Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

Hvad er der galt med ateisme?

 

Filosofi, Etik & Religion

Sider: << < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >>
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 16/12 2012 19:57

@Ka-ching

Sandt.

Men samtalen har også, via en serie af relevante spørgsmål og svar, helt naturlig bevæget sig over på at handle om mere basale spørgmål, om sandhedens værdi, samt naturen af tro/opfattelser og disses formål/funktion.

Mine indlæg er svar til Linse. Men vi kan selvfølgeligt bare ignorere hende, og fokusere ene og alene, direkte, om der er noget galt med ateismen.

Men det synes at spørgsmålet om der er noget GALT med noget må holdes op imod visse værdier og mål. Ateismen er en holdning/opfattelse/svar til ét bestemt spørgsmål. Og hvis sandheden ER totalt værdiløs, som Linse siger, så ER der måske noget galt med ateismen. Evt. at den er dødkedelig. Det er jo subjektivt. Folk kan jo synes at lyserøde enhjærninger er mere interessante og spændende end Carl Sagan

Ateismens eneste egentlige værdi må ligge i at den er sand.
tingle2
Forum-indlæg: 59
Område: Vestjylland
Dato: 16/12 2012 20:53

Jeg tror jeg har det med ateister,
som en vegetar har det med kødspisere,og en veganer har det med vegetarer og kødspisere.
Jeg ser det som folk, der er på vej, og håber de snart mere eller mindre "ser lyset".
Og kan ikke lade være at prøve at påvirke dem lidt,selv om det som regel aldrig gør en forskel.Ligesom med kødspisere.Der er lang vej,men man får måske lagt et par frø.

Synes det er et mål for verden at alle er veganere,men tror ikke det lykkes uden en form for tro på noget højere og stærk næstekærlighed.
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 17/12 2012 12:52 | Indlæg redigeret den: 17/12 2012 12:53

(ja, nu har jeg så lyst til at sige at religion ABSOLUT ikke fostrer næstekærlighed, med en masse groteske billeder til at bakke påstanden op, men jeg må ikke for Ka-ching...)

*tiptoes back out*
lucifer
Forum-indlæg: 1609
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 17/12 2012 16:42

jeff
prøv lige at læse den her og så vend den 180 grader.




lucifer,

What part of "det defineres også bredere som fraværet af tro på guddommeligheder eller som nonteisme" don't you understand?

Og du synes ikke at have læst mange af indlæggene her.



ville du havde løst til at svare eller kommunikere med sådan et væsen.
men jeg vil da gerne gøre en undtagelse .

1 trådstarter stiller et spørgsmål , (som jeg forstår det hvad er der galt med ateisme eller er der ikke noget galt)
2 jeg svare ud fra wiki definition af ateisme (ved at pege på at det er en tro )men ja det kan også være mangel på tro(men man kan så sige hvis man skal svare trådstarter at mangle på tro kan føre til vrangforestillinger om at det hele kan være lige meget og ens handlinger ikke betyder noget for når man er (død ) er alt glemt.
3 jeg læser med og mange gange
4 jeg svare på trådstarter og ikke på alt det andet der er skrevet







Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 18/12 2012 15:14 | Indlæg redigeret den: 18/12 2012 16:51

John
Those Sam Harris postcards show exactly how little he knows about the Catholic Faith ;)

- The Catholic Church does not claim to be the greatest force for good. We know all too well that it´s a place of saints and sinners. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We are simply the messengers, for good or bad... We also believe in objective truth, accessible to all through reason and revelation.

- We don´t claim that the Catholic Church is the only true bulwark against evil in the universe. We claim that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church based on the promise of Jesus Christ to Peter over 2,000 years ago. Big difference.

- No woman has ever been excommunicated for trying to become a priest. Those who chose to be "ordained" by renogade bishops put themselves outside the Catholic Church by choice and action. Just like an vegan who eats meat is no longer a vegan! Anyone who wants to be a woman priest is free to join another denomination. Personally, I don´t see why anyone would want to imitate a male priest on the altar when there are so many other ministries in which I can engage.

- I can´t answer the charge about child abusers or members of the Third Reich not being ex-communicated, and I doubt very much that Sam Harris has access to that information. In any case, their actions immediately put them in what we call a state of mortal sin, something which bars them from the Sacraments and demands true repentence and restitution.

- Doctors ex-communicate themselves when they perform abortion. It is the opinion of many highly qualified medical professionals that abortion is never necessary to save a woman´s life. Furthermore, nothing in the Catholic faith prevents doctors from giving life-saving medical treatment, even if this means the unintentional death of the child.
More information: http://vegetarkontakt.dk/?-kvinde-i-irland-bliver-naegtet-abort-og-doer=130145
Ex-communication does not mean one cannot be reconciled with the Church.

- Regarding contraception, a non-Catholic is not obliged to accept Church teaching on contraception. And in fact, the Catholic Church affirms the need for responsible parenting, ie. it recommends celibacy before marriage, committed, loving relationships and natural family planning, eg. Creighton, Billings or Fertility Care. NFP has been more tested than any other form of family planning and is as effective (99-100%) as the Pill, and much more effective than condoms, chemical methods and abortifients. This can be verified in various medical journals. NFP also facilitates co-responsibility, mutual respect, communication, costs nothing and is easy to learn. It respects a woman´s sexuality without filling her with chemicals and making her fertility a "disease" to be treated and controlled – and it´s vegan!

- The Catholic Church believes that the human sexual relationship comes to its fulfillment between a man and a woman in a committed, loving relationship. It also believes, in accordance with the best empirical evidence, that children thrive best in a committed relationship with a father and a mother. Marriage protects the relationship between a man and a woman, and it also protects the best interests of children. Re-defining this relationship will have serious consequences which are the concern of all, including non-Catholics, atheists and yes, some homosexuals, hence the perceived need for an open public discussion in which all sides can be heard.

- The Catholic church has repeatedly condemned nuclear proliferation, war, genocide, human rights breaches and poverty as anyone will see if they take the time to actually read some Church documents. It also has people working actively in all these areas via many organizations. I can give Mr. Harris a list of names and organizations and lots of photographs as evidence if he so wishes ;)

All in all, I think Mr. Harris knows very little about the Catholic Church except what he thinks he knows. He would do well to stop exposing his ignorance ;)

Regarding the "cracker", anyone who knows anything about the Catholic church knowns that we do not believe that anyone who says a few words in latin (the vernacular is used in most services) will turn a cracker into Jesus. We do believe that through the words/actions of the priest in the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ makes himself present in the Eucharist. Mr. Harris can laugh and mock and sneer all he wants. Some of Jesus own disciples did the same and walked away from him... He didn´t back down. I can personally vouch for having experienced the life-changing power of the "cracker" - Blessed Sacrament – in a special way when I was twenty-one. Of the 68 official miracles recognized at Lourdes, several have occurred before the Blessed Sacrament.

Anyway, just wanted to clear up “misunderstandings qua correcting misconceptions and false premises held by others” about the nature of the Catholic faith! It´s actually totally off topic.

The topic is, "Hvad er der galt med ateisme?"!!! It´s a pity you can´t keep to it.


Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 18/12 2012 15:17 | Indlæg redigeret den: 18/12 2012 17:11

Jeff
I know my last comment has probably made you very annoyed... Sorry, seriously. Ask John to keep to the topic of the thread and to stop putting up slanderous and false information from shady sources!!! ;) :)
You should well enough know that I will bring Luke 19:11-27 into play as an example of the words of Jesus directly speaking of the slaughter of enemies in a parable, and I will remind you of the words of the same protagonist of the Matthew gospel about Mosaic law and how it was not "destroyed".

LOL! Yes, that did occur to me. You also know me well enough to know that I will be able to answer. Of course, as you say above, this text from Luke is a parable, an illustration to underline the importance of what Jesus is saying and of our response. The fact that Jesus told Peter put away his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane should make it clear that he is not talking literally. The other text about the law is about Jesus himself. His life, death and resurrection is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. But, fair enough, it will do us no good to get stuck here.

I take your point about the difficulty of discerning texts. I appreciate that. In all honesty, I had never heard of the document you mentioned before... Thankfully, we have moved a long way since then with regard to Catholic-Jewish relations.

As to the suppression of religion, I will mention that Jerzy Popiełuszko was political enemy of the state and it was for his work as a dissenter that he was assassinated, not for believing in the religion of Roman Catholicism.

Yes, he was a dissenter. He disbelieved in the regime and objected to the way human dignity and human rights were being trampled upon. He ministered to the shipyard workers as part of his priestly ministry, and he had the full support of the Church, especially that of Bl. Pope John Paul II. His sermons were always given during Mass, and were based on the Gospels and Catholic teaching. They sustained and inspired the members of "Solidarity". I am sure that if you get your hands on them in English, you will find that he talked of the dignity of man made in the image of God, about thirsting for justice and righteousness, about conversion, about not being afraid and about God being with the people in their struggle, about liberation, setting people free and opening the eyes of the blind, etc. I know you will find him constantly exhorting the shipyard workers to meet evil with good, ie. love your enemies; do good to those who hate you. He was a CATHOLIC dissenter. His faith informed his actions. To deny that is biased at best, dishonest at worst...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Popie%C5%82uszko

I still find it incredibly ludicrous for you to speak of "developments in atheism, and atheists of a certain kind" as if the writings of literally a handful of people, who by the way have professions other than non-religion, represent anything of significant magnitude compared to the hundreds of thousands of priests, the armies of missionaries, the masses of ordained ministers of every kind of denomination, the imams and mullahs and rabbis, the bible study leaders and campus crusaders.

Do you now? ;) I find it ludicrous of you to continue to equate me and others like me with the worst accesses of the Westboro Baptist Church, the Taliban or whatever. The great majority of Catholics also have professions which are non-religion, eg. teaching, nursing, medicine, arts, science, philosophy, justice and peace work, whatever. Many preach with their lives rather than words. I can speak of the “army “ of sister to which I belong. Yes, indeed, an army, an army of LOVE. :)

The writing of a handful of people can be very dangerous... Remember Sam Harris: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them...” Makes my blood run cold...



Unless, of course, it just takes a few simple ideas, like abandoning belief in the supernatural and living in the natural world with reason as our sole compass, to make you feel uncomfortable.

LOL! nah, Jeff, it would take a lot more than that to frighten me. I´m a big girl! ;)

I love the natural world, I love using reason, and I love what both reveal to me (about God). I can´t help believing. To pretend otherwise would be doing serious damage to my integrity.


By the way, what is wrong with fornication?

I believe Jesus was speaking of adultery. I don´t think I have to explain how damaging that is to any relationship. I guess we could also add promiscuity, prostitution, pornography, orgies, anything which reduces human beings to objects of pleasure/lust and isolates sex from love and commitment. We could also add consequences like the growing rates of STD´s, widespread abortion, divorce, etc.


Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 18/12 2012 15:22 | Indlæg redigeret den: 19/12 2012 12:25

Aros
Earthling, dine argumenter holder ikke. At det enkelte individ og individuelle rettigheder ikke tæller, er en holdning der er gældende for ALLE politiske diktaturer. Kommunistiske, nazistiske, islamiske stater osv. Og igen har du kun bevist at i den kommunistiske ideologi tæller det enkelte individ ikke. Det er jeg enig i. Men hvad har det med mig at gøre? Ja jeg er ateist, men jeg er også liberalist.

Har du et eneste argument der alene relaterer til at være ateist? Trådens titel er ikke hvad er der galt med kommunisme. Det er - hvad er der galt med ateisme.

I never said that my argument was invalid for other political dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. I did not think it necessary. The topic is, "Hvad er der galt med ateisme?" (as you so kindly reminded me!). I was keeping to the topic. I also never denied that people can do terrible things in the name of religion. That would be plain stupid.

In fact, communism has been around for a long time in various forms.
In its more general signification communism refers to any social system in which all property, or at least all productive property, is owned by the group, or community, instead of by individuals...The earliest operation of the communistic principle of which we have any record, took place in Crete about 1300 B.C... The communistic principle governed for a time the lives of the first Christians of Jerusalem... During the Middle Ages communism was held, and in various degrees practised, by several heretical sects...

See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04179a.htm
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Early_Communism

In the examples above, there was room for the individual. Often it was religiously inspired and it was also voluntary. In fact, we live communism in my community! ;)

This type of communsim did not evolve into violent supression. The question then is WHY did this happen in communist countries? What brought about the developement of communism as we see it in the Soviet Union, China, Angole, Eritrea, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia... A significant part of that form of communism was built on the denial of the dignity of the human being, and included active athiest promotion and the active and frequently violent supression of religion. The great Russian novelist and gulag survivor, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, put it this way: "'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn

And yes, this could be said of other totalarian regimes also. It could even be said of those who use religion as a tool of terror.

My point was and is that the danger of violence and fundamentalism also lies in atheism, just as it lies in any other ´ISM. The atheism here moved from being athiest disbelief to anti-theist belief and doctrine. It becomes ideology, and terrible things are done by athiests in its name, still today. It is estimated that 65 (conservtive) -100,000 million people died in less than a century. Many others are still dying today. I don´t think that can be easily dismissed. And trying to explain it asway or deny it is like denying the Holocaust, 10-15 times over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_Crimes_of_Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Declaration_on_European_Conscience_and_Communism


I think this danger of developing atheistic ideologies is due to the vacuum which is atheism: NOTHING. You yourself agreed with this basic description of atheism:
The greatest problem I see with atheism is that at best it is NOTHING, a disbelief. At its most mediocre, it is a parasite living off religion. At its worst, it is totalitarian and destructive. It offers nothing. It leaves a vacuum which can be filled by anything. Others here on the thread have already pointed out the danger of nihilism, apathy, despair, relativism and the possibility of anarchy inherent in atheism

To say that is not to say that atheists cannot have a meaningful life. It is not to suggest that atheism is violent per se. It is not to say that there is no danger in believing in God. It is pointing to an inherent danger, to the fact that “disbelief” is not immune to evil, any moe than religion. I fail to see how some people on the thread cannot see this and/or find what I say so offensive, or how they can claim it is anti-athiest... History is teaching us. We can all learn from it, believer and non-believer...

I am talking in general terms. I am not pointing the finger at you or anyone else else here, unlike the atheists who blame me for all the sins committed by people in the name of religion... ;)



Men et nyfødt barn har jo ikke noget gudsbegreb, ej heller kan de læse biblen 3 sekunder efter fødslen, men der er jo heller ikke nogen der har fortalt dem hvad ateisme er. De forstår ikke ordet. Ikke destro mindre er det jo hvad de er, før de er gamle nok til at lære om religion. Ligesom man nødvendigvis er ikke-fodboldspiller til man begynder at dyrke sporten.

I know it´s addressed to Linse, but a comment if I may. The fact that someone doesn´t know God doesn´t mean God doesn´t know them; not knowing the Bible does not mean the Bible (or any book) doesn´t exist; not understanding words doesn´t mean words don´t exist or that they have no meaning; not knowing about football or not knowing how to play doesn´t mean football doesn´t exist! just saying... ;)



Ka-ching
Kan du give et eksempel hvor den onde ateist ikke har været tilhænger af kommunisme eller andre farliger ideologier?

- Pekka Eric Auvinen - Finnish killer of seven students. He described himself in oxymoronic terms, "a cynical existentialist, antihuman humanist, antisocial social darwinist, realistic idealist and godlike atheist"...
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting
His rhetoric sounds very like some of the rhetoric I´ve heard around VK. And people call me crazy!!! :D

- Jeffrey Dahmer, infamous serial killer and atheist sentenced to 900 years in prison, said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He brutally killed seventeen men and boys, dismembering them, storing their parts and indulging in cannibalism and necrophilia.
More info: http://www.biography.com/people/jeffrey-dahmer-9264755?page=2

- Jim Jones drew people into atheism through the People’s Temple, largely based in California. He said that he “took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism”. In 1978, 909 people at the restricted communist “sanctuary” he presided over in Jonestown, Guyana, committed “revolutionary suicide” at his command.
More info: http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown93.html

EDIT
- Alfred Kinsey, infamous American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who made groundbreaking research on human sexuality, took sadistic pleasure out of his research, and did some very weird stuff, including exploiting children for sex. Moreover, much of his research was fraud.
http://www.nndb.com/people/413/000059236/


Anyway, that´s it from me. I´m off. I´m not following this thread anymore as I have other things to do - like planning my next bomb attack and setting up my cult headquarters! ;) :)


Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 18/12 2012 15:32

Earthling, I didn\'t equate you with those others. I intentionally did not mention nuns, in case you didn\'t notice ;)

I think you should be a little more gentle in your imagination about my imagination about you. It would also go a long way in avoiding some unnecessary misunderstandings.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 18/12 2012 16:41 | Indlæg redigeret den: 19/12 2012 13:58

That´s a relief! ;)

You mentioned an army of missionaries so I thought that included me. The word appears in the official name of our order, along with Mary and Franciscan.

I think you should be a little more gentle in your imagination about my imagination about you. It would also go a long way in avoiding some unnecessary misunderstandings.

DITTO! And point taken. I think a few people around here could take that advice! :)

Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 18/12 2012 20:04 | Indlæg redigeret den: 18/12 2012 20:05

Earthling har endnu en gang lavet et kæmpe selvmål.
Det første eksempel på en ond ateist der ikke er tilhænger af kommunisme eller andre farlige ideologier.
One of his teachers described him as militant radical interested in both far-right and far-left movements.

Mht. det andet eksempel kan jeg ikke se det citat hun har skrevet, men det er måske bare mig der trænger til briller.

Det tredje eksempel er et eksempel med en tilhænger af kommunisme. Jeg citerer lige mig selv.
Kan du give et eksempel hvor den onde ateist ikke har været tilhænger af kommunisme eller andre farliger ideologier?

Det fjerde eksempel er bare en historie som slet ikke er sket i virkeligheden. Det ville man måske kunne regne ud hvis man læste mere end bare overskriften.

Jeg håber ikke at du laver lige så mange selvmål i sport Earthling :D
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 19/12 2012 12:36 | Indlæg redigeret den: 19/12 2012 12:37

Ka-ching

Take note: edited. The fourth example has been replaced with Alfred Kinsey.
You asked for "et eksempel". I added the others for effect - and for fun. It´s the sadist in me ;)



And speaking of home goals:
Den anden tråd der hed hvad er der galt med ateisme, som iøvrigt blev startet af en ateist, var på en måde latterlig...
Aros - http://vegetarkontakt.dk/?-begrebet-gud=132606#il132777


BYE!!!!! :D :D :D
Aros
Forum-indlæg: 848
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 19/12 2012 14:17 | Indlæg redigeret den: 19/12 2012 14:41

Tingle2, der er absolut intet rationelt logisk argument for hvorfor man skal være religiøs for at være næstekærlig eller holde af dyr. Hvorfor i alvorlig skulle det være nødvendig at være religiøs for at blive veganer. Jeg har da aldrig hørt en værre omgang sludder. Bare i denne tråd er der flere der modbeviser denne teori. Det skyldes at religiøse har sådan en mærkelig opfattelse af at hvis man ikke tror på gud, er det lig med at være total umoralsk, og at man kan gøre hvad som helst. Hvad er det baseret i? Der er intet der retfærdiggør at sådanne tanker skulle være sandt.

Earthling: communism was built on the denial of the dignity of the human being, and included active athiest promotion and the active and frequently violent supression of religion

Jeg er enig i at kommunisme består i at benægte menneskets værdihed, og også i at kommunister voldeligt undertrygger religiøse. Ser bare stadig ikke hvad det har med ateisme generelt at gøre. Jeg er ateist, men er liberalist, det er en anden politisk filosofi end kommunisme, en der på mange måder faktisk er det modsatte af kommunisme. Bare fordi du gentager et argument der ikke holdte første gang, giver det ikke pludselig mere mening ved blot at sige det igen. Jeg har bedt dig om at argumentere imod ateisme i sig selv, og så gentager du blot kommunismens forbryderarkiv.

Earthling: My point was and is that the danger of violence and fundamentalism also lies in atheism, just as it lies in any other ´ISM.

Men dit argument har kun påvist at kommunisme er en isme der fører til vold og fundamentalisme. Jeg har ikke den samme isme som kommunister bare fordi de også er ateister. Jeg forstår ikke hvorfor du ikke er i stand til at skille de to ting ad. Der findes iøvrigt ikke gode former for kommunisme, uanset om folk så selv har givet afkaldt på deres frihed eller ej.

Earthling:It is estimated that 65 (conservtive) -100,000 million people died in less than a century. Many others are still dying today. I don´t think that can be easily dismissed. And trying to explain it asway or deny it is like denying the Holocaust, 10-15 times over.

Igen forbrydelser begået af kommunister. Hvorfor skulle jeg prøve at bortforklare de kommunistiske forbrydelser der er begået. Jeg hader kommunister. Nu nævner du selv holocaust. Hvad er det logiske argument for at at der ingen sammenhæng er imellem kristendommen og nazisme, når du tydeligvis mener at ateisme hænger sammen med kommunisme? De fleste nazister var kristne, om det var så var protestanter eller katolikker. Men sjovt nok argumenterer du ikke for at kristendom ofte fører til nazisme. Du nævner ateisme som en selvstående isme, og kommunisme som en anden, men du taler også om dem som om de hang sammen. Så hvad er det, det ene eller det andet? Hvis du i det mindste kunne komme med en statestik der hed 70% af jordens ateister er kommunister, så kunne jeg delvis forstå misforståelsen

Earthling:
I think this danger of developing atheistic ideologies is due to the vacuum which is atheism: NOTHING. You yourself agreed with this basic description of atheism:

The greatest problem I see with atheism is that at best it is NOTHING, a disbelief. At its most mediocre, it is a parasite living off religion. At its worst, it is totalitarian and destructive. It offers nothing. It leaves a vacuum which can be filled by anything. Others here on the thread have already pointed out the danger of nihilism, apathy, despair, relativism and the possibility of anarchy inherent in atheism

Denne udtalelse har jeg aldrig sagt jeg var enig i, det er simpelthen løgn. At hævde at jeg skulle have sagt jeg var enig i at ateisme er middelmådig, en parasit der lever af andre religioner, er totalitær, destruktiv og jeg ved ikke hvad, er simpelthen for plat. Folk kan jo blot kigge tråden igennem og se det ikke er rigtigt.

Earthling: To say that is not to say that atheists cannot have a meaningful life. It is not to suggest that atheism is violent per se. It is not to say that there is no danger in believing in God. It is pointing to an inherent danger, to the fact that “disbelief” is not immune to evil, any moe than religion. I fail to see how some people on the thread cannot see this and/or find what I say so offensive, or how they can claim it is anti-athiest... History is teaching us. We can all learn from it, believer and non-believer...

I am talking in general terms. I am not pointing the finger at you or anyone else else here, unlike the atheists who blame me for all the sins committed by people in the name of religion...

Earthling, jeg ved ikke om du faktisk selv tror på det du siger, men grunden til folk finder det stødende, eller anti ateistisk, er nok fordi du skriver ting som at vi er middelmådige, parasitter der lever af andre religioner, at det efterlader et tomrom i os, leder os til nihilism, apathy, despair, relativism and the possibility of anarchy. Det slags lugter ret meget af fordomme og foragt. Eller i bedste fald nogle ret store fejlagtige antagelser der virker som det rene gætværk. Earthling du kan pege fingre af mig og prøve at knytte mig sammen med forbrydelser begået af kommunister alt det du vil, jeg er og bliver aldrig kommunist, så det har ikke meget med mig at gøre. Det ville være som hvis jeg prøvede at beskylde dig for at være i bås med muslimske terrorister fordi i har det til fælles at i begge tror på gud. Jeg føler ikke det har noget med mig at gøre når du taler om stalin, kommunisme osv. Jeg har aldrig bebrejdet dig for alle de synder der er begået i religionens navn. Du har muligvis taget ting jeg har sagt om religion personligt, men det er noget andet. Og hvis jeg i en tråd har skrevet om det usmagelige i at kirken udskrev lodder til folk for at kunne komme i himlen, forfølgelsen af såkaldt kætteri, vantro og ateister. Katolske præsters misbrug af børn, så er det jo ikke forkert. Og de nævnte kritikpunkter er vel nogle som både religiøse eller ateister kunne komme med.

Earthling:
And speaking of home goals:
Den anden tråd der hed hvad er der galt med ateisme, som iøvrigt blev startet af en ateist, var på en måde latterlig... Aros - http://vegetarkontakt.dk/?-begrebet-gud=132606#il132777

Okay her taler vi vist virkeligt forbi hinanden.
Ved ikke hvad du mener med home goals?. Mener du at jeg ikke kan sige at en ateist har starten en latterlig tråd fordi jeg selv er ateist, eller hvad er pointen? Er slet ikke med her.

Her er iøvrigt en ret interessant artikel i forhold til det vi debatterer her, og folk kommer også med kommentarer til den:
http://www.etik.dk/artikel/398926:Moral--Tro-er-ikke-moral--og-ateister-er-ikke-automatisk-moralsk-suspekte


John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 21/12 2012 22:13 | Indlæg redigeret den: 21/12 2012 22:14

Ateist og vegetar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica#cite_note-25
Ka-ching
Forum-indlæg: 83
Område: Nordjylland
Dato: 21/12 2012 22:25 | Indlæg redigeret den: 21/12 2012 22:27

John=bambi???

hvad prøver du at fortælle med billedet? At ateister kan være gode mennesker? Det tror jeg ikke at der er nogen her på forummet der er i tvivl om.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 21/12 2012 23:42 | Indlæg redigeret den: 21/12 2012 23:46

LOL, Ka-ching!!!
hvad prøver du at fortælle med billedet? At ateister kan være gode mennesker? Det tror jeg ikke at der er nogen her på forummet der er i tvivl om.


Read about him several times recently on FB and elsewhere. Good for him !ja :)



Aros,
Jeg har bedt dig om at argumentere imod ateisme i sig selv

I am under no obligation to argue anything with you. My fight is not with your kind of atheism.

If you really want me argue against atheism, it would mean you have to accept that atheism is more than "disbelief" which I doubt you are prepared to concede. This, despite the fact that dictionaries, Wikipedia, and yes even Atheist Empire, define athiesm as being BOTH disbelief in gods and as belief/doctrine that there is no God. My argument concerns the second type of athiesm. I think your atheism comes under the first.

My comments are not directed at you although you do seem to be taking them personally. I have no problem with atheists who are not aggressive and who do not forcefully impose their atheism on me. I respect their integrity and their rights to freedom of conscience, religion and speech. Neither am I suggesting that all atheists are immoral or that they can´t be moral. I would never do so. I simply don´t believe it.

I am not asking you to "bortforklare de kommunistiske forbrydelser". My question was a rhetorical question meant to engender reflection on all our parts.

I was not suggesting that you said atheism was a parasite living off other religions, etc. I may have misunderstood you, but I thought you said earlier on that you could see how disbelief might leave a void which could lead people into ideologies. That´s all I meant. If I´m wrong it´s because I made a genuine mistake and misunderstood you, and not because of a lie.

Suggesting that (some) athiesm is a parasite is not meant to be insulting. It is just how I see the people who make a very good living out of attacking religion, eg. selling books, giving conferences, etc. and people who are constantly attacking and slandering religion (eg. Harris, Dawkins, and co.). I don´t see how it is any more offensive than hearing other athiests regularly tell me that I only believe because of weakness and fear, that I only do good for the sale of reward, etc. and that my deeds are selfishness. What presumption!!!

I have no problem with healthy and constructive criticism of religion. I may even agree with much of it. I do have a problem with criticism which is badly informed, dishonest, slanderous, biased and inciting hatred.

The home goal remark was aimed at Ka-ching in response to his comment to me. ;)



Aros
Forum-indlæg: 848
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 22/12 2012 20:19

hehe, nej selvfølgelig er du ikke "forpligtet" til noget. Det er bare en debat. Men der er bare ikke disse 2 former for ateisme. Det du kalder for den onde form for ateisme, er bare hvad vi andre kalder for den politiske ideologi kommunisme. Og ironisk nok minder kommunisme på mange måder om religion, hvor lederen går ind og tager guds plads. Men det er en anden snak. Nord korea er et godt eksempel:



Enhver der vil udlægge en doktrin om at alle skal være ateister, har historisk set altid været kommunister. Jeg har aldrig hørt om, eller kender til et tilfælde hvor det ikke var tilfældet. Tager jeg fejl, vil jeg gerne høre om det. Historisk set er der langt flere tilfælde af religiøse der forfølger ateister.

Tager ikke det du har skrevet personligt. Men din udtalelse virker nedladende og viser en manglende forståelse. Dvs at du ikke forstår. Der står også "It offers nothing" . Det har du faktisk ret i. Men hvorfor får du så alligevel hængt ateisme sammen med en specifik politisk ideologi. Det er en modsigelse. Jeg undrer mig også over hvad "It offers nothing" betyder eller hvad du overhovedet mener med det. Det er som om du går ud fra at der mangler noget?. Ateister tror ikke på gud. Det betyder ikke at der ikke er noget man tror på, eller står for rent moralsk, etisk, filosofisk, politisk osv. Så jeg ved ikke hvad der er vi skulle tilbydes :-)

Igen at der skulle være ateister der er aggressive og med magt vil tvinge andre til at være ateister, er ikke noget jeg kender til udenfor det politiske system der kendes som kommunisme. Kommunisme er lige elendighed til alle, så jeg ser heller ikke hvorfor det skulle være noget særligt godt samfund for ateisten.

Det jeg mente var bestemt ikke at det efterlader et tomrum i en at være ateist. Jeg ved faktisk ikke hvad jeg skal svare her, for jeg har slet ikke sagt noget der var bare i nærhenden af det. Det må have været en anden der har skrevet det. Ateisme er blot at man ikke tror på gud, hverken mere eller mindre. Derfor kan jeg hverken se at det skulle skabe noget tomrum der ikke er der, eller dække et tomrum der er der.

Harris, dawkins and co, kan jeg ikke se problemet i. De kritiserer religion. så vidt jeg ved er der ingen af dem der er kommunister. De argumenter imod religion med ord. Der er ikke nogen af dem der har en pistol imod dit hovedet eller vil fængsle dig for din tro. Hitchens bog, samt dawkins bog synes jeg var kedelige. Personligt kunne jeg bedre lide Sam harris bog troens fallit. Men der er også mange ateister der slet ikke interesserer sig for religionskritik. At være ateist og at være modstander af religion er ikke det samme. Bortset fra en enkelt bog handler de andre bøger Richard dawkins har skrevet om evolutionær biologi, så at sige at han lever af kun at kritisere religion er ikke rigtgt. Men uanset hvad er folk jo heldigvis frie til at skrive om hvad de vil. Der er også en masse der skriver bøger for at fremhæve religion, overtro og nedgøre videnskab

Hvad grunden er til at nogle mennesker er troende, tror jeg er forskellige. Nogle gange er det unægteligt pga svaghed, frygt, for at blive belønnet hensides osv. Dine personlige motiver skal jeg ikke gøre mig klog på. At du siger at du jævnligt hører den slags fra ateister kan undre mig, med mindre du bevidst opsøger det. Statistisk set er der vist ca 600+ ateister her på vegetarkontakt, og 4000+ ikke-ateister. Personligt er jeg den eneste ateist i min familie, og som helhed i dk udgør jeg heller ikke en del af flertallet. Folk er måske ikke bibelkristne i så stor grad mere, men de fleste tror stadig på gud i en eller anden forstand.

Earthling: I have no problem with healthy and constructive criticism of religion. I may even agree with much of it. I do have a problem with criticism which is badly informed, dishonest, slanderous, biased and inciting hatred.

Problemet er bare at sådan kan man vælge at tolke alt kritik jo. Med mindre du er enig med kritikken. Hvis f.eks min kritik er historisk korrekt, dvs det er uden tvivl sket, så er det jo svært at afvise som badly informed, dishonest, slanderous, biased and inciting hatred. Ikke destro mindre vil de fleste muslimer sikkert bruge lignende ord hvis jeg kalder profeten Muhamed for en krigsherre. Men det er ikke noget jeg finder på for at lyve om Islam og svine religionen til. Det er et faktum, han var hærleder, og førte an i krig, og derigennem udbredte islam. Jeg synes altid det at sige sandheden må regnes for at være konstruktiv. Hvad tonefald det så end bliver sagt i, eller hvad motivet er.
Uanset hvad måde jeg formulerede mig på, eller hvad mit motiv for at komme med eksemplet med Muhamed er, ændrer intet i forhold til at der er sandt.

Earthling: The home goal remark was aimed at Ka-ching in response to his commen to me.

Okay, det fik jeg blandet sammen så. :-)

God jul og godt nytår til alle
PlanteædendePlante
Forum-indlæg: 1188
Område: Århus
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 23/12 2012 01:15 | Indlæg redigeret den: 23/12 2012 01:23

@Aros

Jeg synes altid det at sige sandheden må regnes for at være konstruktiv. Hvad tonefald det så end bliver sagt i, eller hvad motivet er.


Mener du virkelig det? Hvis du møder en du synes der er grim er det så konstruktivt at råbe "Du er griiiim!", måske endda med det motiv at nedgøre? Jævnfør sandhed, konstruktiv, tonefald og motiv... (indsæt fedme for et mere objektivt, målbart parameter)
John
Forum-indlæg: 1388
Område: KBH
Dato: 23/12 2012 05:26

Lol...
Synes det er et mål for verden at alle er veganere,men tror ikke det lykkes uden en form for tro på noget højere og stærk næstekærlighed.

- tingle2
katchetowa
Forum-indlæg: 43
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Sjælland
Dato: 23/12 2012 19:21



Fejlen med ateister er at de tror de ikke tror!.Det gør vi alle på et eller andet!.
katchetowa
Forum-indlæg: 43
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Sjælland
Dato: 23/12 2012 19:48



Førhen var religion en trøst for mennesket i en barsk verden.Mange forventede ikke at blive mere end 25 år gamle!.
Som et ordsprog siger gud mildner luften for de klippede får!.(sagt fra de højere klasser til de lavere).
De blev plyndret godt og grundigt.Sådan var tidens moral.Den går frem og tilbage!.
De fleste døde af sult eller sygdom!.
Biskopper går på bordel og paven render efter små drenge!.Sådan blev det da religion blev et erhverv og ikke
en tro på en bedre verden og næste kærlighed.Kommunismen var lige så korrupt eller rettere skrevet mennesket
er korrupt for idealerne fejler ikke noget.Det er mennesket!.Hvis en leder bliver for blødsøden bliver han
fjernet.Så er lederen i virkeligheden en stråmand for dem som står under ham eller hende!.
Det er mennesket som et selvstændigt individ som må tage stilling til sin holdning overfor sin næste!.hvornår vi er
selvstændige må være det næste! Og bla bla bla..
Sider: << < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >>