Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Atheism
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10373		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Atresac [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Atheism
Is anyone else on here an Atheist or am I the only one? Solely out of curiosity...
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Atheism
Atresac wrote:
Is anyone else on here an Atheist or am I the only one? Solely out of curiosity...

We've got more than one or two Atheists on here. I think you'll find that, although it seems that a majority of our users seem to belong to one theistic faith or another, the overall climate is pretty tolerant. Religion has nothing to do with Homestar Runner, so as long as people don't go all "superior" on us, all faiths (or lack thereof) are welcome.

We HAVE had some who try to pull the moral and/or intellectual superiority thing (using their religion or lack thereof as "proof"), but you'll find that they usually don't last too long.

I'm a Christian, and I'm proud of that fact.

As for Atheists, I think Jello B is Atheist (or is he agnostic?). There are a couple more, but I can't remember who, right off hand.
Author:  Atresac [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well I wasn't exactly planning on finding a religion forum in the HRWiki forum, lol. And since I'm not into religion at all I figured I might as well ask the only question I can.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Atresac wrote:
Well I wasn't exactly planning on finding a religion forum in the HRWiki forum, lol. And since I'm not into religion at all I figured I might as well ask the only question I can.

Hey, that's cool man, that's cool.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
I and Interruptor Jones (last I checked) are both atheists. I take a "weak atheist" view -- I'm not inclined to believe in God, but I don't absolutely deny the possibility of his existence -- whereas I think Interruptor Jones takes a more "strong atheist" view, which is what people more typically mean by "atheist". Though I can't speak for him, of course.

- Kef
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Atheism
Nope, you're not the only one. I'm also an atheist, as well as (as Sree and Kef pointed out) a few others here. There have been some debates about religion and atheism in a few threads around here, though they haven't been very active recently.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
I and Interruptor Jones (last I checked) are both atheists. I take a "weak atheist" view -- I'm not inclined to believe in God, but I don't absolutely deny the possibility of his existence -- whereas I think Interruptor Jones takes a more "strong atheist" view, which is what people more typically mean by "atheist". Though I can't speak for him, of course.

- Kef

I wouldn't qualify Jones as a strong atheist. I would qualify him as an apathetic atheist. I've never really seen him take any kind of stand either way.

It may be a semantics issue, but I see the "strong" atheists as the jerks that go all "I'm smarter than you because I don't believe in stupid fairy tales!! Ban religion and shoot all of the followers for infringing on my civil rights!!" whenever you bring up something putting a Christian or Muslim or any other theist in a positive light (Think Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson as a atheists).

Now, to avoid turning this into a debate about atheism, I will bow out.
Image
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:02 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Now, to avoid turning this into a debate about atheism


Isn't that what we're here for? :P
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:13 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
Now, to avoid turning this into a debate about atheism


Isn't that what we're here for? :P

I thought it was a roll call, but if it's a debate you want, feel free to debate away, or something.
Author:  Mike D [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:57 am ]
Post subject: 
By strict definition I am an atheist in that I lack theistic belief, but in common parlance I'm agnostic. When I look at the amazing diversity of human belief throughout history (coupled with the heartfelt conviction of almost every sect that its specific dogma is infallible), I find myself wondering if it truly matters if there's a god.

Mike
Author:  lazadisk [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:22 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
I take a "weak atheist" view -- I'm not inclined to believe in God, but I don't absolutely deny the possibility of his existence

That's agnostic, I believe. Same as me! :mrgreen:
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Atheism
StrongRad wrote:
As for Atheists, I think Jello B is Atheist (or is he agnostic?). There are a couple more, but I can't remember who, right off hand.

No, im pretty sure he's Linux or something :p

Im Atheist, More or less.
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:59 am ]
Post subject: 
lazadisk wrote:
That's agnostic, I believe. Same as me! :mrgreen:


I think of myself as agnostic and atheist. I don't believe the terms are mutually exclusive. The way I sometimes put it is that I make a distinction between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God" -- though that's kind of confusing, because usually those sentences are treated as equivalent. But the first one is about (passively) not believing, and the second one is about (actively) denying.

- Kef
Author:  Shippinator Mandy [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, Jello's agnostic.

I'm a Christian, but...I really don't care about your faith. I have friends of all faiths.
Author:  ready for prime time [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:28 am ]
Post subject: 
i believe in Jesus, i just don't believe he had the power to walk on water, split water in half, make bread, undeaden, and other miraculous whatnot. i'm not jewish, i just think they just exaggerated those parts, or misheard them.
Author:  ramrod [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
ready for prime time wrote:
i believe in Jesus, i just don't believe he had the power to walk on water, split water in half, make bread, undeaden, and other miraculous whatnot. i'm not jewish, i just think they just exaggerated those parts, or misheard them.
Umm...The split water in half was Moses and the Red Sea.

Me? I'm Catholic. I believe that there is a higher authority out there, but it let's us live our lives with free will. It's not a matter if which religion we belong to that will get us into Heaven, but but what we did on Earth that will instead. But that's just me, and I know that someone will come along and disagree with that.
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
ramrod wrote:
...it let's us live our lives with free will. It's not a matter if which religion we belong to that will get us into Heaven, but but what we did on Earth that will instead. But that's just me, and I know that someone will come along and disagree with that.


well it sure won't be me. i'm pretty atheist or something or other, i don't really know. but that's about where i stand as far as religion goes. not that my opinions on the subject matter since i'm not particularly religious, but the dividing up of various faiths is all wrong to me.

that and i'm a strict empricist. only that which i can see very directly, i believe in. ATOMS!?! are you MAD? i can't see em! oxygen? not on your life! .. yeah just kidding about that.
Author:  J-Man [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:42 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:43 am ]
Post subject: 
J-Man wrote:
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God.


lol redundancy
Author:  Einoo T. Spork [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 
WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO PROBLEMS. I MEAN ATHEISTS.

I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THEM.

I DO NOT USUALLY TYPE IN ALL CAPS. IN FACT, I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHY I AM NOW.
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:29 am ]
Post subject: 
ramrod wrote:
Me? I'm Catholic. I believe that there is a higher authority out there, but it let's us live our lives with free will. It's not a matter if which religion we belong to that will get us into Heaven, but but what we did on Earth that will instead. But that's just me, and I know that someone will come along and disagree with that.
I will disagree with it, for the following reasons:

St. Paul wrote:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).
In other words, you cannot save yourself by doing works at all.

St. John wrote:
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
Unless someone wants to accuse Jesus of being a liar.

St. Luke wrote:
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).
Ramrod, what you say sounds very nice and pious, but I have to question where you're getting such ideas, since they are not consistent with either the Holy Scriptures or the historic Christian faith.

ready for prime time wrote:
i believe in Jesus, i just don't believe he had the power to walk on water, split water in half, make bread, undeaden, and other miraculous whatnot. i'm not jewish, i just think they just exaggerated those parts, or misheard them.

Can you present us with any historical support for disbelieving these miraculous events, or for your conclusion that these were mere exaggerations? My reason for believing them are two-fold:

1. If God exists, then logic dictates that he would be able to do such things. Jesus never claimed to be doing these things as an ordinary human being, but as the divine Son of God. Therefore, one cannot simply dismiss miraculous events unless there is adequate evidential grounds for doing so (in other words, an a priori assumption against miracles is not adequate grounds for dismissal of their historicity).

2. The historical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the scriptural accounts, considering that the New Testament is written predominantly by men who were eye-witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, and whose lives and testimonies demonstrate them to be honorable men and reliable witnesses.

By the way, saying, "I believe in Jesus, but I don't believe he was divine," is like saying, "I believe in Abraham Lincoln, but I don't believe he was really president of the United States, or that he drafted the Emancipation Proclamation." Acknowledging that someone existed in history is not the same thing as believing in them.
Author:  ramrod [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Ramrod, what you say sounds very nice and pious, but I have to question where you're getting such ideas, since they are not consistent with either the Holy Scriptures or the historic Christian faith.
Well, my beliefs are not completely based off of scripture, but of also my own mind and body.

I ask you this though Dids, what of someone who has never heard of Jesus? What of someone who has lived by themselves all their life? A hermit? What about those that cannot hear about him, or else they could face harsh punishment? Are you to tell me that there thousands upon thousands people from ancient tribes, such as the Inca's, the Native Americans, that are in Hell because they were never told of Jesus? What happened to those that never heard of him because they lived so far away? At the time that Jesus lived I doubt the Japanese knew of him. So are they in Hell just because they were unfortunate to live in Japan at the time instead of Israel? That is where I find flaw in your views.
Author:  DESTROY US ALL! [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Well I'm a forum Athiest/Agnostic/Humanist/Hethen.
Whatever you want to put, just don't tell my Dad I told you. He doesn't like it when people know he didn't raise a good Irish Catholic boy.
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Except that they are not exclusively my views, Ramrod. They are the views expressed by Jesus Christ himself. By denying them, you are essentially calling him a liar. Is that your intention? If so, then I would challenge you to present evidence that demonstrates your reasoning to have greater authority than that of the Son of God and his designated apostles.

But as for those people who have never heard the Word, they have no excuse anyway. As the Scriptures teach, all men are sinners, and therefore are enemies of God from the very moment of their conception (Psalm 51:1, Romans 5:10). God doesn't really owe them anything. And yet, he sent his own Son to die for them, just as he sent him to die for us. Get it through your head, Ramrod: the only way anyone can get to heaven at all is because Jesus Christ died for them and purchased for them the privilege of eternal life.

As for what happens to those people? Without some clear instruction from God himself, we cannot say with any amount of certainty what happens to them. But, if we are to take Christ's own words seriously at all, then we cannot refrain from bringing that Word to them. Jesus' own answer to that conundrum is this: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all I have commanded" (Matthew 28:19-20).

Besides, if such a person would be a believer if only he could hear the Word, I have every confidence that the Lord will get the Word to them so that they can hear and be saved. As it is, no one can come to the Lord Jesus or believe in him unless the Holy Spirit calls him by the Word anyway.

In other words, Ramrod, if a pagan misses out on eternal life because he never got the chance to hear God's Word, the fault lies not with God, but with us who have been designated as his messengers and have failed to carry out his instructions. Or have distorted his message. And that's where I would caution you to be careful, Ramrod. Be careful that you don't think of yourself as smarter than God on this subject. Or, as Dr. Nagle would say, [accent=British professor] "Who are we to tell the Lord God how to do his Lord Godding?"
Author:  ramrod [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
In other words, Ramrod, if a pagan misses out on eternal life because he never got the chance to hear God's Word, the fault lies not with God, but with us who have been designated as his messengers and have failed to carry out his instructions.
But the blame can't be put onto either the "Non-Christian" or the messenger, if the messenger never had any time to go out and tell that man the word. I think it would be really, really hard for Paul to travel across the ocean to tell the Native Americans about Jesus, especially since they never knew about the Indians or even America's existence.
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:44 am ]
Post subject: 
if the only way to be saved is that jesus died for me, which he already did, does that mean i'm saved regardless? i'm sure i'm gonna get scripture in response.

and what the heck, i won't call jesus a liar (today) but i'll call the people who compiled a bunch of stuff into books and then finally into one "authoritative" book over the course of hundreds of years liars. yep. i guess it took this thread for my atheism to bleed through even more.

and ramrod, to answer your question from the Qu'ranic perspective, those who had not recieved the word of God by the prophet Muhammed could still be saved (no, i wont quote the surah and line, my Qu'ran is 200 miles away.) and also those that had recieved the word of Moses and Jesus are able to gaint entry to paradise as well (though this one is less clear). so from my (admittedly rough) understanding of Islam, they basically say that God (or Bog, hehehe) will not condemn those who had not had the opportunity to hear the "Word".
Author:  ramrod [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:48 am ]
Post subject: 
putitinyourshoe wrote:
so from my (admittedly rough) understanding of Islam, they basically say that God (or Bog, hehehe) will not condemn those who had not had the opportunity to hear the "Word".
That's is exactly what I'm saying. It is completely unfair that God would punish those that never had the change to hear the Gospels.
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Your still missing the point, Ramrod. God doesn't owe ANYBODY that word. Not you. Not me. Not anybody. Count yourself privileged that you have it at all.

Second, I'm not just talking about individual messengers, but the Holy Christian Church on earth. That includes you, Ramrod. Do you want to be guilty of having pagan blood on your hands because you failed to carry God's message of grace through our Lord Jesus Christ to those very same pagans you seem so concerned about? Or, even worse, because you distorted the truth of his Word?

I know that the fault doesn't currently lie with me because I, as a called and ordained servant of God's Word, am doing precisely what he has called me to do right where he has called me to do it.

Quote:
and what the heck, i won't call jesus a liar (today) but i'll call the people who compiled a bunch of stuff into books and then finally into one "authoritative" book over the course of hundreds of years liars. yep. i guess it took this thread for my atheism to bleed through even more.

Oh, really? And where is your evidence that they lie? If you're going to make the accusation, back it up with some facts.

Incidentally, considering that actual physical manuscripts of biblical documents can be dated as early as within 50 years after the last apostle died, I fail to see how this would allow for "hundreds of years" of compilation. Furthermore, since those same biblical documents were quoted by early Christian writers like Irenaeus DURING THE FIRST CENTURY, I fail to see how that would allow for "hundreds of years" of compilation as well.

FACT: current text critical evidence supports early dates for the writings of the Gospels and other New Testament writings.

FACT: current textual evidence supports the ACCURACY of these manuscripts.

FACT: the writers of the Gospels were EYEWITNESSES of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (with the exception of St. Luke, who seems to have written his Gospel after doing extensive historical research, presumably by interviewing other eyewitnesses).

FACT: these writers, with the exception of St. John, all suffered horrific deaths on account of their refusal to renounce what they had written. It is inconceivable that such men who placed such high value on truth would be willing to die for something unless they were thoroughly convinced it were true.

FACT: there is no genuine historical evidence to contradict the biblical accounts of the Gospels. Considering the importance of a man like Jesus to the history of that era, if any such evidence existed, it must have been presented somewhere.
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:53 am ]
Post subject: 
oh come on, Didy. he asked you a question, don't start invoking images of blood on his hands. lay off, eh? and plus, he wasn't "missing the point" in agreeing with me because i was talking about a belief system other than yours. although to clarify, ramrod, i as talking about Islam, so under that belief system the idea is to accept moses as a prophet of god, and also to accept Jesus as a prophet of god, and finally to accept muhammad as a prophet of god. so the gospels and the torah are important in Islam, but of course the word Islam wants you to accept it that of the Qur'an.

EDIT:
Quote:
Oh, really? And where is your evidence that they lie? If you're going to make the accusation, back it up with some facts.


eh, no thanks. i'll just call 'em liars.
Author:  ramrod [ Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Did, everything you say, cannot be backened up with facts either. You rely on the Scripture, which was written by man. Man is not perfect, and we make mistakes. I want you to step away from the Bible for all your answers for once, and use your mind and common sense. What if we're all wrong? What if Islam is the true religion? You push Christianity as if it's the one and only true Religion, that it's the one that we should all believe, or else we're damned to eternal punishment, but what if you're wrong? What if Christianity is one big cult? We punish those now that come out and say that they're the messiah, but who are we to judge them? What if they are right? What if Scientology isn't a bunch of crap, and it's actually true? We as a nation punish those that don't fit into the religious norms. We tell people that if they aren't a part of this, that or that other religion, and they worship a different one from them, then thole people must be a cult, or must be insane.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/