The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>Gamer4Fire's original assertion was incorrect however, in stating that "it has been proven man cannot exist in a communist society" when no communist society has ever existed. (At this moment, I feel it necessary to point out that anyone who exclaims "North Korea is Communist, and China too!111" is a cretin of the highest order, and shall be treated as such.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

In the U.S. a few of the Native American tribes were communist, while most were democratic. In every instance of communism, the end result was the loss of communism, either the tribe got too big, and they became democratic (Because without governing power the chaos was extreme and in instances, even the smallest amount of corruption nearly destroyed the tribe), or the tribe was destroyed, by said corruption.

Communism can be observed in third world countries and only works in small tribes and bands where everyone really knows everyone. But at a certain point of population growth, it becomes self-destructive.

That is what I mean by communism being proven false, we have hard data showing that it is doesn't work in true communist nations. Not Korea, China or Cuba who are totalitarian.

Originally posted by CaptFalcon:
<strong>Your choice does determine the outcome...God just knows what that outcome is. But God never tells me what to do. He knows the outcome, but he has never told me what the outcome is. The free will is still yours. And really, like whoever that was said, this does all come down to whether you believe in predestination or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You just missed the point, entirely. You are indeed a brainwashed christian.

Originally posted by CaptFalcon:
<strong>You're right...maybe I do need to rethink my beliefs about the beginning of the universe. But in all honesty, that isn't the important thing. The important thing is whether or not God did it.

</strong>Wait a minute. The bible says one thing, which requires faith. Man says another thing and has proof to back it up. When man disproves the bible and thus disproves god, you say that whatever we proved must have been the work of god. Then how do we account for the big hole created in the bible, since the bibles interpretation has now been proven wrong?<strong>

That's because everyone has different beliefs about things like this. Some people believe there was a Big Bang and some people don't. It's because religion is based on faith that there are so many different beliefs. If people want to include science in, they do, if they don't, they don't...I'm a little of both.

</strong>Again, you are saying that if I disprove god, you will just turn around and say that god is the one who did it. We still have a gap in faith, and thus another hole in the bible.<strong>

God did do something. He gave me things.

</strong>*Snicker* He gave you nothing! The aforementioned heart transplant was given by man, for man. God is not part of that equation. If he was, the heart transplant would have been unnecessary.<strong>

God gives us abilities when we are born... I could ask God to strengthen those abilities that I already have. Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear.

</strong>I would like to point out that everything you have, including your maximum potential is given to you by your parents. Your genetic makeup determines almost everything, from maximum growth potential to personality.
-Thank you, all of those hundreds of twin test research studies.<strong>

No, God knows what he is doing. I just have to learn to have faith in God. If a man murders my family, I have to have faith that justice will be served in one way or another. But, I also have to accept it if God decides not to serve justice to this man. A lot of this is VERY hard to explain.

</strong>You just pointed out that justice is irrelevant. At least from a human standpoint. And if there is no justice nor a way to serve justice, life becomes irrelevant. Why? Because without, you are saying that our lives, our possesions, everything that makes us human is irrelevant. God is the only punisher, and he may not punish. And if he doesn't it means whatever you lost (which could be your life) was worth nothing. Otherwise there would have been justice.<strong>

That depends on your definition of a worthwhile life. My definition is a life lived to its fullest, without sin, with a lot of people brought to Christ. So if my life meets those criteria, I have lived a worthwhile life. God gives everyone's life worth in some form or another through what he had planned for them. Oh really? God gives man no rights? It was my understanding that free will gives us a lot of rights.

</strong>The question wasn't about a worthwile life, but the worth of life. Which you put no value on. So by your understanding life is irrelevant.

And a right is something that is given and cannot be taken away. It is a human concept. God gives us no rights, because whatever he gives, he can take away. Thus we are sheeple. No rights, no freewill, nothing. Not the act of a loving god.<hr></blockquote>

 

[Etched in a Box]

I have a question. If God already knows the outcome of everything, then why bother?

 

[Kokichi]

^Too add onto that: Why did God even make the animals and everything if he knew he was going to kill them in a flood?

To answer ^'s question: Xian's argument is "God made everyone have free will." But if we had free will we could do anything we wanted to, think anything we wanted to, etc. God is supposovly all mighty and can see the future. So if he could see the future does that take away our freedom? If he says "You will sit in a chair tomorrow" and you decide that you don't want to sit in a chair, and you don't, then God is dissproved. But, since God must always be right, you will be forced, one way or another, to sit in that chair, which seems like a violation of our free will.

 

[Massy]

Yes, a form of primitive communism has been observed in small-scale tribes, but as you say, when the population grows too large it fails. These tribes lack the necessary means of production and their distribution between the group for a truly classless society to be achieved.

But I think we're getting off-topic.

 

[Yavarice]

Just one question that will bring up even more if answered.

Isn't God, the same God as the big three religions? (Christianity and its variants, Judaism and Islam)

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>These tribes lack the necessary means of production and their distribution between the group for a truly classless society to be achieved.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But you fail to mention that production and distribution cannot work within a communist structure. There will always be strong and dumb people as a labor class, and smart people in a managment class. Without this divide in humanity, evolution would stop and we would all die. But since this gap exists, you cannot have a communist government with a large population. Otherwise growth, in almost all respects, would be static. Which defies the laws of thermodynamics, since everything in the universe must be in a state of flux.

 

[Etched in a Box]

What I mean is, if God knows the outcome of everything, and he is all-powerful, why not just hasten the outcome? There certainly is no need for everything inbetween. Free will doesn't even come into question when you know who will be saved and who won't anyway. Does he just like to watch us slowly dilapidate our earth and deplete our resources? Surely you can understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Arrow]

Hehe, I was having a lot of fun watching all the atheists argue amongst themselves. I'll just answer this question really quick and let you guys get back to your squabbling.

Originally posted by Yavarice:
<strong>Just one question that will bring up even more if answered.

Isn't God, the same God as the big three religions? (Christianity and its variants, Judaism and Islam)</strong><hr></blockquote>

In a word... yes. But technically... no. Let me elaborate before you jump on me about it (not like you won't anyways...). First of all, the God of Judaism and Christianity is the same God. No question there. The difference is that Christians believe Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah foretold in the old testament passages while Jewish don't believe He was. So in a way, we don't believe in the same manifestation of God, if that makes any sense. The physical God in heaven is the same, but us Christians also believe in His Son Jesus, who is also a part of God. Now Islam is a different matter. I honestly don't know enough about it yet to make any sure claims. So don't hold any of my opinions on this against me. But from what I understand, they do believe in the same original God, in essence. But it seems to me that they have transformed Him into something He's not, which from my perspective would mean He is no longer the same God. Again, I haven't studied Islam enough to say for sure, but once I do, I'll get back to you on it. I'm in a Religions of the World class right now, so I should learn enough about it soon.

You may now continue with your regularly scheduled bickering

 

[Gamer4Fire]

They have transformed him, or you have transformed him? It's all a matter of opinion. The islamic faith will turn the same thing around, just as fast as you did.

 

[Massy]

Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was an important prophet, but not the prophet, and I think that he will one day return as a muslim.

Oh, and to continue squabbling amongst the atheists, communism exists when the labour class is the management class, when decisions regarding production and distribution are put to the workers themselves and democratically made. The idea is also that centralised government is dismantled, so that this only exists on a small scale, but many times over.

Everything is dialectically related, and in a constant state of flux, but this does not violate the system proposed, and thus the laws of thermodynamics remain intact.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Massy ]</p>

 

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Gamer4Fire:
<strong>They have transformed him, or you have transformed him? It's all a matter of opinion. The islamic faith will turn the same thing around, just as fast as you did.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um... I guess you could say that... except for the fact that Christianity in the form that I know it has existed since before Muhammed was even born. Muslims refer to the Christian beliefs frequently in their scripture stating that they are false and that Jesus was not the Son of God. The Bible, having been written before Islam was created does not try to state that the beliefs of Islam are false since they didn't exist yet. So I don't really see how you can say that Christianity transformed God from what the Islam definition is. That doesn't even make sense. It would be like saying that I bought a pizza for lunch today but in reality the restaurant bought the pizza from me. It doesn't logically follow.

 

[Kokichi]

You know, I read somewhere that "God is a human belief for a better government". That's pretty much true. You want God to tell you what to do, you want to serve him, you want him to govern you. Also, I just recently beat the game "Deus Ex" and at the end there was that quote and this quote: "If there is no God, it would be necessary to create one." This just says that we need something better then the current government to govern us. God is just the belief of a better government, that's all. Nothing more.

 

[Massy]

Deus Ex is a phenomenal game, worth playing for all the philosophical tidbits alone.

Your choice does determine the outcome...God just knows what that outcome is.<hr></blockquote>

I don't think I'm getting through here. If God knows the outcome of my choice, the result of my choice is pre-determined. I may *think* I'm making a choice, but if I was always going to make that choice, its not really a choice, capice?

An example:

I wake up this morning, and ponder over which shirt I should wear, the red or the blue. God knows that I will choose the blue. If I choose the red, God was wrong. If God is perfect, he cannot be wrong. I can only choose the blue if God is to be correct. Therefore, if God exists, and he is perfect, and he knows what I will choose. I can only choose the blue. Therefore I have no free will.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Massy ]</p>

 

[JBird1203]

Here's a link to some of the more extreme Christian sites. Try not to laugh too hard.

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/family/html/bad_guys.html" target="_blank">Radical Christin sites</a>

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>Oh, and to continue squabbling amongst the atheists, communism exists when the labour class is the management class, when decisions regarding production and distribution are put to the workers themselves and democratically made. The idea is also that centralised government is dismantled, so that this only exists on a small scale, but many times over.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In large groups the differences between individuals create the classes. If I were to change one thing in my previous post, it would be the addition: smart and weak people, as to separate them from the labor class. This separation of skills and abilities cannot be bridged by a simple decentralized idea. The jobs would be different and given time, would evolve different incentives, as the jobs grew further apart. A man of little intelligent would be ill suited for a managerial position (president of a company), as a small, weak, yet smart individual would be ill suited for hard labor (Rock hauler at a quarry).

And when the population grows to a certain point, asking everyone their opinion on everything becomes prohibitive, and only asking the people in control (the manager as the labor class in X job) discriminates against everyone else.

Admit that you are having just as much fun as I am.

 

[Massy]

In large groups the differences between individuals create the classes. If I were to change one thing in my previous post, it would be the addition: smart and weak people, as to separate them from the labor class. This separation of skills and abilities cannot be bridged by a simple decentralized idea. The jobs would be different and given time, would evolve different incentives, as the jobs grew further apart. A man of little intelligent would be ill suited for a managerial position (president of a company), as a small, weak, yet smart individual would be ill suited for hard labor (Rock hauler at a quarry).

And when the population grows to a certain point, asking everyone their opinion on everything becomes prohibitive, and only asking the people in control (the manager as the labor class in X job) discriminates against everyone else.<hr></blockquote>

But in reality it is not ability, strength or intelligence that makes a manager or a worker, upbringing and the quality of education are far more important factors. If Mr.X is weak yet intelligent, but Mr.X's father, grandfather, brother and cousins are all miners, and he lacks the qualifications for anything else, it seems likely that Mr.X will become a miner, even if he is not suited to it. An example at the other end of the spectrum is the US presidency. Is Dubya president because, out of the millions of people in the US, he is the best qualified to lead it? I think not. Is he president because he was born into a rich family and his daddy was president before him? More likely. Thus the so-called labour class is perfectly able to handle the production of the mine/factory/refinery etc in which they work. Scale is all important.As you say:

When the population reaches a critical mass, asking everyone their opinion on everything becomes prohibitive.<hr></blockquote>

Thus the councils (assemblies, factory boards, Soviets, whatever you want to call them.) Should be kept small, local and most importantly, de-centralised.

Admit that you are having just as much fun as I am.<hr></blockquote>

**** yeah

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>But in reality it is not ability, strength or intelligence that makes a manager or a worker, upbringing and the quality of education are far more important factors. If Mr.X is weak yet intelligent, but Mr.X's father, grandfather, brother and cousins are all miners, and he lacks the qualifications for anything else, it seems likely that Mr.X will become a miner, even if he is not suited to it. An example at the other end of the spectrum is the US presidency. Is Dubya president because, out of the millions of people in the US, he is the best qualified to lead it? I think not. Is he president because he was born into a rich family and his daddy was president before him? More likely.

</strong>You just ignored the fact that you are in a communist society to start out in. In which case the concept of wealth is irrelevant and your smart weak miner boy still has the opportunity to get his education and "rise above the masses." In which case it evolves back into a class system.<strong>

Thus the so-called labour class is perfectly able to handle the production of the mine/factory/refinery etc in which they work. Scale is all important. Thus the councils (assemblies, factory boards, Soviets, whatever you want to call them.) Should be kept small, local and most importantly, de-centralised.</strong>

A stagnant society, in that it has very little growth, would sucomb to the first invaders it found. We have to assume that this isn't the only society in the world. Thus, if it does not inherently self-destruct, it will be destroyed by outside sources. Speaking of outside sources, the means to feed and clothe everyone is equal to the amount of land worked and the number of labourers. Again, in a stagnant population, one natural disaster: flood, disease, earthquake, volcanoe, etc. could wipe them out entirely.<hr></blockquote>

 

[Massy]

You just ignored the fact that you are in a communist society to start out in. In which case the concept of wealth is irrelevant and your smart weak miner boy still has the opportunity to get his education and "rise above the masses." In which case it evolves back into a class system.<hr></blockquote>

Society has never and will never start out truly communist. Capitalism, through the private ownership of the means of production, developed industry broke down the archaic customs dues, tolls and exactions of Feudalism. Its great creation is the national state and the world market. However, socialism. (For that is the real deal, "communism" being only the final goal of this process, and a handy buzz-word.) absolutely needs to be based on a high level of productivity. The lowest stage of socialism must be the highest stage of capitalism.

A stagnant society, in that it has very little growth, would sucomb [sic] to the first invaders it found. We have to assume that this isn't the only society in the world. Thus, if it does not inherently self-destruct, it will be destroyed by outside sources. Speaking of outside sources, the means to feed and clothe everyone is equal to the amount of land worked and the number of labourers. Again, in a stagnant population, one natural disaster: flood, disease, earthquake, volcanoe, etc. could wipe them out entirely.<hr></blockquote>

Again, the argument here is flawed in the assumption that a society can begin and remain communist. The first tribes may have followed some primitive system involving the sharing of possesions between them, and perhaps this resembles communism. But it is not. It would, as you say, stagnate and thus be assimilated by a larger, more advanced tribe. It is only until a society is sufficiently advanced that it can make the transitional leap to a socialist distribution of capital.

 

[CORY]

Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>

Again, the argument here is flawed in the assumption that a society can begin and remain communist. The first tribes may have followed some primitive system involving the sharing of possesions between them, and perhaps this resembles communism. But it is not. It would, as you say, stagnate and thus be assimilated by a larger, more advanced tribe. It is only until a society is sufficiently advanced that it can make the transitional leap to a socialist distribution of capital.</strong><hr></blockquote>
from what i understand from the communist manifesto after being in economics and government, the idea is that communism only works when the entire world society is communist, so that there is no more advanced tribe or society that will come in and take it over.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>Society has never and will never start out truly communist. Capitalism, through the private ownership of the means of production, developed industry broke down the archaic customs dues, tolls and exactions of Feudalism. Its great creation is the national state and the world market. However, socialism. (For that is the real deal, "communism" being only the final goal of this process, and a handy buzz-word.) absolutely needs to be based on a high level of productivity. The lowest stage of socialism must be the highest stage of capitalism.

</strong>I was refering to the progression from a communist society to a democratic society. I have no idea how you can bring feudalism into this argument since fuedalism only lasts for such short spurts of time and die out. Capitalism is much more economic than political.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a great way to force people into doing stuff they don't want to do. Although socialist models are fun (most of Europe) the capitalist model has been much more productive, and has shown more progress.

The need to be better than everyone else, a tangible goal is much more effective in pushing someone to strive for perfection than government quotas.<strong>


Again, the argument here is flawed in the assumption that a society can begin and remain communist. The first tribes may have followed some primitive system involving the sharing of possesions between them, and perhaps this resembles communism. But it is not. It would, as you say, stagnate and thus be assimilated by a larger, more advanced tribe. It is only until a society is sufficiently advanced that it can make the transitional leap to a socialist distribution of capital.</strong>

But we just got done discussing why a large population cannot be communist. To try to convert from a socialist economy to a communist government would be chaos, followed by civil war and ending up either back to socialism or going to capitalism.<hr></blockquote>

 

[BenFoldsFive]

Hey, I find not believing in a God impossible. first, whats the purpose of life without one, and whats the hope of life without one? Being a christian, we have hope and we dont need to worry about death. The thing about Christianity is that its not filled with rules like you cant watch TV or play cards. Actually you dont have to do anything to be a christian except put your trust in Jesus and confess in Jesus that your a sinner and that he died for your sins. Its not like there are rules that say dont do this and this and dont do this or you wont be saved. Thats all it is. And people who are trying to disprove the Bible, you never will, so there's no point in trying.

O ya, it doesnt matter what you've done in the past. You could have killed, been a prostitute or whatever, the Bible says that God will except ANYONE who decides to follow him. Its not works that save you, it's Jesus's death on the cross.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

That makes it too easy. In fact, that answer is too easy. I'm not sure how to explain it, but to put all your trust in an idea like that (humans = God's glory) is just wrong. It puts too much emphasis on humanity and not enough on the universe and science. I think that might be the problem, it excludes science. In science, there is no easy answer, only fact, truth and observation. That might be what I'm getting at.

 

[mewtwo_mewtwo]

hello people

 

[Etched in a Box]

Ben, there's no point in trying to talk through the wall you've built around yourself.

 

[pilsbury008]

hey hows it going

 

[Massy]

A society does not progress from communism to democracy. Thats like saying an apple progresses to an orange. Communism and democracy are not comparable concepts. Communism vs Capitalism are, Democracy vs Totalitarianism are, but Communism is a socio-economic framework, and democracy can mean pretty much everything that involves "rule by the people." be it through direct democracy (Mob rule, pretty much.) elective democracy (Hardly qualifies.)

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Your point being? Communism as a political framework and communism as an economic framework. It has both meanings. I can compare the political side of communism to the political side of democracy. Or are you saying that it cannot shift from one to the other?

You are doing very little to prove me wrong, or to prove yourself right. May I assume that you concede?

 

[Massy]

My point being you are comparing goats to cows. Democracy means NOTHING more than "rule by the people."

"May I assume that you concede?"

If it makes your life easier to declare victory when you havent really proved anything. Really, since you're so confused regarding definitions, we aren't going to get anywhere.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Massy ]</p>

 

[I'm A Luigi #1]

YOU GUYS ARE GEEKS AREN'T YOU!

 

[pichu#1]

Bequiet!Help!Ban him!He's actually 21 year old dummy that got banned before!

 

[I'm A Luigi #1]

shut up you faget!

 

[pichu#1]

No I'm not you stupid moemoe!

 

[Massy]

Your stupidity surpasses what I before thought possible. You even got your name wrong. 21 is not your age, its your IQ.

 

[I'm A Luigi #1]

SHUT UP ASSY!

 

[GVking1]

Shut your mouth!

 

[pichu#1]

Originally posted by 21year old freak:
<strong>SHUT UP ASSY!</strong><hr></blockquote>
You dumbo!Leave Massy alone!

 

[Massy]

Ooh, I feel all special.

No, not in the same way you do. The "special" class is a different thing entirely.

 

[Ghastriph]

Is this guy for real?

please don't tell me he's actually 21.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Definitions, definitions. One word can have multiple meanings when used in different situations (BTW your apples-oranges argument makes no sense). What do you mean rule by people? Communism (rule by everyone), totalitarian (one person rules), democracy (one person chosen by many), etc.

You seem to be stalling, and you are not gaining any ground. I ask again, are you conceding?

 

[Etched in a Box]

Wow pichu, you certainly seem to like to post almost exactly after the 21 year old feller.

G4F and Massy, are you going to create a new topic for your discussion?