Jump to content

I'm confused about this religous message...


Skeezix

Recommended Posts

The atheists posted a sign at the state capitol that reads, in part: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

 

To counter this message, Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Redmond's Antioch Bible Church, plans to unveil his own sign that says, in part: "There is one God... Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

 

I'm confused as to how one could consider atheism a superstition. Isn't atheism essentially lack of faith in God?

 

Seattle Times News Story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The atheists posted a sign at the state capitol that reads, in part: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

 

The message is offensive and ridiculous. All they would have to do to make it reasonable would be to slightly reword it. Say:

 

"Religion is but myth and superstition and you can live a fulfilling life without it."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evangelical religions rely completely on restricting and filtering information, just like any other cult. Once information is properly stamped with the Mark of the Beast by the asset holders of the cult, the sheep won't go there.

 

As the new happiness study shows, we are, after all, herd animals.

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't look to evangelicals for an original or intellectually coherent message.

 

:tup:

 

friggin bible thumpers!

 

 

not the devout atheists are a whole lot better.

Both religions are completely based on fundamentally unsupportable assumptions.

 

 

I get this a lot, but I'm not sure I understand it. For one thing, I don't know the difference between a 'devout' atheist and an atheist. It's digital: you either are one or you're not, in the same way you either believe in Santa Claus or you don't. You may be ranting, raving atheist. You may be a quiet, unassuming, respectful atheist. But you cannot be a 'devout' atheist. You can only 'devoutly' follow a practice, and atheism is simply the absence of religious practice, not a practice in itself. There's no such thing as 'devoutly' not believing in something, although you can be sure, in your own mind, that you do not believe in something. See previous Santa Claus example. For me, there is absolutely not a shred of difference between belief in either one. In fact, I've experienced more evidence of Santa Claus than God...all those presents from Santa, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, the devout bit doesn't mean much.

 

I still don't think there is any more proof that there is no God, than there is proof that God exists.

 

Everyone is looking at the same set of facts, but it all boils down to how they are interpreted.

 

Of course you could probably argue that the simple act of belief in God by anyone at anytime would fulfill the definition of "exist".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, the devout bit doesn't mean much.

 

I still don't think there is any more proof that there is no God, than there is proof that God exists.

 

Everyone is looking at the same set of facts, but it all boils down to how they are interpreted.

 

Of course you could probably argue that the simple act of belief in God by anyone at anytime would fulfill the definition of "exist".

 

 

Scientifically, the existence of things must be supported by evidence, within the confines of the human created definition of what that thing is. This is a fundamentally different and unequal process, logically speaking, from 'proving' something DOESN'T exist, which is actually impossible, as the set of things that DON'T exist can infinitely spring from the imagination as fast as you can generate them. That's the point of the FSM.

 

Since there is not a shred of physical evidence that there is a god which does not require the pre-condition of believing in god to interpret it as such (Look at the mountains! Who made THEM, HMMM??? etc etc), I would argue that it's more likely that God is just another form of FSM that, for historical, cultural, and political reasons, got some long term traction.

 

I also believe that the human brain is pre-disposed, from an evolutionary standpoint, to believe in myth, because such myths helped to create order and survivability early in our natural selection. Kind of ironic, considering the creationism debate. In that sense, we're all whacked in the head. Some of us train ourselves, or are trained by others, not to feed the myth center of the brain too much candy.

 

 

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to like other culture's religions better than my own. Take shamanism, as practiced by the NW Coast Indian groups. I like that better than Christianity. I like the masks and rattles. I like the crazy hairdos, the faith healing, the spells. I like the trance-like states, chants, and incantations.

 

What's not to like?

 

Christianity, on the other hand... Too many uptight Republicans there for my taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...