Too influential?

[nobspeople]

There's no doubt christianty has influenced much of the world through its history - some would say so much so.

For discussion:
Has christianity been TOO influential in history, just enough, or too much? Why
Do you foresee christianity being being just as influential going forward, not as much, or just as much as it is today? Why?

[Miles]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]

The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.

I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?

Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.

Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.

I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers".

While some atheists hold that god does not exist, "believers in godlessness" as you put it, most take a far less assured position: they simply lack a belief in god. They don't say he doesn't exist, but that theists have simply failed to prove their assertion that he does. Prove god exists and they will believe.

.

Prove that God does not exist, and maybe the theist will believe.

Aside from not caring, it's not the atheist who simply lacks belief in the theist claim for god who has any burden of proof. The burden of proof lies squarely in the lap of the theist, and only his lap.

I think that the atheist who take a "less assured position", would come under the heading of agnostic.

Assuming that "less assured" meant didn't know, you might be right. As is frequently noted; atheism is concerned with belief, whereas agnosticism is concerned with knowing.


.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]

The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.

I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?

Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.

Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.

I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers".

While some atheists hold that god does not exist, "believers in godlessness" as you put it, most take a far less assured position: they simply lack a belief in god. They don't say he doesn't exist, but that theists have simply failed to prove their assertion that he does. Prove god exists and they will believe.

.

Prove that God does not exist, and maybe the theist will believe.

Aside from not caring, it's not the atheist who simply lacks belief in the theist claim for god who has any burden of proof. The burden of proof lies squarely in the lap of the theist, and only his lap.

I think that the atheist who take a "less assured position", would come under the heading of agnostic.

Assuming that "less assured" meant didn't know, you might be right. As is frequently noted; atheism is concerned with belief, whereas agnosticism is concerned with knowing.


.

"Disbelief", is in the same wheelhouse as belief. They are both a form of faith/trust, which generally guides the holder, for good or bad. You may disbelieve, and have no faith in God, yet have belief/faith in the U.S. dollar. When the dollar crashes, you may have a change of mind/belief/faith regardless of what someone tells you. The difference is that often someone who believes something, has internal sensors, other than physical sensors which guide their belief. The "disbeliever" has no evidence of there not being a God. In that case, it would be wise for them to act as if there was a God, whether they have confirmation or not. The godless Marxists wind up losing everything, as is the eventual case of communist nations such as N. Korea and Venezuela, and Progressive run cities, which have to howl at the moon in the meantime, and see lawlessness explode before their eyes. That may not appear to be evidence to you, but for the gun owning, bible spouting "deplorables", who actual are creators of real wealth, they can live their lives in relative freedom, without masks, which apart from N95, do not work, and not have their children vaccinated, when the WHO says the downside out ways the upside, and healthy children should not be vaccinated. Apart from what Fauci says, and is what the Progressives belief, if you get covid, your immunity is long lasting, and you won't get covid, but if you are vaccinated, you have no immunity from the Omicron covid, and can get and spread the other covid variants. What one disbelieves or believes is often a product of one's environment. I suggest cancelling your CNN station connection. https://www.wnd.com/2022/01/cdc-study-a ... -vaccines/
https://drrichswier.com/2022/01/19/mit- ... ng-people/

[TRANSPONDER]

That is truly inverted. The burden of proof is on the Theist to make a credible case for ANY kind of cosmic mind, and the best case for a sorta -god (Cosmic origins and cosmic constants) aren't as sure - fire a case for a god as they once were.

But even if one were to posit (fsoa) a god, which one? Why would it have any interest in any particular religion, or indeed in anything on earth at all, given how evolutionary conditions have taken out 90% of all species there ever were and we have come close to exiting a couple of times? An uncaring Deist -god makes more sense that one that is dabbling in our affairs. (see the failure of prayer and the problem of evil).

And even given that, which one? If it is Allah and the Muslims are right the Godless Christians are going to burn along with the Marxists. And even if the Cosmic Mind is supportive of the Christian religion...which denomination? If he's a Catholic, Protestants are going to burn with the Atheists. I've even seen Protestant denominations consign each other to hell for wrongly interpreting scripture. You have as much chance of burning as your unbelievers, chum.

[Miles]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]

The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.

I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?

Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.

Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.

I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers".

While some atheists hold that god does not exist, "believers in godlessness" as you put it, most take a far less assured position: they simply lack a belief in god. They don't say he doesn't exist, but that theists have simply failed to prove their assertion that he does. Prove god exists and they will believe.

.

Prove that God does not exist, and maybe the theist will believe.

Aside from not caring, it's not the atheist who simply lacks belief in the theist claim for god who has any burden of proof. The burden of proof lies squarely in the lap of the theist, and only his lap.

I think that the atheist who take a "less assured position", would come under the heading of agnostic.

Assuming that "less assured" meant didn't know, you might be right. As is frequently noted; atheism is concerned with belief, whereas agnosticism is concerned with knowing.


.

"Disbelief", is in the same wheelhouse as belief.

In a sense yes: however, theists are saying much more than that they believe god exists, they declare he does, in fact, exist, and this is where the burden of proof comes in. If they stopped wth simply asserting their belief they would not assume any burden of proof, but they don't. They Claim X is, which is far different than believing X is. Likewise, if the disbeliever simply says "I don't believe god exists" he assumes no burden of proof; however, if he asserts "God does not exists" he does assume a burden of proof.

It's as simple as that.

Claim X is (or is not)= assumes a burden of proof
Believe X is (or is not) = does not assume a burden of proof

.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]

The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.

I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?

Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.

Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.

I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers". Not that both sects aren't wrong in their beliefs, but they both have some influence. Whether the influence is positive or negative would be the better discussion. Looking at the Satan Temple in New York, and their leadership, I would think that the godless Progressives and the Satanist have a negative influence on daily life, in at least New York.

About the influence as a whole, not about any one specific set, or individual.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #21]

The "faith", beliefs, of an ordinary atheist is that there is no God, based on no evidence, yet they gravitate to their own god, Marx, and his Progressive surrogates. As for your "faith", beliefs, they are apparently, being divulged by a man, without reference from whence they come.

I'm not an atheist, but your perceived definition seems to be wrong. Might want to revisit that.
In regards to your faith comment - it appears rambling without concrete reasoning. Well done.
Beyond that, what do you think about the thread topic?

Feel free to describe what you are? If you describe yourself as an agnostic, well, there you go, you don't know whether there is a God or not, and yet prefer to side with the godless. A position taken without proof of there being a God or not. Kind of sketchy. Inductive and deductive reasoning depends on a base set of facts. If your initial facts are absent, or are falsely assumed, what is the foundation of your "reasoning"? Even an objective computer relies on input. Bad in, means bad out.

Open a new thread if you're interested in what we are or aren't; that's not what this thread is about - don't try to hijack it.
If you refuse to address the topic, then we're done here.
Happy posting.

I thought the OP was the influence of the believers. As Atheist, the godless, are believers in godlessness, they have their own faith and influence which is somewhat counter to that of "believers". Not that both sects aren't wrong in their beliefs, but they both have some influence. Whether the influence is positive or negative would be the better discussion. Looking at the Satan Temple in New York, and their leadership, I would think that the godless Progressives and the Satanist have a negative influence on daily life, in at least New York.

About the influence as a whole, not about any one specific set, or individual.

As you promote "godlessness", per your signature line, which is a belief that there is no God to keep you in check, it is certainly fair to question the OP and its supporters as an attack on another body of persons. The problem is not the "influence", but whether the "influence" is good or bad. The influence as far as Christian Western freedoms is generally good, except in the mind of the godless Marxist, whose track record is a message of terror and destruction, and they need to crash it to build back better in the image of Marx. Now is "Christianity" good, well that is very debatable, but the original concept of keeping the Commandments and the testimony of Yeshua has indeed led to a Blessing on the U.S. The now Marxist leaning of the current Progressive administration is leading to a curse in the form of lawlessness, inflation, continuing plagues, and potential war. This could be shown as physical proof of the differences between the godless Progressives and the godless, God professing "Christians". They both walk in their world of disease and failures, but the "Christian" ruler ships fair better in their adherence to the Law of God, versus keeping the law of man, humanism, such as the following of Marx. What is important is the "influence" rendered, and why.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #36]

As you promote "godlessness", per your signature line,

Sounds like paranoia: 'promoting godlessness'. Too funny, my friend! Too funny!

which is a belief that there is no God to keep you in check, it is certainly fair to question the OP and its supporters as an attack on another body of persons.

As you're wrong here and above, I don't see any reason to read the remainder of your post.
Additionally, any 'attacks' you perceive is a paranoid issue on your part, as that's not the MO here (projection?).
Perhaps the 'attacks' you seem keen on should be directed at, oh let's say, christians that tend to try to force their beliefs on others across the planet...? At least initially, as not only are christians guilty of that.
Just a suggestion, of course.

[brunumb]

As you promote "godlessness", per your signature line, which is a belief that there is no God to keep you in check, it is certainly fair to question the OP and its supporters as an attack on another body of persons.

It's comforting to know that any evil intentions of Christians are being held in check by their belief in God. I suppose there is at least that much 'goodness' in it. Personally, I have never needed any gods to help me keep such intentions in check because I don't actually have them. Just lucky that way I guess.

[TRANSPONDER]

Don't bank on that working. I've seen a Christian apologetic that a non -believer even if they're pretty good are Bad because they're sinful by default and unsaved by Dogmatic default, whereas the True Believer (and I just read on another thread that all the Other gods were just 'emanations' of the True God which was Biblegod of course) even if they do Bad, are Forgiven if they repent. By which (from what I've seen) if they can be rehabilitated with some exhibition repentance, they are martyred saints, or, if they are to much of a political embarrassment to be washed whiter than while in the Blood of the lamb. Which I presume is white, they must acept being shoved under the bus. Or at least removed to a sorta Christian area 51 and never heard of again.c

You may have heard it in a Certain Context: "God can use even a bad man as part of His Plan". Well I get that, but would that apologist have supported Judas and his betrayal of Jesus because that's what God had to have planned? No doubt Not because Judas is bad press and ...the Other One wasn't, at least just a year or so ago. That's what I mean by political. It isn't Doctrinal but political. A backslider can be defended with a lot of cross -waving and Holy water until they are too much of an embarrassment and they are themn expected to accept being slung under the bus for the good of the faith. And we've seen the similar kind of sweeping under the carpet (as distinct from removing the dirt) with the Catholic side.

Can we wonder that religion has already lost all the arguments and their only option is to be the Only Voice. Our option is to make sure it isn't. We have a few Outlets, but we need many many more; voluntary - because we have no funding If rationalism, Humanism and secularism had the funding from Party, corporations and churches that Religion has, religion would be Finished. It's only because we have all the evidence and Science on our side that atheists can cope at all. We'd have been sunk long ago if we were just another faith -claim. As we were 'sunk' up to the Enlightenment when science could point to a model of the Solar system and say 'It's works fine without a god'.

[2ndpillar2]

As you promote "godlessness", per your signature line, which is a belief that there is no God to keep you in check, it is certainly fair to question the OP and its supporters as an attack on another body of persons.

It's comforting to know that any evil intentions of Christians are being held in check by their belief in God. I suppose there is at least that much 'goodness' in it. Personally, I have never needed any gods to help me keep such intentions in check because I don't actually have them. Just lucky that way I guess.

You sound much like a Progressive/humanist, who are their own gods, and determine what is "evil" or not. Much like your "Christian" friends who have supposedly been reborn, and have the mind of God, but nailed his Law to a pagan cross, and have 3 gods of their own making, organized under the leadership of the false prophet Paul. As you are a purported citizen of the Progressive Melbourne, I have to presume that you are living in your own hell on earth.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... ordability. It seems Melbourne is relying on Rockefeller for their future.
The position of chief resilience officer is a $236,544-per-year role, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, with the end goal of producing a Resilience Strategy for Melbourne. I think your position of invulnerability is eroding quickly, when you have to rely on Rockefeller's money to reduce your threats.