A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism - Page 36

davar55 · 2013-05-17, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

Nope.

In the US it only needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you have committed any of a range of actions before the state has sufficient justification to kill you.

See my response to chalsall for the situation in the UK.

What's the relationship between capital punishment (which I am
interpreting as your being against, just based on phrasing, I don't
recall any earlier addressing of the issue here), and atheism, other
than as an ethics issue? Oh, is it the proof issue? Both are and
have been sensitive issues throughout UK/US history, but the
methods of proof (of guilt versus of nogod) are of course different.
I'm sure (or not) you're not advocating for the death penalty for
atheists (if you are, I'm getting my suitcase), but from your style
I felt that ambiguity.

How would we implement "beyond any doubt" for applying the
death penalty? If we could, would it still be inhumane to kill
a guilty, convicted, certain mass murderer? But these belong
to ethics, not the religion question.

xilman · 2013-05-17, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

What's the relationship between capital punishment (which I am
interpreting as your being against, just based on phrasing, I don't
recall any earlier addressing of the issue here), and atheism, other
than as an ethics issue? Oh, is it the proof issue? Both are and
have been sensitive issues throughout UK/US history, but the
methods of proof (of guilt versus of nogod) are of course different.
I'm sure (or not) you're not advocating for the death penalty for
atheists (if you are, I'm getting my suitcase), but from your style
I felt that ambiguity.

How would we implement "beyond any doubt" for applying the
death penalty? If we could, would it still be inhumane to kill
a guilty, convicted, certain mass murderer? But these belong
to ethics, not the religion question.

My view is that if a "beyond reasonable doubt" measure is good enough for the state to kill someone it should be good enough to be able to declare one is an atheist without further tedious nitpicking --- of which I've been reading far too much recently.

chalsall · 2013-05-17, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Why exactly can't we ever know for sure?

Gödel, Heisenberg and Penrose immediately come to mind. As does the "Many-worlds interpretation".

chalsall · 2013-05-17, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

...of which I've been reading far too much recently.

This is the "Atheism for the pedantic" thread....

chalsall · 2013-05-17, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

See my response to chalsall for the situation in the UK.

And sorry, I didn't correctly understand your tangential reference.

I thought you were talking about individuals killing other individuals because of religious beliefs. I didn't realize you were talking about "state" killings.

davar55 · 2013-05-17, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

My view is that if a "beyond reasonable doubt" measure is good enough for the state to kill someone it should be good enough to be able to declare one is an atheist without further tedious nitpicking --- of which I've been reading far too much recently.

Now I think that resolves the ambiguity I thought I saw. And yes,
personal reasonable doubt would be the threshold I too would set for
anyone's calling themselves atheist. Is there any call for comparing
beyond reasonable doubt (as here or in law) with beyond any doubt
(found perhaps only in math, logic, and fundamental philosophy)?

chappy · 2013-05-23, 15:58

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/atheists-go...6.html#crPUxst

Of course this should also mean that Christians who don't do good are not good people.

Nice to see a Pope who can do redemptive math properly.

Also the article's end is a little misleading. The former Pope thought that most Catholics were second class believers along with Protestants.

chappy · 2013-05-24, 22:23

that didn't take long

Note that a careful reading of Fr. Rosica's response also implies that other Christians who don't join the Catholic Church are also not saved.

jasong · 2013-05-29, 09:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

that didn't take long

Note that a careful reading of Fr. Rosica's response also implies that other Christians who don't join the Catholic Church are also not saved.

I wonder what the various Popes would think of my opinion that all Popes are going to hell since I believe the Pope is usurping the role the Holy Spirit has.

Christians are supposed to be around other Christians for camaderie and support, but ultimately, it's only God in His three forms that can truly determine what's right.

Sorry to preach, but I don't like to be lumped in with the Pope. Just trying to be pro-active. :)

So basically, there are three types of persons

(1) God on His throne, including all three forms
(2) Christians, people who've accepted salvation but not earned it. In uncommon instances, people can be saved without officially accepting Christ because of a decision to be self-sacrificial to others needs.
(3) The unsaved, separated from Christ by exactly one decision and nothing else.

While we're running around the planet, #s 2 and 3 are basically equal in how God treats them, except for people who actively seek God. If a Christian doesn't seek God, they function like a non-Christian. This is why a lot of people don't see the change in their lives, because they accept God and then turn and run like hell.

davar55 · 2013-05-29, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

I wonder what the various Popes would think of my opinion that all Popes are going to hell since I believe the Pope is usurping the role the Holy Spirit has.

Christians are supposed to be around other Christians for camaderie and support, but ultimately, it's only God in His three forms that can truly determine what's right.

Sorry to preach, but I don't like to be lumped in with the Pope. Just trying to be pro-active. :)

So basically, there are three types of persons

(1) God on His throne, including all three forms
(2) Christians, people who've accepted salvation but not earned it. In uncommon instances, people can be saved without officially accepting Christ because of a decision to be self-sacrificial to others needs.
(3) The unsaved, separated from Christ by exactly one decision and nothing else.

While we're running around the planet, #s 2 and 3 are basically equal in how God treats them, except for people who actively seek God. If a Christian doesn't seek God, they function like a non-Christian. This is why a lot of people don't see the change in their lives, because they accept God and then turn and run like hell.

Oh this is so ridiclous. This may be from the OP, but it takes
a peripatetic/pedantic atheist to respond; but why bother?

Pedantically-seeking-air, there is no god. For the agnostics here,
who've followed this thread, sure it may be provable. For the others,
you have the right to believe whatever you want.

chalsall · 2013-05-29, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

For the others, you have the right to believe whatever you want.

Absolutely.

2013-05-24, 22:23	#393
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 1157₁₀ Posts	that didn't take long Note that a careful reading of Fr. Rosica's response also implies that other Christians who don't join the Catholic Church are also not saved. Attached Thumbnails Last fiddled with by chappy on 2013-05-24 at 22:24

2013-05-23, 15:58	#392
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13·89 Posts	http://uk.news.yahoo.com/atheists-go...6.html#crPUxst Of course this should also mean that Christians who don't do good are not good people. Nice to see a Pope who can do redemptive math properly. Also the article's end is a little misleading. The former Pope thought that most Catholics were second class believers along with Protestants.