Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Who you gonna trust?


Jodie.Lynne

Who do you Trust?  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you more likely to trust Theists more than you trust Atheists?

    • YES. And I am an Atheist
      0
    • NO. And I am an Atheist
    • YES. And I am a Theist
    • NO. And I am a Theist
    • Undecided. Please explain below
    • It depends on the person, not their beliefs or lack there of.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

I believe HE was said to have banished and expunged all angry angels from his presence in the Kingdom that came and went when he did his gig on the crucifix

:yes:

~

I have never heard this. Can you cite a reference?

Because, as far as I've been told, the second coming will be at the head of an army, and Yeshua will be wielding a flaming sword to cut down the unrighteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

I have never heard this. Can you cite a reference?

Because, as far as I've been told, the second coming will be at the head of an army, and Yeshua will be wielding a flaming sword to cut down the unrighteous.

Oh yeah, you mean the happy and peaceful angels who will be happily cutting down the unrighteous ... the angry ones were kicked out along with Lucifer ...
 

Quote

 

~

"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." (John 19:30)

~


 

 

 Finito ... no more need for angry angels ... Tetelestai

Quote

 

~

"It is finished!" At the cross, God kept His promise to crush Satan's head through the bruising of His Son. The power of sin and death was vanquished once and for all time.

"It is finished!" Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross forever made man's work to appease God, to please God, and to be reconciled to God, impotent and blasphemous.

The sin debt I owe to God was and is paid in full by my Lord and Savior, my Master and King, Jesus Christ, when He shed His innocent blood on the cross on my behalf! IT...IS...FINISHED!

~

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Oh yeah, you mean the happy and peaceful angels who will be happily cutting down the unrighteous ... the angry ones were kicked out along with Lucifer ...
 

 Finito ... no more need for angry angels ... Tetelestai

 

I apologize, I do not mean to stomp on your beliefs, but how do you figure that Jesus would be speaking Greek? Especially in his final moments?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I apologize, I do not mean to stomp on your beliefs, but how do you figure that Jesus would be speaking Greek? Especially in his final moments?

Np worries, not my beliefs anyways, just what I learned and got to know from my Christian friends. Bear in mind that this is the Gospels we are referring to, so I have no idea what or where or which began as Greek or Hebrew or Syriac or Coptic or Latin. Like I said, most Christians themselves wouldn't be able to say for sure, as for JC and what he said if he did say anything, it would most certainly be in Aramaic

~

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I may be biased (hela, I know I am) but to me, anyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a fundamentalist. Anyone who triesd to enact laws based on a 2,000 year old book is a fundy. And probably a witch burner too.

Good.  All of us are biased, but the mindful understand it, and are willing to admit it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You are not grasping the entirety of this issue.

IF the Christians could have their way, unopposed, then the U.S. would become a Christian Theocracy. Creationism & ID would be the only view offered in textbooks.

The Christian fundies in this country want ONLY their faith to be THE faith.

They want prayer in school. But ONLY their prayers.  Personally, I have no problem with prayer in school. But you would have to have prayers to Allah, to Yahweh, to Odin, to Satan, to Buddha, to Shiva, to Gaia, etc.

Which Christians would NEVER allow.

So please, do not try to lecture me on the realities of my own country.

Theoretically yes, but in reality they know that the separation is the only thing stopping a govt banning religion altogether (it stops a govt acting to ban or oppose ANY religion or religious freedom)

Th separation protects  them from  government by godless atheists, muslims, papists  and the world wide Jewish conspiracy.

It prevents the rising of the anti christ as a religious political figure in America :)

its interesting  that Australia has the exact same wording in its constitution but it is interpreted differently here.  prayers can be said in any school but all must have an opportunity and none can be compelled  Chaplains in govt.  schools are paid for by govt 

govts support  church businesses like schools, old folks homes, care agencies counselling services charities  etc with tax breaks and funding,  and in return the churches do a lot of the heavy lifting for govt (about 30% of Australian students attend  church schools paid for by taxes.  it is considered that wherever you send oyur child your taxes should help support the school BUT in return the govt has control over the schools curricula it is illegal to discriminate  against any religion (or atheists)  and it is illegal to prevent people wearing religious clothes or icons at work  unless that poses a safety hazard.

Prayers are said in every Parliament sitting, and oaths of office can be religious ones (I think tha t is the same in America) 

In other words we emphasise freedoms OF religion not freedom from religions 

I dont think you know or understand the minds of  American fundies You might be american but probably are not familiar with many fundamentalists  Sure the y would love a theistic democracy, BUT they fear an atheist, or muslim, or catholic one, more.

And they  KNOW that the separation of state  protects them from  tha t 

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[20]

Many Americans dont realise the second bit of the bolded sentence is as critical as the first  It protects fundamentalists from having their beliefs and practices stopped by govt (at least up to a point) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

ps iI am lecturing you on the reality of american life as a whole NOT your own beliefs and perceptions of it  :) 

Being american, by  itself, doesn't ensure a better understanding of America or its people any more than being Australian means i understand Australians  Both take academic and objective studies. 

How far did your education in American politics, religions, and history, take you ?  

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

It has to do with the issue because some politicians in the US want to legislate laws based on their religion.

 

I am not familiar with Australian politics, but how would you react if a Muslim politician in Aussie-land tried to push through a law requiring all Australian women to wear a Hijab, regardless of the woman's religion? 

Or a Jewish member of the Australian Parliament tried to have businesses closed on the Jewish Sabbath?

every Australian woman who wants to, already has her right to wear a hijab to work or in public protected by laws against discrimination. The y are also protected if the y choose NOT to.

if there was no separation of church and state a religious person might be compelled to NOT wear religious icons or modest clothing 

lol we try to keep the Jewish Sabbath (which is the original christian  sabbath)  and yet in Australia historically  you couldn't shop or do anything on Sundays so we couldn't shop all weekend My point is tha t  without separation of state from religion laws like the Sunday laws can be applied to govt  business of any sort.

the examples you give are what might happen to fundies  if there was no separation, and they know this  

Constitutionally, at least, in America the separation of state stops GOVTS applying such laws

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

He means Seventh Day Adventists (hence the reference to a rumored "institution of sunday" law); you mean something else by the term Christian fundamentalist.

 

it applies a lot to Adventists but the principle applies to all fundies (I may be mistaken but i thought it was you who originally informed me that american fundies support separtion because it prevents govts controlling  their religion and allows them a lot more religious freedoms than in many  nations  (of course if they think the y can control govt it is a difernt matter. 

Ps not sure about america but for almost 200 years  Australia was run under sunday laws Shops could not open, sports could not be played and many activities like playing music or mowing the lawn  were banned on Sunday (if the y disturbed the sabbath)  due to historical christian observance. That made it hard for muslims jews and adventists or others who kept the seventh day sabbath, and i only realised this when i tried it for myself  i mean I knew Sunday was an historical artefact from Christianity which dominated a weeks activities in Australia but i hadn't realised how invasive it was for a person who kept the seventh day sabbath.

  luckily it began to change, along with all the other social changes of the seventies. Nonetheless,many of the laws remain. You cant have a fire in your back yard on a sunday in many places  and 90% of shops remain closed, with only the big ones  and corner shops opening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I may be biased (hela, I know I am) but to me, anyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a fundamentalist. Anyone who triesd to enact laws based on a 2,000 year old book is a fundy. And probably a witch burner too.

What about atheists who oppose it  Not all opposition is religious based. 

Basic conservatism as opposed to liberalism plays a big part in peoples views, while some are just scared of change  

ANd of course everyone knows,  you have to drown witches, not burn them  :) 

Ok sorry. You try to drown them first and if the y float the y must be witches so THEN you  burn them 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I may be biased (hela, I know I am) but to me, anyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a fundamentalist. Anyone who triesd to enact laws based on a 2,000 year old book is a fundy. And probably a witch burner too.

That's fine. The point wasn't to deny that Seventh Day Adventists could be described as fundamentalists, but rather that the category includes lots more people than SDA's, with a wider range of views, and even disagreement about some issues among the fundamentalists. For example, if there were such a thing as a "sunday institution law" movement, I doubt a Mark 16:17-18 snakehandler would have any problem with it.

On a point arising, I think most fundies today would accept lethal injection for witches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

That's fine. The point wasn't to deny that Seventh Day Adventists could be described as fundamentalists, but rather that the category includes lots more people than SDA's, with a wider range of views, and even disagreement about some issues among the fundamentalists. For example, if there were such a thing as a "sunday institution law" movement, I doubt a Mark 16:17-18 snakehandler would have any problem with it.

On a point arising, I think most fundies today would accept lethal injection for witches.

Maybe in america.  I don't know a single fundamentalist christian who believes in witches or witchcraft. They see it as superstitious nonsense  (ironical or not ) :) 

  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, eight bits said:
23 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have quite a few pairs of Victoria's Secret, ................... I don't think it's really magical.

If you were a guy, you'd think differently :)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. ;)  :D  

Quote

Yeah, Andy Yang is Asian-American. I'm not saying that that's the end of the story for him, just that it may be something that probably won't help him.

His natural constituency is left-leaning. One of the farthest left-leaning institutions in the US is Harvard College - and they're in court lately. For what? Quotas to limit the number of students of Asian heritage. Oh, excuse me, not "quotas," but rather "personality" assessments that just happen to limit the number of students of Asian heritage. Uh, huh.

Rational relationships among the races is still a problem in the US, that's all I was saying.

I agree. And, I need to further read into the latest group running, but yeah, that depends who sticks around. I just put in Yang's name to show things are getting colorful this time. Well, to me anyways. ;)  

And despite I need to read further into Yang, I actually need to read further on all, whose sticking around) I am aware of his 'goals' and 'ideas'. I think it's a bit interesting he and fellow 'entrepe---        .... business guy, facebook man. :w00t:  are both running. Things are colorful indeed. (yeah, I'm a lost for names and titles at the moment.) 

15 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I was thinking more of this guy. Not the funny looking guy, the handsome one in the hat. :):

 

Well, I guess, ;)  that's as good as it gets!  :D  

But, what if we can't handle the truth?!?!?  :o   

:D  

13 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Try looking up ACLU cases against religious organizations.

Watch a few episodes of 'The Atheist Experience' on YouTube.

Look up ANY articles about Christians opposing LGBTQ issues, abortion, or same sex marriages in the US.

There are Senators and Congressmen on record as denying climate change because of RELIGIOUS reasons.

You don't live here, you have no practical knowledge of experience of the garbage that the Christian majority try to shove down everyone's throat in the land of the free.

You can quote all the statistics you want, but the REALITY is that Christians want a Theocracy in this country.

I second that. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a question that stems a bit from the Op..

Does it really matter what someones beliefs are? I have people in the life that I have grown up with for 20+ years that are a religious as can be. And I an as ir-religious? as can be. We're still best friends. I could call this girl at 3 am if i needed her and she would be there, no questions asked. 

If these preachy ****s just kept their religion to themselves, there'd be no issue, i think, i my "humble" opinion. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:28 AM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I have a question that stems a bit from the Op..

Does it really matter what someones beliefs are? I have people in the life that I have grown up with for 20+ years that are a religious as can be. And I an as ir-religious? as can be. We're still best friends. I could call this girl at 3 am if i needed her and she would be there, no questions asked. 

If these preachy ****s just kept their religion to themselves, there'd be no issue, i think, i my "humble" opinion. 

Well, according to the votes, most people don't seem to give 2 sharts what a persons stance on religion is.

Now, just to be clear, I did make this in response to Walker's claim that: more people, even atheists, trust believers over atheists. I disagreed with him, and he cited 'statistics"

 

Personally, I voted "It depends on the person, not their beliefs or lack there of. " for the simple reason that I have known people from many different walks of life, and found some worthy of my trust, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or their religious beliefs. Or non-beliefs.

To me, people are more than just the label we stick on them. Sure, there are some things that can colour a persons outlook on life, be it religion, politics, or what have you. But I truly feel that people are more than just "republican', or 'straight' or 'christian', etc., etc., etc.

I mean, if you were in the ocean drowning, and a boat pulled up to you, would you ask them their position on gender issues? Or politics? Or anything other than "Could you pull me out of the water, please?"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Well, according to the votes, most people don't seem to give 2 sharts what a persons stance on religion is.

Now, just to be clear, I did make this in response to Walker's claim that: more people, even atheists, trust believers over atheists. I disagreed with him, and he cited 'statistics"

 

Personally, I voted "It depends on the person, not their beliefs or lack there of. " for the simple reason that I have known people from many different walks of life, and found some worthy of my trust, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or their religious beliefs. Or non-beliefs.

To me, people are more than just the label we stick on them. Sure, there are some things that can colour a persons outlook on life, be it religion, politics, or what have you. But I truly feel that people are more than just "republican', or 'straight' or 'christian', etc., etc., etc.

I mean, if you were in the ocean drowning, and a boat pulled up to you, would you ask them their position on gender issues? Or politics? Or anything other than "Could you pull me out of the water, please?"

Walker's a fool. Plain and simple.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Walker's a fool. Plain and simple.

lol I used scientific statistics  from across many decades and  countries.

it's been proven for years that, around the world, theists are more trusted by ALL people, both theist and atheist, than  atheists are.

'It is particularly noticeable in America, but found everywhere   They are not MY figures, but i am a person who uses facts and statistics to make a point  Go argue with the experts.

In more recent times there has even been analysis from psychology anthropology and sociology as to WHY this is a universal human tendency 

I am many things, but not a fool.

  A fool would be one who bases their opinion only on what the y encounter in their own enclave of society and those they choose to associate with . 

here is ONE such example 2017

Who would you trust more, a person who says they're religious or someone who identifies as atheist?

Key points:

3000 people in 13 secular and highly religious countries across five continents surveyed

Even atheists tended to think non-believers were more likely to commit immoral acts

Results did not suggest atheists actually commit evil acts any more than believers

The answer it appears, according a study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, is that even though we live in an age of terrorism and religious conflict, people are almost twice as likely to believe atheists are responsible for "extreme moral violations".

Researchers surveyed more than 3,000 people in 13 countries across five continents, covering both secular and highly religious parts of the world.

Which means even fellow atheists tended to believe that non-believers were more likely to commit immoral acts.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/is-a-serial-killer-more-likely-to-be-religious-or-atheist/8784826

 

2016

 

A new study suggests including religion in campaign speeches feeds a belief that those who are religious to some extent are trustworthy and viewed more favorably. The study was conducted by Scott Clifford of the University of Houston Department of Political Science and Ben Gaskins of Lewis & Clark College.

"Their religious identification reflects a powerful, widespread, but often subtle and unconscious bias in American society against those who do not believe in God," Clifford said. The researchers note that there has been only one openly atheist congressman (Pete Stark, D-California), who lost in 2012.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160105134058.htm

 

2012

Though the bias may be entirely unfounded, atheists in the United States rank among the most distrusted and disliked groups in survey results, as reported by Scientific American in 2012.

https://www.seeker.com/theists-vs-atheists-whos-better-off-1767702500.html

 

more comment on the first example

 

Most people around the world, whether religious or not, presume that serial killers are more likely to be atheists than believers in any god, suggests a new study, which counters the common assumption that increasingly secular societies are equally tolerant of nonbelievers. Avowed atheists exhibited the same bias in judging sadistic criminals, the study found.

The new report, appearing in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, included more than 3,000 people in 13 countries, both secular states like the Netherlands and Finland, and deeply religious ones like the United Arab Emirates and India. The findings suggest that, despite declining attendance at churches, mosques and temples in many communities, the cultural tenet that religion is a bulwark against immorality remains intact, experts said, even in those who deny it explicitly.

Previous studies had found evidence of broad-based public suspicion of nonbelievers in smaller samples within religious countries, like the United States. The new survey suggests the findings may extend globally, and it finds that the same kinds of suspicion pervade even highly secular societies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/health/atheists-religion-study.html

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

it's been proven for years that, around the world,

But doesn't seem to hold any weight on this forum, as my very un-scientific poll illustrates.

But you go on believing what you want old chum. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

But doesn't seem to hold any weight on this forum, as my very un-scientific poll illustrates.

But you go on believing what you want old chum. :D

lol I guess that says a lot for the biases and prejudices of some members, that they refuse to accept  global research showing that theists are not trusted as much as theists. Are you seriously arguing you think all these academic experts  are getting it wrong?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

But doesn't seem to hold any weight on this forum, as my very un-scientific poll illustrates.

But you go on believing what you want old chum. :D

A really classic case of how some peoples' beliefs override any factual knowledge available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.