Evangelical Atheism

[zombyshakespear]

As many of you know, I left Christianity in 2002/3 over a period of a few months. I went from born-again, die for Christ, Bible literally true style protestant to agnostic. After a few more months I gathered the courage to acknowledge that I was truly an atheist

Comments

Vaccinations

[just_human]

I had wondered about the vaccinations myself. The only ones I could find that had anything to do with fetal tissue were pipe dreams - an AIDS vaccination or an Ebola vaccination

Re: Vaccinations

[zombyshakespear]

What space technology of the Nazis have we adopted?

Scientists are certainly not all good, but it wasn't the science that made the Nazis so terrible. The Nazis used science in immoral ways, but that's because they were Nazis not because they were scientists.

Re: Vaccinations

[just_human]

Quoting from the BBC.

"Supersonic rockets, nerve gas, jet aircraft, guided missiles, stealth technology and hardened armour were just some of the groundbreaking technologies developed in Nazi laboratories, workshops and factories, even as Germany was losing the war."

"Hubertus Strughold, later called "the father of space medicine", designed Nasa's on-board life-support systems. Some of his subordinates conducted human "experiments" at Dachau and Auschwitz, where inmates were frozen and put into low-pressure chambers, often dying in the process."

Evangelism

[just_human]

Christianity has an upside and a downside. So does atheism.

Let's assume Christianity is true.
A dead Christian goes to Heaven. That's a good thing. But a Christian doesn't want you to go to Hell and will do his best to save your soul. That's the biggest complaint about Christianity today - they just won't leave you alone.

Now let's assume Atheism is correct.
A dead Atheist will rot in the ground. Ah well.. no great afterlife. That's a bad thing. But at least the Atheist respects your right to hold beliefs and won't talk about religion to you. That's a good thing.

It seems you're trying to combine the worst of both types.

Re: Evangelism

[zombyshakespear]

I actually don't mind evangelism. I actually think it's flattering and somewhat of an honor. If someone is very religious and thinks you're going to hell, not telling you about it would be a great insult

Re: Evangelism

[just_human]

Well.. I'm not even 100% sure what I believe about your status, to be honest. There's the 'once-saved-always-saved' theory, the 'if you're not a Christian today, you must not have really been one' theory and the 'you can purposely give up salvation' theory. So you're screwed in 2/3rd of them, but there's still a chance!

I've understood that Moses' laws were for that time and place. So it's only the Jews you have to worry about. The Christians should remember the 'love your enemies', 'turn your cheek' and other pansy-like stuff we've been taught.

I can't be 100% serious all the time, so I hope you forgive the attempt at humor.

Re: Evangelism

[zombyshakespear]

heh, no problem, man.

We really lose a lot of messages online. After all ~90% of communication is non-verbal, right?

Gay

[just_human]

Sorry for doing so many posts, but they're on different subjects

Re: Gay

[zombyshakespear]

That's okay; I'm always glad to hear from you.

That's a wonderful policy of course.

Assuming there is no god, what does society gain by persecuting gay people?

These people have demonstrated that they are often willing to adopt children thus giving them a role in propagation of the species. These people are also unlikely to marry someone of the opposite sex and procreate if they are forbidden their desire.

So, assuming there is no god and nothing is inherently sinful, why should we even imply that something is wrong with homosexuality?

Re: Gay

[just_human]

I've often thought it silly you need a license to marry, but any old idiot can have a baby

Re: Gay

[zombyshakespear]

I'm not (nor is anyone outside Utah or Vegas) implying that we should throw open the floodgates to allow marrying minors or multiple partners. The question is limited to 2 gay or lesbian people and gaining full legal status for their relationship. This is not a slippery slope. This simply lets people of the same sex marry, and retains all the existing rights and responsibilities of marriage.

So, my question: What would society have to gain by denying marriage to homosexuals? Why not define it as two consenting adults regardless of their gender?

[maverick1223]

I am posting this comment while slightly drunk, so bear with me, and please excuse all speling errors, but this seems a worthwhile distraction whilst downloading porn

The costs of belief

[zombyshakespear]

How do you decide which parts of the Bible to ignore

Re: The costs of belief

[just_human]

The Books of Law were specific for the Jews, for the purpose of keeping them Jews. And it worked. You'll notice we don't have Hittites anymore.

Re: The costs of belief

[zombyshakespear]

I don't think that method works.

We don't have Romans or Pharisees anymore either, so why keep even the new testament?

Research indictates that Political Correctness isn't necessarily a good thing

[just_human]

http://www.americanvalues.org/parenthood/parenthood.htm

An interesting article, I think.

Re: Research indictates that Political Correctness isn't necessarily a good thing

[zombyshakespear]

That is interesting. Divorce is terrible when children are involved.

I don't really see how homosexual marriage is bad for children...it increases the number of two parent households willing to adopt children. There are not enough people willing to adopt as it is.