Elvis And Religion

[grayman]

"great minds..." See my post #29.

I can't remember what I did yesterday, let alone four months ago.

 

[DOC]

Examples include
*Brad and Angelina
and the two greatest philanthropists in american history are the atheists
Bill gates and Warren Buffet

The above might not be Christians but do you have any sources that they are atheists and not agnostics.

And any money people give to ungodly causes will ultimately be a detriment to humanity. For example if Jolie adopting a foreign child and bringing that child to the US is not of God, it will do more harm than good even if on the surface it looks like a good deed. Hopefully it is a Godly act, I don't know for sure. But I do believe anything not of God will ultimately fail, and I think history bears that out. For example, the atheistic Soviet Union was definitely not of God and it failed.

 

[Fitter]

For example if Jolie adopting a foreign child and bringing that child to the US is not of God, it will do more harm than good even if on the surface it looks like a good deed.

How can giving an orphan child the opportunity to experience the unconditional love of a family ever be wrong? If you truly believe that because your god is out of this loop it is doomed to failure you are as evil as you've as your imaginary crutch.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...SNIP...
Hopefully it is a Godly act, I don't know for sure. But I do believe anything not of God will ultimately fail, and I think history bears that out.
SNIP...

Serious question here, DOC.

With all due respect, do you know "for sure" that your contributions to these boards are "a Godly act"? If so, how? If not, what might the consequences be?

 

[joobz]

The above might not be Christians but do you have any sources that they are atheists and not agnostics.
http://www.nndb.com/people/493/000023424/
http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Bill_Gates
http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett

And any money people give to ungodly causes will ultimately be a detriment to humanity.

So,
http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/2-angelina-jolie

Afghanistan Relief Organization
Cancer Schmancer Movement
Clinton Global Initiative
Daniel Pearl Foundation
Direct Change
Doctors Without Borders
Global Action for Children
Jolie-Pitt Foundation
Millennium Promise Alliance
Millennium Villages
ONE Campaign
Peace One Day
Reporters Without Borders
UNHCR
UNICEF
UN Millennium Project
Yéle Haiti Foundation

Are a detriment to soceity?

For example if Jolie adopting a foreign child and bringing that child to the US is not of God, it will do more harm than good even if on the surface it looks like a good deed.

Prove this.

I state that the church's stance on contraception and the spread of AIDS in africa is the biggest detriment to world health. Unless, of course, you believe that people dying of AIDS is good.

Hopefully it is a Godly act, I don't know for sure. But I do believe anything not of God will ultimately fail, and I think history bears that out. For example, the atheistic Soviet Union was definitely not of God and it failed.

Then How do you explain
The success of:
China
India
Japan
The United States (which is decidedly secular in it's constitution)

How do you explain the failure of:
the holy roman empire
christian monarchies

How do you explain the morality of:
Christian led genocide of the aztecs
Christian led torture and violence of the inquisition
Christian led violence between catholics and protestants

How do you explain the success of Islamic states:
the UAE

If you are honest with yourself you will see that your claim of anything "ungodly" will fail is just completely unfounded. The only way you can support this argument is if you ignore all the facts that contradict your claim.

 

[cyborg]

If you are honest with yourself you will see that your claim of anything "ungodly" will fail is just completely unfounded. The only way you can support this argument is if you ignore all the facts that contradict your claim.

Who else is thinking, "Duh, well that's what he's gonna do?"

 

[kmortis]

Who else is thinking, "Duh, well that's what he's gonna do?"

Cyborg,
You know in that other thread where I argue for tolerance and understanding? DOC is the counterexample to that. He's only worthy of ridicule and hostility. He's demonstrated that he's not interested in a conversation at all. Might as well play with the troll while he's here.

 

[e-sabbath]

Random Trivia: Elvis, as I'm sure you all know, based his stage presence on Captain Marvel Junior.

... but did you know his favorite movie was Monty Python and the Holy Grail? He used to rent out the whole theater to watch it.

 

[DOC]

How can giving an orphan child the opportunity to experience the unconditional love of a family ever be wrong? If you truly believe that because your god is out of this loop it is doomed to failure you are as evil as you've as your imaginary crutch.

Why do you have to go 10,000 miles to do that, that's what I don't understand. And some papers are implying that she is giving less unconditional love to her biological blond hair child.

 

[Cleon]

Why do you have to go 10,000 miles to do that, that's what I don't understand.

That's a good question, actually (albeit slightly off-topic for this thread).

The basic answer is that the foster/adoption system in the United States is, to use a Yiddish word, completely ferkakte.

(For those who don't speak the mame-loshn, that's our little word for saying it's ****-ed up ten ways 'till Tuesday.)

Adopting in the US is a major headache--it is incredibly expensive, complicated, bureaucratic, and unpredictable. Lots of people find it easier and cheaper to adopt by going through international adoption agencies. Not just Africa, but the Far East and South/Central America, as well. (Personal anecdote: My aunt adopted a toddler from Guatemala; said child is now a college student, and doing very well.)

 

[DOC]

The above might not be Christians but do you have any sources that they are atheists and not agnostics.

Sites brought in by joobz in response:

http://www.nndb.com/people/493/000023424/
http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Bill_Gates
http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett

_______

So according to the sites you brought in, this statement you made:

and the two greatest philanthropists in american history are the atheists
Bill gates and Warren Buffet

would not be accurate, because they both claim to be agnostics in the above websites.

 

[joobz]

So according to the sites you brought in, this statement you made:
would not be accurate, because they both claim to be agnostics in the above websites.

Agnosticism is also known as weak atheism.

therefore...........my statement was correct.

In either case, they both represent individuals who do not have a religion or faith nor do they believe in god, which still proves my point.

notice, that regardless of semantics you try to bring in, my argument's context is still valid.


ETA: Buffet is categorized atheist

 

[DOC]

Agnosticism is also known as weak atheism.

therefore...........my statement was correct.

What is your source for agnosticism is known as weak atheism.

ETA: Buffet is categorized atheist

But, for the record he did write down "Agnostic" to describe his beliefs according to the site you brought in.

 

[joobz]

What is your source for agnosticism is known as weak atheism.

Happy to provide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

But, for the record he did write down "Agnostic" to describe his beliefs according to the site you brought in.

actually, no. The website made the mistake of include a quote for Warren Allen Smith. It was Warren Allen Smith who did that, not Warren Buffet.


The first quote on the site is the one that is needed.

"He did not subscribe to his family's religion. Even at a young age he was too mathematical, too logical, to make the leap of faith. He adopted his father's ethical underpinnings, but not his belief in an unseen divinity." --from Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, by Roger Lowenstein (Doubleday, 1995), page 13

which comes from a biography on warren buffet.

 

[DOC]

Here is what Wiki, says regarding atheism and agnosticism:

While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[35] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction.[36] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[joobz]

Here is what Wiki, says regarding atheism and agnosticism:

While agnosticism can be seen as a form of weak atheism,[35] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism, or requires an equal conviction.[36] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[3

Of course, becuase classical considerations of athiesm is STRONG atheism, which says no gods exist...period. weak atheists (agnostics) say that there is no evidence that god exists. Functionally, they both do not believe in a god or gods.

But What is your point to this diversion?

You made the challenge that no good can come if god isn't involved.
It is clear that god isn't involved if the person is agnostic or if they are atheist. Both have nothing to do with a god. Neither point helps your argument. Indeed, any atheist or agnostic philathropist would support my argument. This seems to be merely an attempt to argue semantics to avoid admission of error.

And there is still the issue of

But I do believe anything not of God will ultimately fail, and I think history bears that out. For example, the atheistic Soviet Union was definitely not of God and it failed.

Then How do you explain
The success of:
China
India
Japan
The United States (which is decidedly secular in it's constitution)

How do you explain the failure of:
the holy roman empire
christian monarchies

How do you explain the morality of:
Christian led genocide of the aztecs
Christian led torture and violence of the inquisition
Christian led violence between catholics and protestants

How do you explain the success of Islamic states:
the UAE

If you are honest with yourself you will see that your claim of anything "ungodly" will fail is just completely unfounded. The only way you can support this argument is if you ignore all the facts that contradict your claim.

 

[DOC]

The website made the mistake of include a quote for Warren Allen Smith. It was Warren Allen Smith who did that, not Warren Buffet.

This website did not make a mistake.

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.p...Warren_Buffett


Wiki also claims Buffet describes himself as an agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

 

[joobz]

This website did not make a mistake.

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.p...Warren_Buffett


Wiki also claims Buffet describes himself as an agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

Ok. your first link is dead, the second link clears up my misconception. Warren buffet sent a letter to Warren Smith saying he was agnostic..
If he calls himself agnostic, that's what he is.

But again, this doesn't help your position at all.
Neither atheist nor agnostic accept god.

My whole original point is

And How do you explain the rich and famous* (those living in thorns) who do wonderful chartiable work without any christian influence? They lead enriching lives and work to enrich the lives of others. They seem to embody the ideals that christian claim to aspire to yet so often fail. The fact that they acheived such good seems to completely contradict the claim that jesus is "the way". Seems to me that there must be some other "seed" that produces a plant more wholesome and lifegiving that what christianity offers.

I gave examples of weak atheists (agnostics). No matter what you call them, they still prove my point.

How do you answer that?

 

[Hokulele]

Ok. your first link is dead, the second link clears up my misconception. Warren buffet sent a letter to Warren Smith saying he was agnostic..
If he calls himself agnostic, that's what he is.

DOC, this is what you are supposed to do when you get something wrong. Not deny it and post the same nonsense hoping everyone has forgotten your mistakes and outright dishonesty.

Joobz, thank you for showing how an honest person discusses things.

 

[DOC]

DOC, this is what you are supposed to do when you get something wrong. Not deny it and post the same nonsense hoping everyone has forgotten your mistakes and outright dishonesty.

empty non-informative attack the messenger post #105 and counting.