What atheism really teaches

Originally posted by wolfgang59
A good idea RJ.

Though in the UK we don't pull down the churches - they are turned into
trendy flats.

The people of the UK are so practical.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you dont believe in allah, if you had the power would you start pulling down mosques?

Don't tempt him!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are the doctrines of communism anti religious, both acts were perpetrated against religions organisations, what has led you to believe that communism was the motivating factor and not atheism?

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

Lenin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

Originally posted by Proper Knob

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

Lenin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

yes but how will you differentiate between what motivated the Khmer rouge or other attempts to establish an atheistic state who may be all three, Marxist, Communist and Atheist?

Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and communist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious

Lenin, V. I. "About the attitude of the working party toward the religion.". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved 2006-09-09.

Originally posted by Kepler
Don't tempt him!

hehe, i didnt expect him to answer on the grounds it might incriminate.

Originally posted by Penguin
No, not really. Religions give specific rules and rituals and beliefs that must be adhered to. which ones people adhere to and how devoutly sort of defines how nominal/fundamental they are. Atheism gives no such rules, traditions or beliefs. It is just a lack of belief in one more god than everybody else.

I will ask again, [b]in what way does your lack of ...[text shortened]... eligion, or your lack of interest in deep-sea kayaking, affect your actions?

--- Penguin.[/b]

Some do, as in Islam and Judaism, but this is not the way of Christianity, which has as its basis, the free exercise of the faculty of conscience, which is far superior to ritualistic form of worship. As to your quseyion, it appears to me to be not a little irrational, for deep-sea kayaking has nor relationship to Hinduism, the same cannot be said of atheism and theism, for there exists a kind of symbiotic relationship, for atheism by its very nature, is not simply the negation of theism but a truth claim to boot. *

* see the thread the arrogance of theism and atheism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As to your quseyion, it appears to me to be not a little irrational, for deep-sea kayaking has nor relationship to Hinduism, the same cannot be said of atheism and theism, for there exists a kind of symbiotic relationship, for atheism by its very nature, is not simply the negation of theism but a truth claim to boot.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding what he asked or did you genuinely not understand it? And if the former, did you seriously think you would get away with it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but how will you differentiate between what motivated the Khmer rouge or other attempts to establish an atheistic state who may be all three, Marxist, Communist and Atheist?

Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and communist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious ...[text shortened]... f the working party toward the religion.". Collected works, v. 17, p.41. Retrieved 2006-09-09.

The primary goal of the Khmer Rouge was to establish an agricultural communist state. As you have pointed out religion was viewed as an obstruction to achieving the desired 'utopia' so it was banned and ruthlessly crushed resulting in the deaths of countless monks. Intellectualism was also viewed as an obstruction by the Khmer Rouge and as a result teachers, merchants, academics and anyone else they deemed intellectual was killed. Even people who wore glasses were killed because the KR deemed it a sign of learning.

The goal was agricultural communism for the KR, if they thought that religion would play a part in helping to achieve the 'utopia' they sought it would have been implemented.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The primary goal of the Khmer Rouge was to establish an agricultural communist state. As you have pointed out religion was viewed as an obstruction to achieving the desired 'utopia' so it was banned and ruthlessly crushed resulting in the deaths of countless monks. Intellectualism was also viewed as an obstruction by the Khmer Rouge and as a result teach ...[text shortened]... d play a part in helping to achieve the 'utopia' they sought it would have been implemented.

yes, I read somewhere that the monks were deemed to be parasitic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, that is the English transiteration of the name from the Greek. In fact, Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek version of His Hebrew name pronounced Yahshua or Joshua, if the "Y" sound is replaced with the "J" sound in English.

The Instructor

Bollocks.
A proper translation would be "Rock" or keep it Aramaic: Cephas.

Peter was just the translation into Latin. Jesus would never have said "Peter".

You are so obsessed with Yahshua and Yoshua and Yahweh. Why not be consistent if names matter?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Bollocks.
A proper translation would be "Rock" or keep it Aramaic: Cephas.

Peter was just the translation into Latin. Jesus would never have said "Peter".

You are so obsessed with Yahshua and Yoshua and Yahweh. Why not be consistent if names matter?

I haven't heard you complain about the JWs being obsessed with the name Jehovah. Why not? What is your obsession with the the name Rock and Cephas instead of Peter?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I haven't heard you complain about the JWs being obsessed with the name Jehovah. Why not? What is your obsession with the the name Rock and Cephas instead of Peter?

No obsession.
Just outing you as an ignorant fool again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Some do, as in Islam and Judaism, but this is not the way of Christianity, which has as its basis, the free exercise of the faculty of conscience, which is far superior to ritualistic form of worship. As to your quseyion, it appears to me to be not a little irrational, for deep-sea kayaking has nor relationship to Hinduism, the same cannot be said ...[text shortened]... of theism but a truth claim to boot. *

* see the thread the arrogance of theism and atheism.

Some do, as in Islam and Judaism, but this is not the way of Christianity, which has as its basis, the free exercise of the faculty of conscience

The Ten Commandments say that Christianity dictates behaviours just like the other religions. Some of the commandments are fairly generic requirements for the workings of a human society. Others not so much:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

My question was simply asking you to give examples of how lack of belief or interest in something has any measurable impact on your behaviour, giving possible examples of Hinduism as something in which you do not believe and deep see kayaking as something in which you have no interest.

Do you think you might be able to answer this question that I have asked several times? I am asking the question as evidence for my assertion that my atheism (lack of belief in the existence of a deity) has no influence on my behaviour, whereas my humanism does.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Some do, as in Islam and Judaism, but this is not the way of Christianity, which has as its basis, the free exercise of the faculty of conscience

The Ten Commandments say that Christianity dictates behaviours just like the other religions. Some of the commandments are fairly generic requirements for the workings of a human society. Others not so mu ...[text shortened]... xistence of a deity) has no influence on my behaviour, whereas my humanism does.

--- Penguin.[/b]

ummm news flash, we are Christians and not Jews, the ten commandments which formed part of the Mosaic Law were incumbent only and exclusively upon Jews and Jewish proselytes, not Christians. That is why we no longer sacrifice animals, no longer celebrate the passover, no longer need to get circumcised, keep a Sabbath etc etc etc etc etc.

If it has no influence on your behavior then its essentially impotent and you would as well as joining a fairy cake making class, which would at very least, produce fairy cakes. Whether it does have any impact on your behavior remains to be seen.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm news flash, we are Christians and not Jews, the ten commandments which formed part of the Mosaic Law were incumbent only and exclusively upon Jews and Jewish proselytes, not Christians. That is why we no longer sacrifice animals, no longer celebrate the passover, no longer need to get circumcised, keep a Sabbath etc etc etc etc etc.

If it ha ...[text shortened]... east, produce fairy cakes. Whether it does have any impact on your behavior remains to be seen.

ummm news flash, we are Christians and not Jews, the ten commandments which formed part of the Mosaic Law were incumbent only and exclusively upon Jews and Jewish proselytes, not Christians. That is why we no longer sacrifice animals, no longer celebrate the passover, no longer need to get circumcised, keep a Sabbath etc etc etc etc etc.

Not everyone agrees with you on this. For example, from http://about-i-am.net/rules_laws.html
Most Christian theologians see the Ten Commandments as the core of acceptable Old Testament law, i.e. moral laws that certainly have ‘relevance’ to all Christians. They are summarised below:
...<snipped>...
Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments, and provided much more, in his own two commandments of love,“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.” Then continuing, Jesus added, “Love your neighbour as yourself” [Luke 10:27].


So the Ten Commandments are relevant to Christianity. You also have the specifically new testament tradition of baptism. I do not think you can seriously say that Christianity has no specific rules and rituals and beliefs that must be adhered to.

If it has no influence on your behavior then its essentially impotent and you would as well as joining a fairy cake making class

I think you might actually be beginning to understand! Although being atheist would be more akin to joining a not making fairy cakes class.

--- Penguin.