Billboards Declare Prayer, Bibles Not Helping Disaster Victims

Lucid Lunacy

Whatever his religion

If he was atheist or deist he would not have one.

Then we are defining "religion" in different terms.

one more thing

i play an online game with lots of people i don't know. i don't ask before i help them out with some task, if they are atheists or pagans or whatever. if i have the time/resources and they need help, i help them. so i'm not buying this whole thing about atheists being picked on. if you asked me in game, for help, i'd help ya and not ask what your world view was first, nor try to convert you to christianity or whatever-anity. why is this whole thing getting blown so far out of proportion? what is the problem with letting people believe whatever in the hell they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else?

i don't get it and i never will.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Faith without works is dead,

From the book of James:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Happy thanksgiving all, God bless!

Not surprising that Christian scum would send bibles and rosary beads

Bedlam

Grimpachi
Your ship is double sunk.

I don't have a ship. Nor a dog in the hunt. However, it seems clear that their first priority is to whine about religious charities, rather than being encouraging support of the victims. You know it too, you just don't want to admit it because it blunts your message. You're generally better than that, Grim.

Sure OK you don’t have a ship or a dog but you sure put a lot of effort into whining up a storm over a FREE sign trying to stay away from the real issue at all cost.

The message is don’t send bibles, rosaries, or expect a prayer to substitute real help the kind that can feed or shelter someone. You are whining about messages yet your complaining about the AA group who has directed people to charity’s ( SOME WHO HAVE RELIGIOUS TIES) that will actually help not pray for them. Why aren’t you playing devil’s advocate? The Pope wields a lot of power and he called for prayer what if he called for actual help?

The Philippines has donated Billions to the church that’s with a big B The church sent back bibles, rosaries according to reports they sent other goods in total of 150,000 that is not with a B or an M. Private Citizens have sent more.

I will say this AGAIN since so many must have missed it all the times I wrote it. This is about sending REAL HELP and doing things that WILL HELP so AA has on their website hose organizations people can donate to that will do just those things that will not use donated disaster relief money on Bibles or Rosaries.

You want to talk about doing better how about paying attention to the message instead getting hung up on a FREE sign that delivers the message especial since the issue had already been covered earlier in the thread.

What is your message it seems like it goes something like this (damn those atheists for pointing out there are some bad organizations using money in a disaster torn area on items that neither feed, cloth, shelter or keep people alive BUT they are saying there are some good ones that will and they posted them on their site HOWEVER that doesn’t matter because the Gaul of them to do so without spending money on a sign pointing it out.)?

You may not have a dog but you need a pretty big billboard for that sign your waving.

reply to post by nenothtu

Then we are defining "religion" in different terms.

Indeed we are. Both atheism and deism are non-religious. That's entirely the point of them. You're free to use the terms how you wish of course

reply to post by undo

they have vast libraries of nothing but atheist materials.

I have very little doubt the vast majority of that has nothing to do with atheism, you're just making that connection because you want to throw everything under that term. Science book? Atheism. It doesn't work like that. An atheist could fully support or fully deny science. The only thing that qualifies someone as an atheist is the non-belief in god(s). It's such a simple thing. You religious people must be so used to your mandated reading material that you just assume atheists have some as well… atheists run the gamut as to why and how they become atheists, and what their beliefs are (outside of non-belief in god(s)).

So I am curious. Earlier you basically made the case that our Nation had a religious foundation. Now you're essentially claiming it's run and controlled by atheists. Doesn't seem to add up here. I believe our Nation is what like 80% Christian? That's 80% in political and corporate and military… Shouldn't we assume it's the Christians who are currently running the show. That seems like the best educated guess.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Here is my understanding..

Atheism... no God. Period.

Deism... God, but no organized religion. ie: there was a first cause, but what that cause is is unknown to us, and no organized religion is correct concerning the matter, because, frankly, we do not know.

Also, I see the founding fathers as deists, and although they had religious upbringing, disagreed in large part with organized religion.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


That's exactly as I understand it as well.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


fair enough, since i've had the chance to tak with many different types of atheists, i agree that there's no static view regarding the various mainstream orgs like mainstream science. but then, there's no static view of anything in "religions" either and some people think that's a reason to gripe as well. i think it's a good thing as having one religion everyone is forced to submit to, is not a good idea. that's kinda how i feel about science right now. it's been co-opted by people who will not accept anything historical as scientific unless it falls under archaeology and even then, they only want to accept archaeology that supports the old testament. in my view, the other ancient texts support all the ancient texts and help fill in gaps. this must be dangerous information for them to wage such a massive campaign against it and keep it up all these years, even in the face of archaeological discoveries.

something fishy's going on. that's another one of the reasons i get frustrated as well. i wish my atheist friends would take their "i hate religion" glasses off long enough to ascertain just how much of this old information was actually true. the info the big wigs could be hiding from us under the guise of it all being mythology, scares the crap outta me

for example. mainstream says, gilgamesh never existed. some archaeologists found his city. now if you mention gilgamesh to a group of educated folks, most of them will still say gilgamesh never existed and the stories about him are complete bunk.

news.bbc.co.uk...

mainstream said troy never existed. some archaeologists find troy. the history texts still say troy and its historical texts, are myths

whc.unesco.org...

a couple geologists from oxford university discover that the flood in the epic of gilgamesh, atrahasis epic and bible, actually happened and was the black sea flood. if you mention this to a group of educated folks, most of them will still say the flood never happened, and go off into laughing fits about how you can't squeeze all the animals on the planet on the ark (papal interpretation that exists to this day for the express purpose of making fun of it repeatedly)

www.nytimes.com...

and that's just barely scratching the surface of the ancient texts that have been verified by archaeology or some other science.
there are literally, countless examples. i mean PILES of evidence. real geological, archaeological, evidence.

the exodus


and on and on and on. this includes verification of nearly every king mentioned in the bible, the ancient sumerian and akkadian and babylonian texts, their cities, and references in their texts.

it's ....well i don't know what to think of the refusal of some people to even look, much less research this stuff.

reply to post by rupertg


Figuratively speaking, I don't see many atheists teaching people how to fish. The only reason I recon, that atheists do anything that resembles charity is because it is a tactic used in their battle against God. Atheism is not only a rejection of God, but also a declaration of the absence of love in the life of an Atheist.

reply to post by apydomis

Atheism is not only a rejection of God, but also a declaration of the absence of love in the life of an Atheist.

So it's your opinion that an atheist father or mother doesn't love their children? Perhaps if you were more acquainted with love yourself, your heart would be open enough to see how demonstrably false that is. Atheists love just fine. Like everyone else. It's all around you.

Atheism isn't a rejection of god in the way I think you meant it. Atheism is a rejection god exists to begin with. In other words, atheists hold no ill will toward god. That would be nonsensical.

reply to post by undo

but then, there's no static view of anything in "religions" either and some people think that's a reason to gripe as well.

There a plenty of religions, and even with those religions their distinct denominations. Within those denominations the members have their own subjective interpretation. So sure it's not static. However, there are various core beliefs and mandated texts that unify them. Atheism stands apart in that regard.

i think it's a good thing as having one religion everyone is forced to submit to, is not a good idea.

Personally I don't think any religion is good to submit to. I am quite the anti-theist. I'll leave that for other threads. However, wouldn't one religion be a good thing in the sense that surely there is (that being the case) one that is more metaphysically accurate in its description of the creator and its thoughts. Again, I don't believe any of them are, but the idea they are all valid in their own right doesn't work. Religious pluralism can't reconcile the fact many core beliefs within the religions are in direct conflict.

that's kinda how i feel about science right now. it's been co-opted by people who will not accept anything historical as scientific unless ...

I think it's important to make the distinction between science and science communities. What you're describing is no fault of science. It's people being corrupted and losing their objectivity. It's kind of like a researcher not getting funding because no one wants to fund a really unorthodox theory. Is that a problem with science itself?

@Grimpachi Not sure if you got my last message. I wrote this super long reply to your questions here and lost it with a page timeout. Also sent you a PM but not sure if it sent :/

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I guess he is saying Buddhist are incapable of love as well since many of them are Atheists.

Just from these boards I am glad there are so many atheist organizations creating outreach programs to educate the populace on Atheism. There are so many people that honestly have no idea what atheism is. The church seems to have done a real number on them feeding them false information. Some still think atheists are devil worshipers which if they used their common sense would realize that not believing in deity’s also encompasses the devil. Of course there are some people that think the devil is a real person as well.

That kind of reasoning does attribute to religion being considered a metal disorder.

i don't see the problem with giving religious items and texts, i mean charity is to give freely to others even if they reject it or not, so who has the right to dictate what people give with their own money? isn't such a billboard basically insulting people who wish to help in whatever way they think might offer some comfort, dictating that what people give to charity is not their choice, that they should be monitored and told that they can't send this or that for whatever reason?

really is that what you want, to dictate what people and charities can give to the point of repression of their religion?
rather hypocritical of this atheist group to attack a persons choice and beliefs while expecting fair treatment and acceptance for their own beliefs. who are they to judge others for what they give or what they do with their time or money?

people and groups who attack and nitpick others actions like this only cause division and hatred both ways, these little types of attacks will be the cause of a great atheist/religious war one day, these types of people should be proud of the seeds of oppression and war they are sowing huh? it might seem insignificant and harmless to them now but words move people in many ways, good or bad.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Then we are defining "religion" in different terms.

Indeed we are. Both atheism and deism are non-religious. That's entirely the point of them. You're free to use the terms how you wish of course

So you are defining "religious" by what you believe it to NOT be? I suppose that right there is the source of our disagreement. I generally define things by what they ARE, rather than what they ARE NOT.

Does this mean that a car is a car simply because it is NOT a bus? My shoes are not a bus, either, so that probably makes them a car, too. Nonsensical things like that are what we run into when we attempt to define things by what they are NOT, rather than what they ARE.

I guess what I really need to know if this discussion is to continue is what you think atheism and deism ARE if they are not religions. In other words, what is it that you believe a religion IS that makes them "not-religions"?

What elements make a religion a religion, and make atheism and deism not-religions?

reply to post by nenothtu


I did describe them by what they are. In a few posts.

Religion has dogma. Multitude of tenets, rituals, commandments, books and texts that are mandated within a given faith. And of course, belief in deity(s). Atheism has but one tenet. God doesn't exist. None of those other characteristics are true for atheism. Deism rejects that a creator intervenes. So therefore how could there be any of those characteristics in deism if god never gave a holy book or spoke with one of us with direction about how we should or shouldn't conduct ourselves? There wouldn't be. Atheism and deism are not religions. They are directly contrary to what constitutes a religion. They are religions like abstinence is a sex position.

Now your turn. Why are they religions.

reply to post by Grimpachi

I guess he is saying Buddhist are incapable of love as well since many of them are Atheists.

I would like to think this is an uncommon mentality from a Christian but from my experience it's not. It's shockingly common to hear from them that atheists, or non-religious in general, are void of morality and love. Just nuts.

There are so many people that honestly have no idea what atheism is.

It's the simplest idea yet they seem to have the hardest time with it. It's a religion. It's satanic. It's a science conspiracy. Heh..

Did you get my PM by chance? My ATS is timing out like crazy over here.

I am new to this and cannot find anything about demons,but I am atheist. I have a theory that changes everything. According to my research, the devil will have more people than god,but in this world god has more people. Does this mean the good god (Christian) is actually the devil and the devil is the the good god.in the bible it is not easy to become Christian, yet in this world u can go to a church and your Christian. Originally it is supposed to be hard to become Christian but now you can get sprayed by holy water and ur Christian.the devil is supposed to have more followers because it is the easy way and in this world becoming Christian is more easier than satanist. In conclusion we, as a human might have gotten our stuff mixed up