I mentioned the “Rapture-ready” Christians in the previous post; how they actually want the world to get worse, because, according to Revelations, it’s supposed to get worse before Jesus comes, and so, by trying to make the world a better place, you’re interfering with God’s plan.
Oddly enough, there is another group of Christians whose goal is, apparently, the opposite of the previous group’s, but who end up doing mostly the same. They’re the Christians who believe that the world is God’s, and, so, it’s impossible for us “mere mortals” to really ruin it.
To them, global warming, for instance, isn’t a problem; if needed, God will just intervene, because there’s no way he would allow the earth to become uninhabitable for us, his greatest creation — indeed, his main reason for creating the world universe, according to many.
And, so… what do they end up doing? Exactly the same as those who say that the world should get worse! Fight global warming? Nah, God will take care of it; besides, global warming is “just a theory”, because not every single scientist in the world agrees on it. Wars? They’re minor things. Epidemics? Not a problem, they’re always minor and localized. Pollution? Again, this is God’s Earth — it’s incredibly arrogant to believe that we mortals can ever ruin God’s work. And shows a lack of faith, too: don’t you trust God?
And so, there are pages like this, or this, whose main message is “there is no global warming”, and, therefore, there’s no need to worry or do anything about it.
Making the world a worse place. Whether you actually want it, or simply don’t believe it can happen.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Pedro,
So am I to assume that atheists are all about the planet and humanity. That there are no atheists that believe the global warming information may be incorrect. That there are no atheists that have decided this is obviously a dog-eat-dog world and they should focus on getting their own.
Yes, people of all beliefs are screwed up. That includes some of the people of the atheist beliefs.
Please refer to “Inconvenient Kyoto Truths” from Newsweek Feb 12, 2007.
Perhaps the problem is made worse when others try to juxtapose science with another’s religious beliefs. When people go looking to push their agenda over another, or to get their way, or “looking for a fight” what do they get? Usually they get a fight.
The more believers push for the acceptance of God the more non-believers push for His removal from anything public. The more this happens the more trouble it causes.
I am calling shenanigans. There is nothing in science that disproves the existance of God.
The belief that there is no God is a belief and cannot be based on scientific information because, as you have pointed out elsewhere, a scientific belief must be in some way falsifiable. There is no more evidence verifying the non-existence of God then there is verifying His existence. The only people that can make any claim to a remotely scientific belief system have to say something like “I don’t know if God exists but, my best estimate is xxx”.
Of course, it is possible that, if God exists, He could come to a person and prove His existence to THAT person in a way that would be completely unprovable in a scientific sense. This is like if someone assaulted you in private and left no evidence that it happened. It still happened, you just can’t prove it.
On the other hand, it is not possible for the non-existence of God to come to anyone and prove It’s non-existence.
The bottom line, there are bad people, of every belief system. Most people are very easily controlled becasue they will take almost anything that is presented to them and accept it as fact. That’s how many, many bad things start. Sad but true.
If you are truly worried about the future of the world attacking the Christian faith is probably about th emost fruitless thing you can do. I don’t think you are the first and the others haven’t had a very powerful success record.
While I’m not totally convinced that global-warming is 100% caused by man, I don’t think it matters in-so-far-as we should all be doing our part to limit energy consumption and pollution anyways.
I do believe that there are political agendas behind the global warming debate, so I am highly skeptical of both sides. But still, I’d like to do what I can to leave the earth a better place, or at least not make it so much worse.
[quote post="214"]So am I to assume that atheists are all about the planet and humanity. That there are no atheists that believe the global warming information may be incorrect. That there are no atheists that have decided this is obviously a dog-eat-dog world and they should focus on getting their own.[/quote]
Daryl: no, you are not to assume such a thing, nor did I imply it.
There is, however, a difference between atheists harming the world (which happens) and someone harming the world because of their atheism (which, I believe, doesn’t happen). But people — both those who want the Rapture, and those who believe there’s no need to worry because God won’t let us ruin his creation — do harm the world because of their religion. See the difference?
As for the rest of your comment, it’s simply offtopic, sorry; this post isn’t about whether God exists or not. If you want to start new topics, the forum may be a better place…
Followed your advice Pedro.. An offtopic post on the forum..
Daryl, you might want to go back and read the posts concerning the existence, or even the possibility of the existence of the judeo-xn god. Pedro (and others) have already fully addressed all of your approaches in previous posts.
Pedro,
Yes, I see the difference. Though I would say there are probably some atheists that harm the world because there is no danger to them. I just hope that you realize that they are not representative of the majority of Christians.
The point of the rest of the post was simply this. Sometimes atheists, in their incessant desire to root out the evil of religion, make enemies where there don’t have to be any. Neither you or I can “know” in a provable sense so what’s the point in “fighting” over it.
Actually as has been shown repeatedly on this blog, we can know that the xn notion of a god is impossible, therefore cannot exist.
Your notion of the xn notion of a God is impossible.
LOL! None of this pivots on me.. I use only the Xn notion of god itself. If you have an issue with xnty, take it up with those who support xnty.
[quote post="214"] TXStorm
Feb 9th, 2007 at 1:01 am Quote
LOL! None of this pivots on me.. I use only the Xn notion of god itself. If you have an issue with xnty, take it up with those who support xnty.[/quote]
Nope, sorry, but that isn’t so. To say that it is means simply that you hold the communications of others to a standard of perfection in your ability to understand what they meant. It means that your understanding of the Xn notion of God is the correct understanding of the Xn notion of God. Not to mention that their understandign of “God” may not even be close to accurate.
Neither you nor I, nor anyone else, that has ever walked this Earth has ever written so that what they spoke/wrote was 100 percent accurately understood by another unless the material was of an inconsequential matter (2 2 = 4).
You base your statement on YOUR definition of the xn notion of a God. Regardless of how the dictionary defines it, it is obvious that many understandings of this exist. Whether more logically correct or not, that is most certainly not the same notion of the “God” that I believe Christ to have been speaking of, not the same notion of a God that I understand.
To suppose that the most logical/literal interpretation of a sentence is the only (most accurate/appropriate) way to understand it is simply an assumption that I understand to be incorrect. The most appropriate way to understand a sentence, assuming your purpose is to understand what was trying to be communicated, is to get the meaning the writer/speaker meant, regardless of the words.
REALITY DOESN’T REVOLVE AROUND WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE LOGICAL. If it does, please explain the Platypus and remember, there is no room for contradiction in reality.
Reality doesn’t revolve around your beliefs or mine. Reality simply is, we (hopefully both of us but, most certainly me) are trying to understand it. It seems to me, though I could obviously be wrong, that you believe the only way to true understanding is through science/logic. I would disagree with the science part of that sentence and would most likely redefine the logic part.
Regardless of what Webster, etc say that is what is happening. The fact that we have not all agreed on the understanding of simple words, much less complex concepts, doesn’t change the nature of our discussion, it just dilutes our ability to understand one another.
That said, any comment that indicates a complete understanding of the other persons concepts is almost certainly flawed. You want to know the only logical way to proceed? I think you just said ___, is that correct? OK, then, does that mean ___? Because it would appear to mean that. Then, they could say… “You know, I don’t think I had the words right there. What I really meant was closer to ….” and …
But, if both parties could be aware of the others feelings/perceptions it wouldn’t hurt.
p.s. I have issues with Christians and with the organized church and, I take it up with them! What you think I am I am not, what you believe me to be isn’t so.
Daryl,
[quote post="214"]It means that your understanding of the Xn notion of God is the correct understanding of the Xn notion of God. Not to mention that their understandign of “God” may not even be close to accurate.[/quote]
This is interesting to me especially. I have experienced that everybody seems to have their own PERSONAL understanding of “God”. Myself included.
This notion however… seems to have the same basic concepts when it comes to moral people… whatever the religion. It coincides with the picking and choosing of the bible. We choose what makes sense, and we go with that. The problem is, we can’t make sense of God. (usually we say that something so intricate and powerful ect…ect… can’t possibly make sense to humans)
And therefore we question and question and question.
Truth be told… there is no understanding of God. Because? There is no God.
Or at least, (Well, actually … at MOST) no reason to believe in one. (If you give me one, I’ll respond)
[quote post="214"]Regardless of what Webster, etc say that is what is happening. The fact that we have not all agreed on the understanding of simple words, much less complex concepts, doesn’t change the nature of our discussion, it just dilutes our ability to understand one another.[/quote]
Actually I think that the misunderstanding is psychological… and on your part.
Please take no offense to that. I’ve made the same mistake… probably worse than you have. What we do is we assume that God exists… and we hold to it so much… and have thought about it SO much… that what we thought about for so long can’t possibly NOT exist. That, coupled with TX’s seemingly befuddling responses… makes us quite angry.
Anger makes logic go out the window at a faster rate than lust dude.
The words themselves are there… clearly understandable, and unmistakable, lest you do not know the definitions. It’s on your part to understand the definitions and therefore, the argument itself before replying.
[quote post="214"]But, if both parties could be aware of the others feelings/perceptions it wouldn’t hurt.
p.s. I have issues with Christians and with the organized church and, I take it up with them! What you think I am I am not, what you believe me to be isn’t so.[/quote]
Make not that mistake, even if you were married, had a twin brother or even a clone of yourself, nobody could fully understand who you are and yet nobody can take you for anything less than a capable human being.
I think you are human. One who questions the God IN QUESTION. Otherwise, you would not be seeking truth.
[quote] To say that it is means simply that you hold the communications of others to a standard of perfection in your ability to understand what they meant. It means that your understanding of the Xn notion of God is the correct understanding of the Xn notion of God. Not to mention that their understandign of “God” may not even be close to accurate.
[/quote]
This is in part why I recommended the introductory texts on basic sound reasoning. You jump to these conclusions declaring them to be necessarily true, when in fact they are neither necessitated, nor true.
As I have emphasized repeatedly I make no claims of being a mind reader, rather my own observations and all of the repeated refutations are based upon what has ACTUALLY BEEN SAID, not upon what you might have meant to say. There is nothing necessitating the mind reading you seem to want to claim is necessary, rather all that is necessitated is a basic understanding of the meaning of the words used.
As for the notion that xns who created this notion of a “god” and those who buy into it, not knowing what form their creation actually takes, well this is yet another example of not giving others the basic respect of recognizing that they are inherently valuable. What makes you think that you are so superior that you know better than they what they *really* meant? From what OBJECTIVE basis can you declare that these folks are mistaken in the form of their own creation?
[quote]I would disagree with the science part of that sentence and would most likely redefine the logic part.
[/quote]
Which of course is an extreme problem and a gross error. What you are suggesting here is that you personally are infinitely greater than all of reality, are of course omniscient, and are without the possibility of error. None of these are true, nor do any of these assumptions have any basis in reality.
What you are suggesting is that we abandon the aspects of reality which definitively prove that your conclusion is erroneous simply because they definitively prove that your conclusion is erroneous. This places your belief above reality where the two collide.
Logic is simply a description of how reality works. Logic is inherently part of reality, so your attempts to change is are at best misguided.
[quote]But, if both parties could be aware of the others feelings/perceptions it wouldn’t hurt.
[/quote]
Or you could choose to follow the methods used for millenia and simply choose to not react emotionally to the idea that your own position can be compared to reality in what is necessarily an unfavorable light. Allow reality to determine truth, not faith.
[quote] I take it up with them! What you think I am I am not, what you believe me to be isn’t so.
[/quote]
Here again a simple reading of what is actually posted would be of great value. Where I have used YOUR OWN STATEMENTS DIRECTLY you now claim that I am saying something about you rather than your statements. I could not possibly care one bit about you as a person with regard to the ideas, rather I am simply addressing the ideas and arguments themselves.
For instance you state that you are an xn. This necessitates that you believe in the xn “god.” Yet you also state that you do accept the xn “god” What does this mean? It means that your statements are contradictory. Notice how no where do I say anything about your emotional state, or about you as a person? There is no need, for we are dealing with very clear well defined easily understood words and ideas.