Are all Christians blindly hypocritical?

Originally posted by boncho


Kim Jong Il, well, he kinda worshipped himself, but besides that he.....

No one can claim you didn't hit that nail squarely on the head.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by trysts

 

I do not think anyone can be an 100% Atheist(even 100% is impossible) because, we lack belief, not close minded, so Atheist do have an open mind for the possiblility.

We cannot be absolute and say not possible that god exist. Best we can go is "its not there but its is possible"...

So in reality, we all are Agnostic Atheist. Not absolute Atheist.

Also don't forget that the term "god" was already introduced to us, we cannot forget that word or the idea behind it... meaning, we have to take that into account, which we cannot prove or disproves, but we do not believe in it(atheist), but its a possibility because its already introduced to us(agnostic).

Now if we restart this world, without anyone mentioning gods, then we could say that the default = Atheism.

At this current moment, our default, if best would an Agnostic Atheist aka "It is not there but i cannot prove it, thus its possible".

Not sure if that make sense lol.

edit on 12/11/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

To me, atheism does not include the belief in "possibility", or that "possibility" has any meaning whatsoever when used in the way it seems you're using it. Atheism can be well reasoned or sparsely reasoned, but it's simply the denial of the existence of gods.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Malcher

 

I'm not sure what part of "None" I can explain to you, it seems pretty self explanatory, and I don't understand why you're up in arms about agnostics and other people who aren't religious being lumped into a category called "None".

"None" can be viewed as atheist and it would apply to both atheists and agnostics. Why didnt they just put an option for agnostic?

The poll just leaves a lot to be desired.

What was someone going to agree to "i am no longer an atheist, i am a none"? Looks to me like they just snuck it in there without having to use the term agnostic and yet being agnostic is a very real and probably the most prolific in human existence. When it really comes down to it, i mean.

reply to post by ShadowBase


Yes you are correct but i'm saying that the possibility is there because the term was introduced to us. Meaning, you need to be open for the possibility it might exist, but absolute statement would be "i do not believe it but it could exist" where an Agnostic would say "it could or it could not exist".

In our current world, best Atheist could get it about 99% Atheist, 1% agnostic.

In a perfect world, where, men did not reply on beings and deity, an absolute 100% atheist would have been possible.

reply to post by Malcher


Why would an atheist opt for "none" when atheist is an option?

The agnostic view of a belief system can obviously be categorized as "None", as it is a position of neither belief or disbelief.

At any rate, the Pew Forum is a well regarded and unbiased research group, I don't think that they had any nefarious purpose in mind by using the word "None" in that survey, and I see no reason to discount the survey on that basis.

Originally posted by luciddream
In a perfect world, where, men did not reply on beings and deity, an absolute 100% atheist would have been possible.

If your perfect world is one where you are omniscient, perhaps, but otherwise, no, because you can't draw an absolute conclusion from non-absolute observations.

reply to post by adjensen


There are many reason why an Atheist would say none, such instance could be when with religious family and friends or when at work...

I many times said "none" when asked if i belong to any religious sects.

I prefer "none" over publicly labelled "Atheist".

reply to post by luciddream

"i do not believe it but it could exist" would be agnostic. An agnostic does not believe anything but open for everything as long as it can be proven.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by luciddream
In a perfect world, where, men did not reply on beings and deity, an absolute 100% atheist would have been possible.

If your perfect world is one where you are omniscient, perhaps, but otherwise, no, because you can't draw an absolute conclusion from non-absolute observations.

Why do someone need to be omniscient to disbelieve in a higher being. Is it so hard to accept "It is what it is" ? instead of giving purpose to things like the religious like to do.

Clouds give rain, trees give fruits, earth moves.

Nature does not need purpose.

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by luciddream
In a perfect world, where, men did not reply on beings and deity, an absolute 100% atheist would have been possible.

If your perfect world is one where you are omniscient, perhaps, but otherwise, no, because you can't draw an absolute conclusion from non-absolute observations.

Why do someone need to be omniscient to disbelieve in a higher being. Is it so hard to accept "It is what it is" ? instead of giving purpose to things like the religious like to do.

Clouds give rain, trees give fruits, earth moves.

Nature does not need purpose.

I never said that it did, what I said was that you can't say that you're 100% sure that there is no God because, not being omniscient, you have no way of knowing, for sure, whether there is one or not. Same thing with unicorns, flying teapots and Santa Claus.

Atheism is the one philosophical view where you'll never have the luxury of knowing that you're right.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
For a god to hate evil and still create it, is stupid.

What makes you think that God creates evil? Most things that people consider to be evil are done by human beings, intentionally, and the rest, stuff like earthquakes, is morally ambiguous.

I was going to try my best to stay out of this thread, to just sit back and read everyone else's sides, but this needs to be replied to.

If God didn't create evil, where did it come from? Didn't God create us all, and if so, doesn't that mean he created those who are evil? Ergo, didn't he create evil? If he didn't create evil, doesn't that mean he didn't create us? If that's so, what's the point in believing in God if you don't believe he created evil. After all, he created everything, right?

Originally posted by Dondylion

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
For a god to hate evil and still create it, is stupid.

What makes you think that God creates evil? Most things that people consider to be evil are done by human beings, intentionally, and the rest, stuff like earthquakes, is morally ambiguous.

I was going to try my best to stay out of this thread, to just sit back and read everyone else's sides, but this needs to be replied to.

If God didn't create evil, where did it come from? Didn't God create us all, and if so, doesn't that mean he created those who are evil? Ergo, didn't he create evil? If he didn't create evil, doesn't that mean he didn't create us? If that's so, what's the point in believing in God if you don't believe he created evil. After all, he created everything, right?

How is evil a tangible "thing"?

Evil is the negative result of the actions and behaviours of people. God didn't create people to be evil, he even came round at a point or two to give some indication that it's not nice to be evil. Do you think that it's his fault that people ignore him and behave poorly?

reply to post by adjensen


If such go exists, Why did it even put the concept of evil in the first place? which would eventually give humans those evil behaviour?

It could have just removed those feeling if It wanted, yet, its here. And the #1 cause of everything negative.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by trysts

 

I do not think anyone can be an 100% Atheist(even 100% is impossible) because, we lack belief, not close minded, so Atheist do have an open mind for the possiblility.

how about doing it this way?

the definition of theism is:

the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation

dictionary.reference.com...

if a religion is based on a revelation from a god such as christianity with the bible or islam with the koran then that’s a theistic religion –if someone doesn’t believe that those revelations actually come from a god then that person must be 100% without a theistic belief

however

the definition of deism is:

belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation

dictionary.reference.com...

so I am 100% atheist but I don’t think a deistic god (or some variation on that theme) can be ruled out

Some...I have known many a hypocrite in my day. Most of them are "reformed" sinners and they rail the hardest against what they are personally the weakest...

The real hypocrites are our so called "moral majority" in politics. They profess to be Christians but they love to hoard their money and watch the poor suffer and die in misery...yeah...that's really "Christ-like".

I do my best to not judge people but I do every day...that is my personal hypocrisy...I know I am not worthy to judge another human being but I do it constantly....pretty sad on my part.

reply to post by Dynamike


No, they all aren't blindly hypocritical. Any more than all atheists/whomever aren't.

Those of you who think so, maybe you ought to get out more? Many good works are done by those "they're all hypocrites" Christians. If you won't take the time to acknowledge that, I can't really see the point of even bothering to ask your question...

My guess is that some are. Many more are not. They believe as they choose to, and leave others to believe as they will...even the atheists...and Muslims...and Jews...and on, and on, and on.

I'm not Christian. Nor Muslim. Nor much of anything, save I believe in God. While I have my hypocritical moments, it's not because of my beliefs in God... It's because, like all of you, I'm a very fallible human.

reply to post by seagull


Well said. Thank you Seagull.
Second line.

Answer to the OP's title.

Yes.

How about that old thing about "I forgive".

Didn't the leader of the sect say something in regard to that?
You hate that there is hate in the world? Forgive everybody.
It makes you mad that "they/them/those are doing something against your belief"...Forgive them....

Stop worrying about the rest of the world and stop trying to save everyone...That is none of your business....

Forgive yourself first and maybe the rest of the world won't look so dire to you....

oxi

reply to post by Dynamike


It is not the Christians who are hypocritical or offensive. It is the things their holy book tells them to do and be which are offensive and hypocritical. Every Christian has the capability of being a well-adjusted, reasoning, logical, ethical human being. They just need to stop going to Church, stop teaching each other to hate those who are different, and most importantly: stop trusting in the Bible, because it is not the divinely inspired word of a loving Creator.

Feeling a personal connection to Jesus Christ is perfectly fine, it's no different than Hindus to Brahma and Krishna, polytheists to the Great Goddess and Horned God, or Buddhists to the Buddha and His Dharma. Having a personal connection to something you deem universal, eternal, and benevolent is not a problem. Twisting that something into a reason for discriminating, spreading prejudices, teaching hate, and segregating people based on creed, ethnicity, age, and gender is what is wrong.

Besides, the reason that agnosticism and atheism are on the rise is because Christians have permeated the air waves with their theology so much. As we uncover more about our past through history and archaeology, it becomes more and more clear that the customs, rituals, symbols, holidays, and myths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are just rehashing the spiritual foundations of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Anatolian, Greek, Celtic, and Old Norse religions.

They revealed their whole hand, and we called their bluff.


reply to post by randomname


Oh, and, to the poster who said atheism is responsible for the deaths caused by Communism... correlation does not imply causation. Despotic Communist dictators, not atheists, caused all of those tragedies you're presenting. Not all atheists are Communists, and not all Communists are atheists... unless you, as a Christian, are willing to accept this whole list as being the result of Christianity.

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by randomname
what kind of oppression has atheism caused humanity?

is that a serious question.

communism for starters. stalin, pol pot, the kim jung's, ho chi minh, mae zedong, benito mussolini all responsible for well over 100 million deaths and almost causing world war 3, nuclear annihilation of the human race.

not to mention abortion, atheism's wet dream coming true.

i would make atheism a capital offence as a pre-emptive measure to ensure the survival of the human race.

but unlike what your atheists pals reject, God forbids me to kill, for you to kill and for every single person on earth to kill or harm each other.

it's the people who reject God, use God's name for evil, or don't believe in God causing all the problems on earth. not the other way around.

A post full of hate, ignorance, stupidity and over-speculation.

Please do not respond back, I only have conversations with people that have common sense and good inside of them.