Nickolas

Joined

• started 76 topics
• posted 2,304 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Nickolas

• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  All still pale in comparison to even just one Atheist psycho like Stalin or Mao.

  Operative word is "psycho", PSacramento, the adjective is irrelevant. It is important to separate the evil intentions of men like Stalin and Mao from the vast power they weilded in achieving them. Both men had twentieth century technology at their disposal. Do you think the Crusaders would have hesitated one second from completely vaporising the millions in Islam if they had the atomic bomb at their disposal? How naiive.
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  Ok, so you're either a Catholic or Lutheran. Whatever. My take is the stuff that didn't have anything to do with worshipping this jealous and insecure God was already in place. That's the point. Religion didn't invent it. Religion took it and claimed it to be its own.
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  No coventing of the neighbours wife

  No Coventing of ANYTHIG that is thy neighbour ( doesn't belong to you).

  And all this time I thought that those two points above constitute the 10th Commandment in its entirety. Which version are you referring to?
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  I don't see that art music or architecture are a result either. Specific examples of art music and architecture yes, but not just generally.

  Art and architecture, particlarly in Christian Europe, often reflected Christianity because the Church had the power and the money to shape both. It is not religion that caused art and architecture to evolve but the evolving brains of the artists and architects. Religion established only the boundaries, artificially restricted to agree with and promote its own doctrines.
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  Quite, those Laws were indeed being practiced and yet they needed to be "codified" and "written in stone", which goes to show how fast and loose they must have played with those laws.

  My point exactly, PSacramento. The only things "new" in the 10 Commandments are the first four dictums, in which God is obsessing about being worshipped. Some might argue the first four commandments are the true raison d'etre and the remaining six were included to speak to a civil order that was already being (for the most part) observed in order to lend some credibility to the whole.
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  Because history has NOT shown us that at all, quite the contrary according to just the 20th century ( Stalin, Mao, Po, etc, etc)

  Classic psychopaths all. Perfect examples of people who would have required religion not to be embodiments of evil.

  But my point was that it is all fine and dandy to "leave religion" behind now that we have the fruits of it, as many choose to do, lets just not forget where those fruits came from.

  One has to wonder how the Israelites were capable of wandering around the desert for so many years as a cohesive civilisation before Moses came down from the mountain with those tablets. The Ten Commandments codified what was already being generally practiced. Those fruits were already there for the picking.
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  Richard Holloway, who up until 10 years ago was the Primus of the Anglican Church in Scotland, refers to himself as "an expectant agnostic". I like that one, too.
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  Sure we can "salad bar" religion and take what we need ( Laws, morals and ethics) and disreagrd the rest ( Theisim), but we still have to acknoweldge from where the "good stuff" came.

  "If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein.

  So, if you agree that you would not be a moral person in the absense of religion, then you are the kind of person that is best avoided, just in case you one day see the light and realise that there is no God. If, on the other hand, you claim that you would still be a good person without God looking over your shoulder, then you have undermined your argument that religion is necessary for society to be good. I say the "good stuff" was inate to evolving mankind. Not killing, raping, stealing, cheating and otherwise screwing over your neighbour was what allowed civilisation to develop, not religion.
• 
  19

  We don't baptize our children as infants, we let them decide - UTTER BULL****

  by jambon1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i always found that one particularly laughable.. the jw's would always look for plaudits because they don't christen/baptize infants.

  as if they are free thinking pioneers of christianity who let their children come to their own conclusions.. no, they don't baptize their children.. yet,.

  they would be happy to make a life & death medical choice for them before they are even old enough to think for themselves.they are happy to have their children 'fight the fine fight' on their parents behalf all the way through primary/high school.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  To sab's point, the "choice" made by adolescents to be baptised has become the reason they have become shunned in later years. Had they not made their "choice" they would not be shunned, even if they as adults had adopted an immoral lifestyle. Fact is that these kids never made a choice at all. Choice means deciding between two or more alternatives. These children were not exposed to alternatives until they were old enough to realise that different world views are out there and free for examination by those not shackled by the chains of unquestioning faith in a man made organisation. To answer your question, BB, "old enough" was established by Jesus of Nazareth who, although according to NT accounts was a scriptural whizkid, didn't get baptised until he was 30. That's the example set by the man Christians follow, so then why don't they?

  Infant baptism was/is a consequence of the religious belief/superstition that those not cleansed of Original Sin (tm) before death would be damned (the Roman Catholic church taught that unbaptised infants ended up in the netherhell of Limbo - no longer taught but there must have been tens or hundreds of thousands of parents who lost infants and who were tortured by this particularly despicable doctrine) while child baptisms practiced by the Jehovah's Witnesses are an attempt to lock in individuals' dedication to the WT brand of faith before they have the mental capacity to choose for themselves. It is child abuse.
• 
  237

  Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  john w. loftus responds to the "angry atheist" assertion.

  are we angry atheists?.

  .. if we are angry, christians will see this as a sign we are god haters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nickolas

  I have a feeling that without the various religions - good & bad as they are - society as we know it could not have developed. Atheism or agnosticism is still something of a minority in general society - growing, but not yet in the majority, correct?

  Depends on your context. If you are American, then yes, because only 10% of the US population is estimated to be "without faith". If you are Dutch then there is a 40% probability that you are atheist, if Norwegian then there is a 70% chance. The secular movement is gaining ground just about everywhere, just not so much in the US.