hey ATHIESTS, was Hitler right?

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
But, do you actively NOT want to take the Eucharist, or find out why it is important to do so?

If you do, then you reject God, and that is an “evil” act, an evil intention.

I think you know the answer to that !!
But you see it as “evil” , I simply don’t !!
It’s my own choice , no regrets !!
I don’t hurt anyone with it , neither mental nor physical !!

It IS your choice to be evil. That is true. And you are not necessarily culpable FOR your evil-doing due to your invincible ignorance as to why it is evil to do that evil-doing.

And you can justify your evil actions as not-evil, qute reasonably and logically, by claiming there is no God, which removes ANY necessary constraint on ANY action that you can do.

But, the fact that you have no regrets about your evil acts, most likely secondarily justified by the fact that you DON’T SEE (aren’t aware of) the harm they do to yourself and others, which they actually do, doesn’t contradict the fact that those evil acts are objectively evil.

The point where you DO become (increasingly) culpable for these evil acts is when you learn that it IS possible that they (your acts) ARE evil, and don’t investigate that possibility.

If you find out that an act might be evil, and don’t thoroughly find justification for not changing your opinion, you are operating on “faith” that you are capable of being utterly infallibly truthful in your judgements.

If you DON’T think you are utterly infallibly truthful in your judgements, then you must live with the anxiety of believing by unreasoned faith that what you want is what is right and good. THIS is PRECISELY what folks like you believe that CATHOLICS (and other “believers”) do!

How hypocritical is it to condemn others, or at least deride them, for doing, as you see it, no worse than you are?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
I actually am not sure what you are disagreeing with in what I said. I only said that so-called “ex-religious” people are some of the MOST evil people because they retain their “fervor” (their enthusiasm) for “doing good” (as they define “good”) and become even more motivated to do the “will” of their “new god” (usually their own comfort of some sort) because their “new god” is so PERSONAL to them.

What do you disagree with about that?

Maybe , the thruth ?? 'cause There’s only the thruth !!
To be bad , what do you need to be like that ??
To be good , what do you need to be like that ??

To be good, which means to BEHAVE in a good way, one only needs to base one’s acts (behavior) on the morals deemed infallibly true by the Church (Catholic).

To be bad, to behave badly, simply do other than what the morals of the Church would allow.

For example: Luigi Cascioli , is he a bad person ??

No one cares if Luigi is a bad person. That is only for God, and Luigi himself of course, to be concerned with.

Are many of his actions evil? Most definitely yes!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Manking is to blame for it. It is each individual’s choice to sin. My point here was that by trying to “satisfy” the NEED to fill the emptiness which only God can fill by filling it with not-God we DO cruelty/violence to ourselves and each other.

The more “effort” that one gives to “making not-God fit” into the God shaped hole, which becomes “assymptotically” more difficult(which just means “more and more hard to do the closer one gets to the goal being accomplished”) to “force”, the CRAZIER (more insane) one becomes out of egomaniacal frustration at being thwarted!

Man is to blame, in that man made the choice, even though he was tempted by Satan in powerful ways, because God said specifically NOT to do what man specifically DID!

Thus, our (mankind’s as whole) journey toward understanding the consequences of sin which mankind finds itself on, which we travel in our own way as individuals.

So , when man is to blame for all the badness ,
who created (this) badness or even satan ??

“Badness” was a side-effect, a secondary result, of God’s gift of free will to those beings whom He gave that gift. Those beings being angels and men.

Satan is an angel, who through the irrevocable choice to disobey God, which God permitted implicitly through the gift of free will to him, “created” the first instance of evil. (Probably first, but I’m not overly sure of that, though it’s not really important in the present context in this discussion.)

ALL angels were created good. The line of man, via our first parents, was created good. All other “stuff” was created good. Everything was created good, and/or VERY good. God created nothing “bad”, because “bad” (evil) is a perversion of good, which before any disorder, disfunction, disobediance, is simply not possible.

To hold that God created anything “bad”, or evil, is a (the?) gnostic/manichaean heresy, which you SEEM to hold, which is that the universe is a “balance” of good and evil.

I’ll leave it to you to see evil inherent in this “belief system”.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

CalmDownWisWins ,
I think we’ve got a problem or maybe a misunderstanding !!

Like , about the “it is written” issue !!
Everything has a purpose !!
But , which is it or what is it ??

About Luigi Cascioli , you write:

No one cares if Luigi is a bad person. That is only for God, and Luigi himself of course, to be concerned with

But still , you call most of his actions evil ??

To be bad, to behave badly, simply do other than what the morals of the Church would allow.

So , this means , there’s no bad without the existence of good !!

You also write:

“Badness” was a side-effect, a secondary result

So …

How hypocritical is it to condemn others, or at least deride them, for doing, as you see it, no worse than you are?

I never condemned anyone who disagreed with me !!

I said that being raised as a Catholic did not stop Hitler from being evil.

Exposure to religion, being raised in a specific religion, following a religious belief for the most formative time of his life, did not stop him from being evil.

I think you need to read my orignial post again.

OK , I agree !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), february 1, 2008

 

[VARC]

(I read the title of the thread to myself in a The Warriors voice and cracked up – hey aaaatheists, come out and play-ay!)

.

Man this is still funny!!!
I was driving down the street and I heard the line from the movie on the radio…and I cracked up again thinking of this thread LOL LOL



No seriously but I think you atheists are wrong

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

CalmDownWisWins ,
I think we’ve got a problem or maybe a misunderstanding !!

Like , about the “it is written” issue !!
Everything has a purpose !!
But , which is it or what is it ??

I have no idea what the purpose of any one or collection of things is, but the purpose of the universe as a whole is the education of mankind in the consequences of sin.

Sin, the disobedience of God’s truths in the way of faith and morals, which since behaviors of men are a direct consequence of their faith and morals whatever they may be, true or not, is the evil which creates further evils of behavior which chain-react into evil propogating faster than any possible means of countering it, which is the reason for the necessity of the incarnation and atonement by which some remnant, self chosen to an eternity of that which they choose, aka heaven or hell, can actually manage to CHOOSE heaven which would otherwise be impossible as without divine assistance all humanity would be overwhelmed with the NECESSITY of choosing not-God as simple self-preservation, since no reason is otherwise justification for thinking other then since only this short and brutal life exists all goals must be subservient to “making this life as personally comfortable as possible.”

That’s a rather LONG sentence which only really says that without the existence of God, and His gift of free will with consequent sin and contagious evil and His further gift of His incarnation, the universe is utterly meaningless and we have no motivation for behavior other than self-satisfaction of our want of comfort.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

About Luigi Cascioli , you write:

Quote CalmD:
No one cares if Luigi is a bad person. That is only for God, and Luigi himself of course, to be concerned with

But still , you call most of his actions evil ??

I don’t know of him well enough to say that MOST of his actions are evil, but those actions which seek to subvert God’s truth as stated infallibly by the Church are certainly evil.

That he or anyone else may not realize that they are evil is irrelevant to their being evil. To see them as not evil speaks only of the education of the person commenting on them thus that they ae either promoters OF evil or ignorant of the meaning of evil.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
To be bad, to behave badly, simply do other than what the morals of the Church would allow.

So , this means , there’s no bad without the existence of good !!

That is correct.

But the relationship between good and evil (bad) is not reciprocal, in that there CANNOT be evil without good, but there CAN be good without evil.

Both need not exist at the same time. Good can stand alone, but evil is subservient to and requires good.

Your argument SEEMED to be that one is **always **required to exist if the other exists, but that is not true.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

I have no idea what the purpose of any one or collection of things is, but the purpose of the universe as a whole is the education of mankind in the consequences of sin. reply #363

So , about sins , how did mankind find out what they are ??

I don’t know of him well enough to say that MOST of his actions are evil, but those actions which seek to subvert God’s truth as stated infallibly by the Church are certainly evil.

That he or anyone else may not realize that they are evil is irrelevant to their being evil. To see them as not evil speaks only of the education of the person commenting on them thus that they ae either promoters OF evil or ignorant of the meaning of evil.

So , the church says …

That is correct.

But the relationship between good and evil (bad) is not reciprocal, in that there CANNOT be evil without good, but there CAN be good without evil.

Both need not exist at the same time. Good can stand alone, but evil is subservient to and requires good.

Is good equal to perfection ??
And so yes , wouldn’t that become boring ,
when there is no purpose or excitement in life ??

Your argument SEEMED to be that one is **always **required to exist if the other exists, but that is not true.

So , you blindly accept everything without questioning why ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), february 2, 2008

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
I have no idea what the purpose of any one or collection of things is, but the purpose of the universe as a whole is the education of mankind in the consequences of sin.

So , about sins , how did mankind find out what they are ??

There is only one sin. The sin of disobeying God. All other sins are extensions of that one sin, which we have various names for, but which are basically just elaborations on “disobedience” of God.

The first sin produced the rapid chain-reaction “creation” of more “specific” sins. We “found out what they are (sins)” by creating them by not doing things “properly”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
That is correct.

But the relationship between good and evil (bad) is not reciprocal, in that there CANNOT be evil without good, but there CAN be good without evil.

Both need not exist at the same time. Good can stand alone, but evil is subservient to and requires good.

Is good equal to perfection ??
And so yes , wouldn’t that become boring ,
when there is no purpose or excitement in life ??

The “purpose” of life is to try to do good when we have such a hard time doing good. The challenge is to do good, when doing evil is so much “more exciting and potentially lucrative”!

It is a falicy to think that doing only good would be boring.

BUT if, as is the atheist creed, to strive to maximize one’s excitement and comfort is the goal, then the endless “excitement” of degradation and willfully inflicted injurious suffering is mankind’s fate at the hands the “master slavers” among them.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Your argument SEEMED to be that one is always required to exist if the other exists, but that is not true.

So , you blindly accept everything without questioning why ??

I’m not sure how your question is related to my (above quoted) statement, but I’ll answer it anyway.

I accept only a very very tiny amount of information without questioning it’s truth. Only those things declared infallibly true in the area of faith and morals by the Church are to be not questioned for their truthfulness.

I do, of course, STILL question them as to HOW they can be true, which I may or may not be able to figure out, but that they ARE true is not in question by me.

ALL other information is to be thoroughly tested and fit into as comprehensively “weak” system of theories which explains the observable universe as comprehensively as possible but which is “weak” enough to detect new information (info which “breaks” theories such that we can refine them so as to fit the observed phenomena).

NOTHING is to be “blindly” accepted. Even those infallible truths of the Church are not accepted blindly, because they are THOROUGHLY vetted by the Magisterium before they reach MY “DESK”, and I trust that if it were possible that the enemies of the Church could prove the falsity of a Church dogma, that the Magisterium would take pains to assure that that wouldn’t happen.

I’d like to kow why you think that Catholics supposedly “accept everything” with blind unquestioning?

 

[justinthemartyr]

So , about sins , how did mankind find out what they are ??

I think the answer is in the statement, that the consequences of the behaviors speak for themselves.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

@ justinthemartyr ,
And what if not , or when man doesn’t sees it ??

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), february 7, 2008

 

[Starwynd]

I’m so freaking tired of seeing the Christian hatred of atheists.

You know, when Jesus walked the earth, he walked with the people who were friendless and pariahs because they weren’t like anybody else, just to be their friend.He even risked his life for a prostitute once because he valued her life.

When he comes again and Christians refuse to be a real friend to an atheists, Jesus will walk with them for these particular Christians will have become no better than the Pharisees, obeying the letter of the Gospel, not the spirit.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m so freaking tired of seeing the Christian hatred of atheists.

You know, when Jesus walked the earth, he walked with the people who were friendless and pariahs because they weren’t like anybody else, just to be their friend.He even risked his life for a prostitute once because he valued her life.

When he comes again and Christians refuse to be a real friend to an atheists, Jesus will walk with them for these particular Christians will have become no better than the Pharisees, obeying the letter of the Gospel, not the spirit.

I will not justify any hatred. I do not condone any hatred. Christians should be above that we are to love our enemies.

That includes people who call us “Ignorant” “Backwards” “superstitious” “Uneducated” and anything else that some atheists call us.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’m so freaking tired of seeing the Christian hatred of atheists.

You know, when Jesus walked the earth, he walked with the people who were friendless and pariahs because they weren’t like anybody else, just to be their friend.He even risked his life for a prostitute once because he valued her life.

When he comes again and Christians refuse to be a real friend to an atheists, Jesus will walk with them for these particular Christians will have become no better than the Pharisees, obeying the letter of the Gospel, not the spirit.

Could you please explain this. I as a Christian do not hate the atheist. I strongly disagree with them not only on the existence of God, but also that they have a right in the public arena not to be exposed to God or religion. Or that God (and religion) have no place in our public schools. If this is what you are talking about as hatred of atheist then you are are mistaken. For I do have the right to pray in public and if the people of a city what the Ten Commandments on display at the town hall then they have the right to display them. It is what the atheist does that makes believers mad. We care that they don’t believe but would not even try to force them to pray. Yet they want to stop us from believing and praying.

 

[notself]

. For I do have the right to pray in public and if the people of a city what the Ten Commandments on display at the town hall then they have the right to display them. It is what the atheist does that makes believers mad. We care that they don’t believe but would not even try to force them to pray. Yet they want to stop us from believing and praying.

Of course you have the right to pray in public. This is a free speech issue and is protected by the the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **or abridging the freedom of speech, **or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As for the Ten Commandments being displayed on government property, which Ten Commandments do you want to display? I am sure you would want to display the Catholic version. Most likely the Jewish version or the Protestant verion which prohibits graven images would be unacceptable to you who belong to a religious tradition which reveres images of Mary and the Saints.

The current Supreme Court has ruled in Van Orden vs Perry that having a monument on government land that displayed the Ten Commandments (Protestant version) was constitutional.

Verbatim:* “Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument, therefore, has religious significance. According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning … . Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause … . Texas has treated her Capitol grounds monuments as representing the several strands in the State’s political and legal history. The inclusion of the Ten Commandments monument in this group has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government. We cannot say that Texas’ display of this monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”*

Since the case law clearly supports public display of religion, I suggest that you stop whining about atheists and pay more attention to the Supreme Court decisions.

 

[Shredderbeam]

oneGODoneCHURCH:

Could you please explain this. I as a Christian do not hate the atheist. I strongly disagree with them not only on the existence of God, but also that they have a right in the public arena not to be exposed to God or religion. Or that God (and religion) have no place in our public schools. If this is what you are talking about as hatred of atheist then you are are mistaken. For I do have the right to pray in public and if the people of a city what the Ten Commandments on display at the town hall then they have the right to display them. It is what the atheist does that makes believers mad. We care that they don’t believe but would not even try to force them to pray. Yet they want to stop us from believing and praying.

It is not just atheists who don’t want to hear religion (namely Christianity) in public areas, it’s people of all religions - Buddhists, Jews, Muslims - it goes on. Sure, you have every right to be religious in public - but there’s a difference between being religious and using the state to impose a religion.

Not all atheists want you to stop believing/praying.

ralphinal:

Christians should be above that we are to love our enemies.

Quite right. Several Christians that I debate here have shown quite poor levels of Christian love.

 

[AnAtheist]

For I do have the right to pray in public and if the people of a city what the Ten Commandments on display at the town hall then they have the right to display them. It is what the atheist does that makes believers mad. We care that they don’t believe but would not even try to force them to pray. Yet they want to stop us from believing and praying.

Just a minute. Almost noone (idiots are everywhere) wants you to stop believing and praying. Not displaying the 10 commandment which you may fairly believe in but not impose on the public because the first three of them are against religious freedom and thus against the constitutions of civilised countries is not stopping you from either.
E.g. religious freedom encompasses believing and praying to any kind and any number of gods one likes, incl. zero. So it does not befit the state that has to uphold its constitution to display something which is in principle against it, no matter how harmless it is.
And for public praying, of course you force innocent childen into praying if you make in schools. By simple peer pressure. If it would be no problem not to attend those prayer, then it would be ok, but we all know how Christians can shun even little children if they don’t comply to their rituals.
Public demonstration of anything has its limits, namely when it comes to the privacy of others. As much as you don’t want anyone to disturb your Mass noone wants to receive loud, public prayers for their souls when they are just emerged in something to which Christians don’t comply.