Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[Ghel]

Oh, so just because I believe something that's not athiesm, I'm wrong?

What? I was referring to the discussion of whether a lack of belief in a god can lead to violent actions. I wasn't referring to your beliefs at all.

Personally, I don't care whether someone's saved or not. So your soul being forfeit makes no-nevermind to me.

Then why are you even participating in this discussion?

[Hobbs]

Rebel, you're still not reading. I never said one was more intolerant than the other.

[Rebel]

I was referring to Dawkins. Read next time.

I had already countered your claim against Dawkins. Perhaps following your own advice is warranted?

Everyone can be intolerant. But I don't see how this helps your case against Dawkins.

Dawkins is doing no more nor less than anybody spreading the word for Christ does. He is putting forward his main argument, backing it up with his own proof, then encouraging the listener to come to their own conclusion. Isn't that what any non-fundamentalist church does with the bible? Church groups even do this on street corners as well as tv stations and news segments. What makes Dawkins worse than them?

And isn't your argument about the 'fact' that athiests are intolerant and like to spread hateful rhetoric already counter-claimed by the original article in this thread. You know, the one that points out how big a reaction a small group of Christians saying sorry at a pride parade caused. Because gay people are critisized and demonized by passages in the bible and by certain churches. Kinda intolerant there, and that is what made the event all that more noteworthy.

Yes, athiests can be intolerant, as proved by Stalin.
Yes, thiests can be intolerant, as proved by Hitler.

But in the end, it boils down to the evil of man. If they want to hurt or destroy, they will find a way and they will find a reason.

Still, no matter how much you say it, Dawkins is not a terrorist (even by your own definition no less) and athiesm is no more intolerant than thiesm at it's core.

[Hobbs]

Hobbs, even if what you're saying is true (which it's not), this says nothing about the existence of a god. Let's bring this back to the core of the discussion.

Oh, so just because I believe something that's not athiesm, I'm wrong?

To all the Christians who are following this thread: What reason do you have to believe the Christian God exists? My eternal soul (which I also don't believe in) is riding on this. Convince me.

Look, don't mock us. I'm not even going to entertain you with an answer other than that.

Personally, I don't care whether someone's saved or not. So your soul being forfeit makes no-nevermind to me.

[Ghel]

Hobbs, even if what you're saying is true (which it's not), this says nothing about the existence of a god. Let's bring this back to the core of the discussion.

To all the Christians who are following this thread: What reason do you have to believe the Christian God exists? My eternal soul (which I also don't believe in) is riding on this. Convince me.

[Hobbs]

So you just proved the point that Dawkins isn't necessarily a terrorist, because him "spreading" atheism doesn't necessarily spread hatred and intolerance. The intolerant will be intolerant because of their personality type, not their moral affiliation.

No, that's not it at all. Someone being predispositioned to be intolerant doesn't negate the fact that they are spreading hateful rhetoric. There's debate on whether or not Hitler had syphilis which attributed to a growing psychosis, but I think we can pretty much say that his hate-speech is evil and led to the killing of millions.

[the_std]

That is exactly the point I was making. There was an article I read for either a sociology class or an anthropology class that discussed the possibility of certain people being predispositioned to be intolerant, and that when they join a certain social group, they latch onto the "hardliner" motif in order to satisfy their intolerant needs.

So you just proved the point that Dawkins isn't necessarily a terrorist, because him "spreading" atheism doesn't necessarily spread hatred and intolerance. The intolerant will be intolerant because of their personality type, not their moral affiliation.

[Hobbs]

That still doesn't mean that either side inherintly is intolerent

That is exactly the point I was making. There was an article I read for either a sociology class or an anthropology class that discussed the possibility of certain people being predispositioned to be intolerant, and that when they join a certain social group, they latch onto the "hardliner" motif in order to satisfy their intolerant needs. Again, I read it a long time ago, so it might take some time to find it, if someone wants to read it.

[Ghel]

Athiests can be just as intolerant as a thiest can...

Atheism equally can create intolerence. I see it all the time, "I got where I am on my own, therefor I'm better than those who depend on their make believe God to make it through their lives"

Two points: 1. Intolerance means attempting to stop a thing from happening. Speaking out against a thing is not intolerance. Resorting to legislation and/or violence to stop a thing is intolerance.

2. Atheism, by itself, does not lead to ANYTHING. Atheism is a view on a single point, the belief in the existence of a god. Any other views the atheist has are in addition to his or her atheism, and by necessity must come from a different source. Therefore, bringing communism or dictatorships into the discussion is another red herring.

Being athiest doesn't make you "better" than me; it means you have different beliefs than me.

I never said it did. What I have said over and over again is that I prefer that I have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible. If I find out that something I thought was true isn't, I will change that view.

...what standard of proof would be acceptable...

What standard of evidence I would find acceptable is the same standard that we use for other scientific experiments. The same standard that is used in experiments that try to determine whether prayer works. Whether psychic healing works. Whether precognition works. And yes, it would have to be repeatable. The same way we expect psychics to be able to repeat their results before we accept their claims.

Again, even if miracles existed, they wouldn't necessarily be evidence for the Christian God.

[smileyeagle1021]

Some West Side boys did not attack East Side boys. Some did attack East Side boys. There were no beliefs demanding an attack. The attack was caused by intolerance.

Some Christians attack and killed non-Christians. Most do not. Intolerance, not Christianity, caused that violence.

Some Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims. Some do not. Again, intolerance is the cause.

Some atheists attack and kill Christians. Stalin was pro-atheist and vehemently anti-theist, and he wanted to force that atheism on everybody. He killed millions of Christians, to further atheism.

So, you've proven that intolerence leads to violence... yet there is no proof where intolerence originates. From your point of view intolerence is a trait of atheists or other non-religious people, from people like me and Ghel intolerence is a trait of religious people. And to be honest, both sides can lead to intolerence.
I don't think I really have to go into details in how the Bible has fueled intolerence, after all, it doesn't matter what your ethical and moral misgivings may be if your God commands you to do something. A supreme entity can instill a great level of intolerence towards those who don't do what you believe that supreme entity wants them to do.... after all, they're going against the supreme entity.
Atheism equally can create intolerence. I see it all the time, "I got where I am on my own, therefor I'm better than those who depend on their make believe God to make it through their lives"
That still doesn't mean that either side inherintly is intolerent (though my life experience has been that more religious people do tend to be intolerent more often than atheists, but then again, I don't know many atheists, yes many who don't believe in religion, like myself, but not that disbelieve in God).

[HYHYBT]

The problem with the question is that you are taking the possibility of a genuine miracle for granted and then asking the people who do not believe in those miracles to provide proof. How can someone prove something they believe does not exist?

if you start with the assumption that miracles exist, the rest of your work is going to be flawed. If you start with the assumption that a god exists, the rest of your work will likewise be flawed. Whether miracles or a god exists should be determined by the evidence. It is the end of the investigation, not the beginning.

No, not at all. I'm not actually assuming (for this purpose) that miracles are possible. I'm trying to find out, hypothetically speaking, what standard of proof would be acceptable if genuine (meaning not repeatable by scientific means, not picked specially for your liking, etc) miracles are possible. If there is no conceivable way, even if they exist, to prove to your satisfaction that they are possible, then your disbelief is, in a sense, a matter of faith every bit as much as those for whom there can neve be enough evidence to convince them that the universe was not formed over the course of a week about 6,000 years ago.

[Hobbs]

Even if true (and I find it unlikely), that doesn't tell us anything about whether the claims of theists are true. Your statement is a red herring. The actions of theists or atheists have nothing to do with whether their claims are true.

No, but it makes "your" side no better than "my" side. Athiests have killed thiests, by the thousands; Stalin in Russia, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and others around the world. Athiests can be just as intolerant as a thiest can, which is my argument. Being athiest doesn't make you "better" than me; it means you have different beliefs than me.

[Ghel]

"...the danger that if atheism became widespread, as it has in the Soviet Union and in other countries of the world, it would become the functional equivalent of a state religion with the suppression of theistic minorities...atheists, no less than theists, might want to suppress what they did not believe was true or what they thought was dangerous."
Martin, Michael. Atheism : A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Do you have the context of this statement? The surrounding passage? The reason I ask is because, after reading the description of this book on several sites, I have a hard time imagining that this is the author's opinion. It seems more likely that he was using this statement, along with whatever portion the ellipses leave out, as an introduction to an argument he was about to refute.

I would like to thank you for quoting this. I added this book to my wishlist and will likely be reading it in the near future.

Some atheists attack and kill Christians.

Even if true (and I find it unlikely), that doesn't tell us anything about whether the claims of theists are true. Your statement is a red herring. The actions of theists or atheists have nothing to do with whether their claims are true.

[Hobbs]

"...the danger that if atheism became widespread, as it has in the Soviet Union and in other countries of the world, it would become the functional equivalent of a state religion with the suppression of theistic minorities...atheists, no less than theists, might want to suppress what they did not believe was true or what they thought was dangerous."
Martin, Michael. Atheism : A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Some West Side boys did not attack East Side boys. Some did attack East Side boys. There were no beliefs demanding an attack. The attack was caused by intolerance.

Some Christians attack and killed non-Christians. Most do not. Intolerance, not Christianity, caused that violence.

Some Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims. Some do not. Again, intolerance is the cause.

Some atheists attack and kill Christians. Stalin was pro-atheist and vehemently anti-theist, and he wanted to force that atheism on everybody. He killed millions of Christians, to further atheism.

[Rebel]

His perpetration of hate leads to violent acts by extremist anti-thiests the world over. Such people are enemies to the Church and any peaceful society.

Examples? What violent acts? And where?

If you make a statement that incredible, you have to back it up. It's Debate 101.

How are athiests violent, but church/religion peaceful?
Let me remind you that extremists exist in every country, state, culture, and religion.