable to provide facts that support your claim?

There have been over 40 million abortions in this country alone over the past 30 years. How many have been killed by so called religious wars?

[Roxanne]

Why do non-theists post on TOL?
Why do Christians exist?

The same answer: to ruin all the fun.

[Andre1983]

I'm discussing here because I'm interested in theology as fiction -- and because most forums I've been on before have been cleansed for the religious.

Two or more atheists can never have any theological discussion.
Ethical and scientific discussions, yes.
Religious, no... (Except for when discussing the Flying Spaghetti Monster and unicorns...)

I have never suggested that religious idiots are not a problem, only that the secular humanist idiots are a much bigger problem that actually threatens humanity.
.

Wow...

What idiot secular humanists are you refering to, specifically?

[elohiym]

What idiot secular humanists are you refering to, specifically?The point is that any idiot is a problem. You have them, and we have them.

[Andre1983]

The point is that any idiot is a problem. You have them, and we have them.

:cheers:

Aye.

[Wootenfan]

There have been over 40 million abortions in this country alone over the past 30 years. How many have been killed by so called religious wars?

I don't know. You're the one making the claim. I guess you want others to do your fact checking for you?

I don't even see the relevance of these stats to this conversation anyway. Let's backtrack and remind ourselves why the stats on abortion were brought up.


Shouldn't you be more concerned about abortion ending humanity, or are you okay with that?

Abortion is the enemy of the future


I can't possibly believe abortion could end all of humanity.


Then you should study the consequences of depopulation.


In the context of this conversation the claim made by elohiym was abortion is a larger problem to humanity's survival than religion. To support the claim made by your fellow religionist you said:

Abortion has killed more than religion has


Now let's remind ourselves that even with 40 million abortions in the U.S. in the past 30 years there has been a positive population growth in the U.S. every year for the past 30 years. In fact, the population of the entire world has had positive growth despite every abortion that has ever been performed. So if your argument is that abortion is somehow unmaking the population of humanity I can hardly say you're providing information that supports it.

So is it the number killed in the past by abortion and religion at which we need to look? No, since the argument is about what poses a larger threat to humanity in it's future. For argument's sake I'll say the rate of abortion doubles and number them at 80 million for the next 30 years. I'm sure this is far higher than the actual trend predicts but hey, it's an estimate and quite a liberal one. So that means, if each abortion is for a single fetus, there will be 80 million fetuses aborted in the next 30 years. Now let's project an estimate of the number of deaths caused by religion for the next 30 years. For this we'll need to look at some variables which I won't even need to define to prove my point. First, an average number of attacks. Since 9/11 this number has been growing and because of the knee jerk retaliatory actions on the part of the Christians in the governments around the world it's likely to grow exponentially. Next we need to look at the number of deaths caused by each attack and unlike abortions this number is nowhere near one. Because of the growing availability of small arms weapns and explosives and the number of nuclear weapons that could be leaked out of the former Soviet Union, and the willingness of crazy dictators to create their own nuclear weapons these attacks could grow to be incredibly deadly which would increase the size of retaliatory attacks. Now the only variable left is the amount of individuals or organizations willing to instigate attacks motivated by their religion. One only needs to flip on the news for 5 minutes to realize they exist in abundance and after reading their religious books it's quite obvious they are following the tenents of their religion quite closely.

I'm sorry but this is not an argument you are equipped to win. The facts are nowhere near in your favor.

[chrysostom]

I post on this theology forum because I'm fairly sure there is no personal creator god and I'm scared religion is going to end humanity.

It looks like you were the first to make a claim

To my knowledge you have not supported it

[Ktoyou]

I don't know. You're the one making the claim. I guess you want others to do your fact checking for you?

I don't even see the relevance of these stats to this conversation anyway. Let's backtrack and remind ourselves why the stats on abortion were brought up.







In the context of this conversation the claim made by elohiym was abortion is a larger problem to humanity's survival than religion. To support the claim made by your fellow religionist you said:


Now let's remind ourselves that even with 40 million abortions in the U.S. in the past 30 years there has been a positive population growth in the U.S. every year for the past 30 years. In fact, the population of the entire world has had positive growth despite every abortion that has ever been performed. So if your argument is that abortion is somehow unmaking the population of humanity I can hardly say you're providing information that supports it.

So is it the number killed in the past by abortion and religion at which we need to look? No, since the argument is about what poses a larger threat to humanity in it's future. For argument's sake I'll say the rate of abortion doubles and number them at 80 million for the next 30 years. I'm sure this is far higher than the actual trend predicts but yet, it's an estimate and quite a liberal one. So that means, if each abortion is for a single fetus, there will be 80 million fetuses aborted in the next 30 years. Now let's project an estimate of the number of deaths caused by religion for the next 30 years. For this we'll need to look at some variables which I won't even need to define to prove my point. First, an average number of attacks. Since 9/11 this number has been growing and because of the knee jerk retaliatory actions on the part of the Christians in the governments around the world it's likely to grow exponentially. Next we need to look at the number of deaths caused by each attack and unlike abortions this number is nowhere near one. Because of the growing availability of small arms weapns and explosives and the number of nuclear weapons that could be leaked out of the former Soviet Union, and the willingness of crazy dictators to create their own nuclear weapons these attacks could grow to be incredibly deadly which would increase the size of retaliatory attacks. Now the only variable left is the amount of individuals or organizations willing to instigate attacks motivated by their religion. One only needs to flip on the news for 5 minutes to realize they exist in abundance and after reading their religious books it's quite obvious they are following the tenents of their religion quite closely.

I'm sorry but this is not an argument you are equipped to win. The facts are nowhere near in your favor.

This is complete nonsense!

Now does anyone here think I need to ramble on to justify my statement, or am I being pretentious?
:noway:

[SOTK]

These old threads are always interesting to see again. A lot of familiar, old posters.

[Wootenfan]

This is complete nonsense!

Now does anyone here think I need to ramble on to justify my statement, or am I being pretentious?
:noway:


If you think it's nonsense please feel free to parse it and point out my errors. Otherwise, if you just plan on making further judging statements with no explanation you might want to sit on your fingers to keep them from touching the keyboard.

[Wootenfan]

It looks like you were the first to make a claim

To my knowledge you have not supported it

In fact I did in the post just before this last one of yours.

[Wootenfan]

This is complete nonsense!

Now does anyone here think I need to ramble on to justify my statement, or am I being pretentious?
:noway:

Still working on substantiating this or have you given up?

[Servo]

This is an old thread but I thought I'd respond since it's relevant to me.

I post on this theology forum because I'm fairly sure there is no personal creator god and I'm scared religion is going to end humanity.

So your goal is to make others uncertain as well?

[Granite]

So your goal is to make others uncertain as well?

Oh, gosh. How dare he.

[Spitfire]

Oh, gosh. How dare he.
Why don't you and some other non-believers here explain to the major proponents of "open theism" how well you think their plan is working to fashion a less-contradictory, more user-friendly kind of Christianity that ought to appeal more to non-believers and make Christianity more difficult for its opponents to attack? I can only imagine they would appreciate your feedback if that is indeed their goal.

[Real Sorceror]

Why don't you and some other non-believers here explain to the major proponents of "open theism" how well you think their plan is working to fashion a less-contradictory, more user-friendly kind of Christianity that ought to appeal more to non-believers and make Christianity more difficult for its opponents to attack? I can only imagine they would appreciate your feedback if that is indeed their goal.
Oh really? They want a friendlier, more modern Christianity?
Ok, you can start with this simple statement: Don't assume Christianity is true.

[Wootenfan]

So your goal is to make others uncertain as well?

Absolutely! I'd like every believer to just give their beliefs an honest and unbiased critical look and not stop without answers.

[chrysostom]

In fact I did in the post just before this last one of yours.

My argument was that abortion has killed more than religion has
Your argument is that religion will kill more
You win because I cannot predict the future as you can
Can we have an argument based on the past?

[Real Sorceror]

My argument was that abortion has killed more than religion has
Your argument is that religion will kill more
You win because I cannot predict the future as you can
Can we have an argument based on the past?
Religion has killed more existing human lives while abortion has killed more potential human lives.
And, if your a Bible literalist, God has killed more of everything than we ever have.

[chrysostom]

Religion has killed more existing human lives while abortion has killed more potential human lives.
And, if your a Bible literalist, God has killed more of everything than we ever have.

God can do whatever He wants to do
It is ok with me

[Real Sorceror]

God can do whatever He wants to do
It is ok with me
You are assuming that God is a nice person.

[Granite]

Why don't you and some other non-believers here explain to the major proponents of "open theism" how well you think their plan is working to fashion a less-contradictory, more user-friendly kind of Christianity that ought to appeal more to non-believers and make Christianity more difficult for its opponents to attack? I can only imagine they would appreciate your feedback if that is indeed their goal.

I never understood open theism (so called) to be part of a larger plan to make Christianity more accessible. Maybe you're aware of this and I'm not, but I have never been under the impression open theists on TOL are the least bit interested in making their faith more "user friendly" or more appealing.

[SUTG]

I never understood open theism (so called) to be part of a larger plan to make Christianity more accessible. Maybe you're aware of this and I'm not, but I have never been under the impression open theists on TOL are the least bit interested in making their faith more "user friendly" or more appealing.

It just seems like it would be more appealing to the average joe. It is sorta like christianity with a side order of humanism.

[CabinetMaker]

You are assuming that God is a nice person.
No. We are not assuming God is a "nice person". We are acknowledging that God is a just God and His judgments and actions will reflect a perfect justice.

[Spitfire]

Oh really? They want a friendlier, more modern Christianity?Mmmm no I would say they don't want it to be friendlier or more modern. Don't they complain that most modern Christians are nicer than God? And the idea is that they're purifying, not innovating, returning to how Christianity was originally supposed to be.

Ok, you can start with this simple statement: Don't assume Christianity is true.Do you think that open theism makes a stronger case for Christianity when one isn't willing to simply make that assumption? That is what I was asking about.

[Granite]

It just seems like it would be more appealing to the average joe. It is sorta like christianity with a side order of humanism.

Perhaps but the average DBC member doesn't strike me as the sort of person who gives two shakes abotu making their faith more appealing...

[chrysostom]

You are assuming that God is a nice person.

Not exactly


He is in charge

[Spitfire]

I never understood open theism (so called) to be part of a larger plan to make Christianity more accessible. Maybe you're aware of this and I'm not, but I have never been under the impression open theists on TOL are the least bit interested in making their faith more "user friendly" or more appealing.I had come under that impression because of posts like this one (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1055046&postcount=2506) or this one (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1456215&postcount=511), like which I am sure I could find many more examples here.

[Wootenfan]

My argument was that abortion has killed more than religion has
Your argument is that religion will kill more
You win because I cannot predict the future as you can
Can we have an argument based on the past?

chrysostom, this isn't anything personal. I'm not trying to "win". And I no more predicted the future than your local weatherman predicts the forecast. Just by looking at all the relevant variables we can determine the most likely outcomes situations. You can in fact do the same if you wish and "predict" an estimate of the number of abortions per year in the future by looking at past trends.

Feel free to talk about anything you wish. There's no guaranteeing I'll argue with it. ;)

[chrysostom]

chrysostom, this isn't anything personal. I'm not trying to "win". And I no more predicted the future than your local weatherman predicts the forecast. Just by looking at all the relevant variables we can determine the most likely outcomes situations. You can in fact do the same if you wish and "predict" an estimate of the number of abortions per year in the future by looking at past trends.

Feel free to talk about anything you wish. There's no guaranteeing I'll argue with it. ;)

So based on the past I win?

[Real Sorceror]

Not exactly


He is in charge
Being in charge doesn't make you right.

[chrysostom]

Being in charge doesn't make you right.

I think it does, for all practical purposes

[Granite]

I think it does, for all practical purposes

Might makes right? How far as a Christian will you extend this thinking?

[chrysostom]

Might makes right? How far as a Christian will you extend this thinking?

To the Holy Lands

[Wootenfan]

So based on the past I win?

I'm sorry, win what?

[Granite]

To the Holy Lands

Silly answer. Sorry I'd hoped for otherwise.

[Real Sorceror]

I think it does, for all practical purposes
This coming from a moral absolutist? For shame.
I find it rather telling that murder and the like are always wrong until God is the murderer.

In my humble opinion, a tyrant is a tyrant, regardless of what he tells people in his propoganda.

[chrysostom]

Silly answer. Sorry I'd hoped for otherwise.

Hope is good, don't give up hope

[chrysostom]

This coming from a moral absolutist? For shame.
I find it rather telling that murder and the like are always wrong until God is the murderer.

In my humble opinion, a tyrant is a tyrant, regardless of what he tells people in his propoganda.

When someone is in charge and you want to get along, you go along

If you don’t, be prepared to suffer the consequences

There will be consequences