Why I hate religion

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why I hate religion

I posted this on a few sites I am on:

People who see my posts often ask why I hate religion. here is why:

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Religion in the hands of men

Religion in the hands of men can be a terrible thing...

But, as far as the first picture goes... It's a bit of hard reality.

Second one, the kind of people that would silence or kill you because you don't believe the way they do are evil....

Third one, I don't think that guy has read that verse... He ought to read John 3:16, and realize that God doesn't hate anyone. Sin itself is what God hates. (a little knowledge can be dangerous...)

Fourth one? Hitler was no Christian by any stretch of the word(many people say he was an atheist, many say he was Christian... Nobody wants him on their team...). In fact, if you read Matthew 7:15-23, it say pretty plainly that people that profess the name of God, yet do evil are not to be trusted or believed. How do you tell who someone is? By what they do, not what they say.

And for the fifth, again I must say, religion in the hands of man can do terrible things. And again, I must stress that you know people by their deeds, and killing was against the rules, if I remember correctly...

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hitler was a Catholic. He

Hitler was a Catholic. He spoke of continuing the work Jesus started when he talked about the persecution of Jews.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And as to the first one, I

And as to the first one, I wouldn't consider acting like a cluster of cells is a person "hard reality." I would call it ridiculous and very irrational.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Hitler was

MattShizzle wrote:
Hitler was a Catholic. He spoke of continuing the work Jesus started when he talked about the persecution of Jews.

One can be sincere, but be sincerely wrong...

Hitler was not Catholic, even thought he said he was.

MattShizzle wrote:
And as to the first one, I wouldn't consider acting like a cluster of cells is a person "hard reality." I would call it ridiculous and very irrational.

That cluster of cells, if left to develop, becomes a functional human being. If one wants to argue when something becomes a life, one could also argue the validity of an adult's life. Then murder becomes arguable and justifiable.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
With this line of thinking I

With this line of thinking I could say that "you are not a christian even though you say you are."

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:With this

Randalllord wrote:
With this line of thinking I could say that "you are not a christian even though you say you are."

yes, but what authority on the matter would you have? Like I have said before, men are known by their deeds and it's quite obvious that Hitler was nothing like Christ. Jesus never proclaimed racial or religious cleansing.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
trevorus wrote:Religion in

trevorus wrote:
Religion in the hands of men can be a terrible thing...

Agreed.

Quote:

Third one, I don't think that guy has read that verse... He ought to read John 3:16, and realize that God doesn't hate anyone.

I'm sure he'd have some counter verses to prove you wrong.

Quote:

Fourth one? Hitler was no Christian by any stretch of the word(many people say he was an atheist, many say he was Christian... Nobody wants him on their team...).

Unfortunately, the real issue is not Hitler's religious views, but how he was able to call upon the pre-existent hatred of the jews from christians.

Ever hear of Martin Luther?

Luther's Racism

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."
This is a man held to be a moral authority?! Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph
Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's 'On the Jews and Their Lies'.

Both Luther's friends and his foes criticized him for proposing these measures. His best friends begged him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises. He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature: that Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing eucharistic hosts; they poised wells. As usual, he did not allow facts to deter him from his emotionally driven lies.

Luther now thought what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523: Jews were dogs. "We are at fault for not slaying them!" he fumed shortly before his death.

Whether Hitler accepted jesus as the christ is moot - what matters is that he was calling upon christian hatred of the jews.

Hitler didn't invent the concept of religious hatred and persection of jews.

That was around long before him.

Hitler didn't invent the idea of pogroms

Hitler didn't even invent the basics of the final solution.

Christians did.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Again, I see broad

Again, I see broad generalizations. That's what most atheists stand on in their arguments...

Ever hear of the fact that Ghandi hated black people? Yeah, it's true. So what?

But does that mean that everyone that likes Ghandi hates black people? Or that they even knew about Ghandi's racist tendencies? No.

I don't support the hating of anyone, because it's wrong. Just because a "Christian" does it does not make it right. Anyone that would force views on someone, or force that person to have to hide their views is evil. Anyone that hates people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation is wrong. I don't care who you are. I don't hate atheists, or Jews, or Muslims, or people from Asia, Africa, Europe...

But then don't generalize that everyone doesn't hate these groups...

I seem to see a blame Christians viewpoint coming from you... And so be it. But people do evil things, they just use religion as an excuse. THAT is the problem, not Christianity.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Again, I see broad

Quote:
Again, I see broad generalizations. That's what most atheists stand on in their arguments...
you're trying to make a generalisastion about how most atheists argue. in reality, there is a very broad range of arguments


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Apokalipse

Apokalipse wrote:
Quote:
Again, I see broad generalizations. That's what most atheists stand on in their arguments...
you're trying to make a generalisastion about how most atheists argue. in reality, there is a very broad range of arguments

Good circular reasoning. I said most. That speaks to my experience, and has not proven otherwise debating with you. Not all argue like that, though. If I said "all," that's a broad generalization. But I didn't.

So, come on. You can do better than that!

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


AntiFaith
AntiFaith's picture
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote:trevorus: But people

Quote:
trevorus:
But people do evil things, they just use religion as an excuse. THAT is the problem, not Christianity.

It is not a good thing that the bible condones or advocates or is incoherent about certain things.

The bible should not be Gods book. "God says" will always be unpredictable in whether or not we get good or evil results.

This is because God belief and holy books are irrational. Also people who look to twist or cherry pick the bible for their own evil agenda are trying to prey on peoples ignorance and irrationality to gain support and elimate resistence. If God can not help us ALL in EVERY case understand his God breathed book then the bible should not be used at all on Faith. Churches should never be any kind of authority either so as to avoid manipulation of ignorannce and irrationality. Only through reasoning and evidences should we decide what is good and what is not good. But Christianity is against this as Christians are to LIVE by FAITH. If they have Faith in thier understanding of Gods book, but are wrong, how will they be brought to reason if they have Faith? It gets worse when other "Christians" share the same prejudices held by Faith.

Quote:
todangst:
Unfortunately, the real issue is not Hitler's religious views, but how he was able to call upon the pre-existent hatred of the jews from christians.

trevorus. Why don't you re-read todangst post and try to understand what he said.

Quote:
Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in? - Brad Stine

Some of us as theists were offended by God first (bible), before we became atheists. Also, it is reasonable to be offended by a story that millions believe is not only the truth, but a way to live. In this one case Brad Stine has no interest in understanding people or defending theism in an honest fashion. Tu quoque. It is ok that theism is irrational so long as theists try to demonstrate that atheists are irrational too?

BTW:
What advice/help does the bible give to a mother who is beaten by her husband in front of her child? The bible is where "God says"


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
trevorus wrote:But people do

trevorus wrote:
But people do evil things, they just use religion as an excuse. THAT is the problem, not Christianity.

When the holy book of that religion, the word of the Christian God condones evil things then yes the problem is Christianity. Shall I be forced to once again pull out Rook's laundry list? It's posted elsewhere in this forum, however, because I am such a nice guy and often hate searching myself...here you go.

Each of following are punishable by death by command of the Christian God:

(a) striking your father or mother (Ex.21:15);
(b) kidnapping (Ex. 21:6 RSV);
(c) cursing your father or mother (Ex. 21:17 RSV, Lev. 20:9);
(d) touching a mountain (Ex. 19:12 RSV);
(e) allowing your ox to gore someone (Ex. 21:29);
(f) lying with a beast (Ex. 22:19) RSV, Lev. 20:15-16);
(g) sacrificing to other gods (Ex. 22:20 RSV);
(h) failing to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15);
(i) drinking strong drinks while in the tabernacle (Lev. 10:9);
(j) committing adultery (Lev. 20:10 RSV, Deut. 22:22);
(k) lying with your father's wife (Lev. 20:11 RSV);
(l) lying with your daughter-in-law (Lev. 20:12 RSV);
(m) committing homosexual acts (Lev. 20:13 RSV);
(n) being a medium or a wizard (Lev. 20:27 RSV);
(o) being a witch (Ex. 22:18);
(p) being a priest's daughter and becoming a whore (Lev. 21:9 RSV);
(q) Blaspheming the name of the Lord (Lev. 24:16);
cursing (Lev. 24:14 RSV);
(s) coming near the priesthood (Num. 3:10);
(t) being a stranger who comes near the congregation's tabernacle (Num. 3:8);
(u) gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-35);
(v) serving or worshipping other gods (Deut. 17:2-5 RSV);
(w) showing contempt for the Lord's priest or judge (Deut. 17:12 NIV);
(x) failing to obey one's parents (Deut. 21:18-21);
(y) not being a virgin on your wedding day (Deut. 22:20-21 NIV);
(z) being a betrothed virgin who did not cry out when seduced (Deut. 22:23-24);
(aa) having relations with your wife and her mother (Lev. 20:14);
(bb) telling people to seek other gods (Deut. 13:2,5); and
(cc) being a false prophet (Deut. 18:20).

Quote:
Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in? - Brad Stine

AntiFaith responded very nicely to this, however, I wish to throw my two cents regarding your signature. I'll keep it short.

We are not offended by God, we are offended by the people who blindly worship a being that does not exist. Hell, even this is not completely true. I am not offended by the typical theist, I only wish to help them. I am offended by the people who use their belief in an invisible man in the clouds to justify their hate and evil actions towards other human beings.

So, let me say this to Brad Stine: Fuck you.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:We are not offended by

Quote:
We are not offended by God, we are offended by the people who blindly worship a being that does not exist. Hell, even this is not completely true. I am not offended by the typical theist, I only wish to help them. I am offended by the people who use their belief in an invisible man in the clouds to justify their hate and evil actions towards other human beings.

i do not particularly appreciate the sentiment that all who worship any god do so blindly. i appreciate your willingness to help, but i would have to ask if religion were to entirely dissapear, would a despot be unable to achieve the same ends through other means?

there are some of us out here who have really put a lot of thought and consideration into this and still believe in god. i am not stupid, i am not irrational, and i am not unreasonable. but, i am a 'theist'. i do believe that god is a notable construct in universal truth. i do believe in god. i would not necessarily disagree with the statement that god 'does not exist', per se, but i dont particularly see that being a problem. this is, i am aware an 'irrational thought' or 'without scientific proof' or something. i could not possibly care less.

ive said it before: science and logic cannot see everything. categorization, empirical testing, logic: go human attempt at objective perspective. we have some great tools, and more and more amazing discoveries are made alll the time. this should continue unhindered. (should be unhindered. whatever. except nasa. fuck nasa. id rather keep billions of dollars on the earth, thankyouverymuch.)

but, on an experiential level, given some of the more amazing things to have been found about our world (space-time, extra dimensions, uniform background radiation) when compared to my actual physical experience...im just not satisfied with science's reasoning. much like i see newtonian physics compared against relativity theory. i feel this is a particularly apt analogy, since even relativity does not sit so well under the planck constant.

i would also not disagree with a strong sentiment against the institutions which would usurp such a construct to their own ends, however it may happen such a scenario takes place. god knows its happened enough times and ways already.

for the record, i am a christian, tho i do not follow an established denomination beyond the one i made up (the preeventuexisterminists). god is not the least bit upset with me for this.

i do believe in the bible as a philosophical document: ironies inconsistencies and all the rest. life is full of these things. its a strange document, to be sure, and not one to be simply understood on its writings or its employ through history (tho these are certainly to be considered for any hope of understanding). i am not asking that you believe it, or read it, or not continue to point out the inconsistencies, or whatever. you should do what you think is right to do and quite obviously you know this. i am only trying to impress my thought that the bible is too much a caricature of nature and things to quip at and understand. not to claim i understand it. it confuses the heck out of me.

i appreciate science, i just havent reached exactly the same conclusions you have about god in light of personal experience and my understanding of philosophy.

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Again, I must

Again, I must state...

People that hate anyone based on religion, race, sexual orientation... whatever. It's not the Christianity I know and practice. Again, you all are making generalizations that Christianity condones such things... The one thing that stands out most in the Bible is the verse that says: above all else, the greatest commandment is love. Love God, and your fellow man. Because when you love your fellow man, you don't want to see him fall, or be hurt. It's the malice in this world for people who are different that fuel ALL of this.

BTW, the little laws and such that you pointed out from the OT were meant for the Jews back in that time. It's a much different time now. I take that as a history lesson, more than anything else.

To respond to GodStoleMyFriends... About my sig, I stand firm on it. Apparently he got to you. That is the point. mission accomplished.

Quote:
We are not offended by God, we are offended by the people who blindly worship a being that does not exist. Hell, even this is not completely true. I am not offended by the typical theist, I only wish to help them. I am offended by the people who use their belief in an invisible man in the clouds to justify their hate and evil actions towards other human beings.

I am offended by people that blindy follow a doctrine manufactured by men who think that they speak for God when the only man who truly ever knew the will of God was Jesus. Even Jesus himself said, (I paraphrase) Read it, study it, find the truth. Because when you do, I'll be there. If that's not what you found, and you're satisfied with what you've found, then that is your path. I'm not making you take any other. What I am trying to do is tell you that the hate you accuse of supposed "Christians" is the same you shout against others (apparently in an attempt to help them realize how you hold absolute truth).

I'll agree with you that I am offended by those who say they represent God and Christianity, yet spout hate on people who see things differently. I grew up in a fundamental church that said I was backslidden for having an earring. So, I KNOW ALL ABOUT IT!

Listen, I know I cannot convince you that God exists, cares about you, or anything like that. But just quit with the hate rhetoric. You sound the same as a jihadist who wants to kill someone who doesn't believe. Except you want to destroy the foundation of someone's life, just because you don't agree with it. I've not seen ANY atheist provide evidence that God does not exist. It's a belief, just as I believe in God.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
averyv wrote:i do not

averyv wrote:
i do not particularly appreciate the sentiment that all who worship any god do so blindly. i appreciate your willingness to help, but i would have to ask if religion were to entirely dissapear, would a despot be unable to achieve the same ends through other means?

First of all, you believe in a being that not evidence supports the existence of. Let's look at the definition of belief. I take this from dictionary.com:

be‧lief  /bɪˈlif/ –noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

You are accepting that your God exists without truth. You believe that he exists no matter what evidence is presented against the existence of your God. Therefore, you have a blind belief in your God.

Let's take the 4th definition of blind from dictionary.com

blind [blahynd]-adj.
4.not having or based on reason or intelligence; absolute and unquestioning: She had blind faith in his fidelity.

There are too many definitions to post them all here when I needed only one to prove my point, you can find the rest here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blind&x=0&y=0

As for your second question, of course a tyrant can find other means of murdering his people. That is not the point Matt was trying to make. He is saying that because so many of done evil in the name of religion he hates it. I can name a few horrible examples:

-the Crusades
-the Inquisition
-Salem Witch Trials
-the persecution of the Jews throughout history, including Hitler's concentration camps
-the 9/11 attacks

Now, anything that condones such horrible acts is not good. I don't want to hear "Well, those people weren't really religious...they just didn't horrible things in the name of religion." Tell them that. The terrorist attacked the WTC and killed thousands because they believed they would rewarded by Allah for killing the infidels. They did it because of their religion. They did it because they believe in their god just as much as you believe in yours. And just as blindly.

Quote:
there are some of us out here who have really put a lot of thought and consideration into this and still believe in god. i am not stupid, i am not irrational, and i am not unreasonable. but, i am a 'theist'. i do believe that god is a notable construct in universal truth. i do believe in god. i would not necessarily disagree with the statement that god 'does not exist', per se, but i dont particularly see that being a problem. this is, i am aware an 'irrational thought' or 'without scientific proof' or something. i could not possibly care less.

If you believe in something without proof, you are irrational. As I stated above, there is no evidence supporting the existence of God, but there is evidence supporting his non-existence. You can think about your belief all you want, if you still believe it without any proof, you are a blind believer.

Quote:
ive said it before: science and logic cannot see everything. categorization, empirical testing, logic: go human attempt at objective perspective. we have some great tools, and more and more amazing discoveries are made alll the time. this should continue unhindered. (should be unhindered. whatever. except nasa. fuck nasa. id rather keep billions of dollars on the earth, thankyouverymuch.)

Give examples of what science and logic cannot see.

As for NASA, I think NASA is very important to understanding the Universe we live and I wish for them to continue getting those billions of dollars to do so. Get rid of religion and use the millions it takes to build those damn mega churches to help feed those who are starving or are in dire need of money.

Quote:
but, on an experiential level, given some of the more amazing things to have been found about our world (space-time, extra dimensions, uniform background radiation) when compared to my actual physical experience...im just not satisfied with science's reasoning. much like i see newtonian physics compared against relativity theory. i feel this is a particularly apt analogy, since even relativity does not sit so well under the planck constant.

I assume these are the examples I asked for above. However, science and logic can "see" all of these. So, I'm still waiting for a few examples of something natural that science and logic cannot "see".

Quote:
i would also not disagree with a strong sentiment against the institutions which would usurp such a construct to their own ends, however it may happen such a scenario takes place. god knows its happened enough times and ways already.

I'm somewhat confused at what you are trying to say here. I understand that you are against institutions that does things to satisfy their own means. Hey! You are against religion. Smiling

Quote:
for the record, i am a christian, tho i do not follow an established denomination beyond the one i made up (the preeventuexisterminists). god is not the least bit upset with me for this.

How do you know God is not upset? Give me proof that you have not angered God and I will believe in him and accept this statement.

Quote:
i do believe in the bible as a philosophical document: ironies inconsistencies and all the rest. life is full of these things. its a strange document, to be sure, and not one to be simply understood on its writings or its employ through history (tho these are certainly to be considered for any hope of understanding). i am not asking that you believe it, or read it, or not continue to point out the inconsistencies, or whatever. you should do what you think is right to do and quite obviously you know this. i am only trying to impress my thought that the bible is too much a caricature of nature and things to quip at and understand. not to claim i understand it. it confuses the heck out of me.

I have not read the entire bible, though I plan to soon. However, I do know that it is meant to be the literal word of God and your entire religion is based upon it. If there is something wrong in the bible, a contradiction or an immoral command, your relgion crumbles. The bible is full of such things and therefore your religion is nothing but a lie that persists because of a lie.

Quote:
i appreciate science, i just havent reached exactly the same conclusions you have about god in light of personal experience and my understanding of philosophy.

What personal experineces and philosophical understandings brought you to blindly believe in God? From what I gathered in this post you are barely holding onto your beliefs whether you know it yourself or not. However, if I am wrong and you are holding on to them as strongly as ever, then I must say you are lying to yourself.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
trevorus wrote:Again, I must

trevorus wrote:
Again, I must state...

People that hate anyone based on religion, race, sexual orientation... whatever. It's not the Christianity I know and practice. Again, you all are making generalizations that Christianity condones such things... The one thing that stands out most in the Bible is the verse that says: above all else, the greatest commandment is love. Love God, and your fellow man. Because when you love your fellow man, you don't want to see him fall, or be hurt. It's the malice in this world for people who are different that fuel ALL of this.

Christianity does condone such things whether you like it or not. It's in your Bible, which is supposedly the literal word of God whether you like it or not. Your entire religion is based on what the Bible says and it tells you to stone those to death who break insignificant commands from a cruel and jealous deity.

Yes, it does preach love as well. However, it also preaches hate. Anything that preaches hate, no matter how much love it also teaches...is evil.

The KKK teaches it's memebers to love their fellow whiteman, but to hate those of another race.

Quote:
BTW, the little laws and such that you pointed out from the OT were meant for the Jews back in that time. It's a much different time now. I take that as a history lesson, more than anything else.

I'm sorry, but this statement falls apart because in your religion God is all knowing. If he knew those who worship him would use the Bible in the future to do evil things when these laws were only meant for the Jews of that time...then why put them in the book in which his religion is founded upon? This is his literal word. His word is meant as a guide on how to worship him correctly. And even if what you say is true. Why worship a God who condones such evil. To stone a child to death simply because they disobey their parents?

Quote:
To respond to GodStoleMyFriends... About my sig, I stand firm on it. Apparently he got to you. That is the point. mission accomplished.

Don't be so sure. It did not get to me at all, I responded to it because it's a lie and I do not appreciate lies. So no, mission not accomplished. I'm sorry to wipe the smirk off your face, buddy.

Quote:
I am offended by people that blindy follow a doctrine manufactured by men who think that they speak for God when the only man who truly ever knew the will of God was Jesus. Even Jesus himself said, (I paraphrase) Read it, study it, find the truth. Because when you do, I'll be there. If that's not what you found, and you're satisfied with what you've found, then that is your path. I'm not making you take any other. What I am trying to do is tell you that the hate you accuse of supposed "Christians" is the same you shout against others (apparently in an attempt to help them realize how you hold absolute truth).

First of all, big strawman here. We here at the RRS do not try to convince others that we hold absolute truth. Most of us here are agnostic atheists. This means that we have a lack of belief in a god or gods because we have no evidence supporting that a God exists. However, this also means that we are open to the possibility of a god or gods and are willing to accept their existence once we have empirical evidence supporting those claims.

Our mission is to help other realize that belief in a god or gods in which no evidence supports the existence of (furthermore, evidence such as the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, is proof of non-existence)is irrational.

Secondly, as I stated above, the Bible is meant to be the literal word of God given to man by God himself. This book is what your religion is founded upon, if you believe that it was written by men who only thought they spoke for God, then your religion crumbles.

Also, I am not saying the statement you gave that was supposedly made by Jesus does not exist, however, please give the exact location of him saying this in the Bible.

Quote:
I'll agree with you that I am offended by those who say they represent God and Christianity, yet spout hate on people who see things differently. I grew up in a fundamental church that said I was backslidden for having an earring. So, I KNOW ALL ABOUT IT!

Good. Then how can you continue to blindly worship a God who condones such hate? You are one of the Christians who does not believe in taking the Bible literally, correct? However, the Bible is the supposed Word of God, to cherry pick what you like out of it is to cherrypick the word of your God. This is also just a method used to try and whitewash a religion with a very brutal and evil history.

You are not offended by the evil the Bible condones nor it's use as a means to justify hate and evil because you are Christian. You are offended because you are a moral, good human being. Something I am also and I am an atheist. Morality exists without Christianity and it always has. In Christianity morality is a means of ass kissing , one is good only so that they may win eternal salvation. The morality in the Bible, the word of God, is warped.

Quote:
Listen, I know I cannot convince you that God exists, cares about you, or anything like that. But just quit with the hate rhetoric. You sound the same as a jihadist who wants to kill someone who doesn't believe. Except you want to destroy the foundation of someone's life, just because you don't agree with it. I've not seen ANY atheist provide evidence that God does not exist. It's a belief, just as I believe in God.

What? Are you saying that I sound like I want to kill people who are not atheist? I take offense at that. You've also set up a big strawman here.

Listen, I do not wish to "destroy the foundation in which someones life is built upon." I do not wish to destory anything. I wish to show people that it is irrational to believe in a god or gods in which no evidence exists. I wish to show people that their Holy Bible, the word of their god contradicts itself. I want people to realize that the God of the old testemant is a cruel, petty, and jeaous deity who is, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "proud of it."

Which brings me to this: In saying that I want to "destroy the foundation of one's life", you are saying that it is impossible for them to live any other way. I live without a god in my life and I am perfectly happy. I am able to deal with the problems in life I am presented with without the need of a religious crutch.

The burden of proof is not on us, my friend, it is on you and every single theist in this world. As the late and great Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I forgot to respond

Sorry, I forgot to respond to your last statement. It was a rough night, lol.

Quote:
It's a belief, just as I believe in God.

You don't understand atheism. To be an atheist means this, to have a lack of belief in a god or gods. I do not "believe" a god does not exists, I and other atheists have a "lack of belief."

Also, most atheists here are agnostic atheists. We do not claim,"There is absolutely no God." Agnostic atheists are open to the possibility of a god or gods, but will not accept their existence until empirical evidence is made available to support such claims.

Finally, every member of every other religion in the world believes in their respective god or gods just as much as you believe in yours, however, you have a lack in belief regarding their god or gods. You are an atheist regarding the existence Zeus, however, in the past people were as sure of his existence as you are of your God now.

What makes these people wrong and you right? You say you have faith, well...so do they. You say you know your God is the one true God, well...so do they.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:First of all, you

Quote:
First of all, you believe in a being that not evidence supports the existence of.

im just going to quote myself from the original

Quote:
i would not necessarily disagree with the statement that god 'does not exist', per se, but i dont particularly see that being a problem.

god is pure concept. he exists insofar as he must to be god just by us having this conversation. 'whats the difference between god and the easter bunny?' has been the typical, and very clever, next question. 'the easter bunny has to carry a basket.' has been and continues to be my very obvious answer.

Quote:
You are accepting that your God exists without truth. You believe that he exists no matter what evidence is presented against the existence of your God. Therefore, you have a blind belief in your God.

well, then provide a case that god is not and i will be more than happy to listen. note that i do not mean 'provide a case that shows you cannot prove god exists', as i am already aware that this is true. i take your statement to say that you can show me that there is no god. please do. i would love to see it.

Quote:
He is saying that because so many of done evil in the name of religion he hates it. I can name a few horrible examples

and because so many have done evil in the name of government i hate it. but then i take a step back and realize it is the institutions not the concept that i hate, and then i actually have something to work toward (and against), rather than arbitrarily fighting a concept that wont ever go away.

Quote:
I assume these are the examples I asked for above. However, science and logic can "see" all of these. So, I'm still waiting for a few examples of something natural that science and logic cannot "see".

substitute 'see' for 'understand' or 'grok'. i personally like 'grok', because it implies a deeper understanding. science is not philosophy, and it will never take the place. but, if you would like a short list of things science doesnt know:

the velocity and location of an elementary particle, how exactly water turns to ice, explanation of the mind/body duality, and who i had a crush on in the fourth grade.

more importantly, science doesnt know objective reality. science assumes objective reality and then makes measurement alongside it. it is an arbitrary but thankful mapping, not absolute truth.

Quote:
I understand that you are against institutions that does things to satisfy their own means. Hey! You are against religion.

the actions of a religious institutions is not 'religion'. this is a horriblle oversimplification and misuse of terms. i am against manditory standardized knowledged. i am against the usurping of individual consciousness and belief for the purpose of an overarching body. this is not 'religion' that i have described. it is institution, and the grievances i have noted can be (and often are) satisfied by government and education (not to mention science) as much as religion. none of these things should go away. all of them should be understood in personal terms and not set in the middle of mass society.

Quote:
How do you know God is not upset? Give me proof that you have not angered God and I will believe in him and accept this statement.

i asked him and he told me. i meditated, prayed about it, thought about what i was doing, considered why i was doing it, placed my intentions within my belief of his will and moved forward. its totally arbitrary, of course, but, in my opinion, a useful construct against which to base myself when dealing with experience

i am not interested in proving anything to you. i am not concerned what you think about what i believe, and neither am i concerned with what you do take as truth. what does concern me is your belief that you are obviously infallibly correct. im sorry for questioning the True Wise Body of Science. im sure that it is complete, fully correct, and the measure by which every individual should view subjective reality. in every facet. always. but no...no. that was all sarcasm. see, actually, every individual should view subjective reality as they view it, and every other should leave them the hell alone about it. maybe then we could stop fighting, admit that no one actually knows, and just move on.

Quote:
I have not read the entire bible, though I plan to soon. However, I do know that it is meant to be the literal word of God and your entire religion is based upon it. If there is something wrong in the bible, a contradiction or an immoral command, your relgion crumbles. The bible is full of such things and therefore your religion is nothing but a lie that persists because of a lie.

well, obviously you know what youre talking about way more than i do, so i probably shouldnt question it, but is it possible that what you said just isnt true? like, let me give you a for instance:

Quote:
a contradiction or an immoral command, your relgion crumbles.

just false. i mean, totally false. it has tons of contradictions, and it has not crumbled yet. and what is the lie, exactly? maybe you are referring to a speculation about something you cannot prove one way or the other. which is pretty much what evangelical christians do. ill admit its a little cuter when you do it.

Quote:
What personal experineces and philosophical understandings brought you to blindly believe in God?

ok, i will accept your statement about my believing in god blindly if you will grant me that my (fake, but blind) aunt has absolutely no problem getting around her house. you seem to imply that if you close your eyes youll never end up anywhere worthwhile. i both disagree with this sentiment and the thought that i closed my eyes to arrive at my conclusions. i do not blindly believe in god, and you could pull out webster if youd like, some arbitrary definition of the word 'belief' is not going to make me agree with your inapropriate use of the word 'blind'.

my experiences around individuals of faith, the arbitrary way in which mathematics loosely maps to reality, the time arrow, the hbar, spacetime, and schizophrenics all lead to my belief of the being of god, though again i would like to point out that im not particularly concerned about his literal existence. it is immaterial. take that statement however you like.

as to philosophy: my opinions on eventualism (pre and otherwise) when juxtaposed with basic existence and the seemingly obvious truths of determinism which just break down on the more basic levels of reality (and consciousness) lead me to believe in universal direction (hence preeventuexisterminism). esp when viewed against the historical and natural historical progression of 'truth' and the constant sentiment that 'I so totally know what I am talking about because I have [religion, science, government, the masses, etc] on my side'. and then the funniest part is that no one does have a clue, but that doesnt stop everyone from insisting that I AM RIGHT!! its annoying, and getting old.

Quote:
From what I gathered in this post you are barely holding onto your beliefs whether you know it yourself or not. However, if I am wrong and you are holding on to them as strongly as ever, then I must say you are lying to yourself.

i believe in my beliefs as strongly as i believe in existence, which varies day by day, but has stayed above zero so far. i am not lying to myself. i might be 'wrong', but so might you, so i see no reason to go getting all personal about it. you dont know any more than i do. god does not need to be apparent in absolutely any way to satisfy my conception. by this conversation alone we have affirmed the existence of god as far as i have defined it, as god is concept, however inaccurate our imaginations may be.

Quote:
You are accepting that your God exists without truth.

a lot of things that get said around here seem to imply to me that y'all have a pretty tight strangle on objective reality. you know where to find truth? show me. please. id love to see it.

i believe that god is a useful construct in light of the human experience. i think that it is true insofar as we are here, whether or not it is universally true is impossible to determine.

now, you state that

Quote:
As for NASA, I think NASA is very important to understanding the Universe we live and I wish for them to continue getting those billions of dollars to do so. Get rid of religion and use the millions it takes to build those damn mega churches to help feed those who are starving or are in dire need of money.

here we have a question of "who's is it" on our hands.

nasa (who also doesnt deserve to be capitalized) is owned by the public. churches are privately owned, though get public aid. there are aspecs of what is given from public funds to churches that should be corrected, and all of it should be questioned, but i believe that the implications of that would be essentially one of 'holy war' in the eyes of the 'true believers'if you didn't run the reasoning all the way across the board (and, lets face it, probably even if you do). that is to say, that an organization does believe in god should not discredit him from public funds any more than it entitles. private matters are exactly that, and society should have very little to say about them.

furthermore, while i too am annoyed at so-called 'mega churches', they have every right to be built. i know that the church i grew up in raised the money to do it themselves, without public funding. it would be quite fascist indeed to state that these people could not do that. not to imply that you are that or were saying that, only that such a thing would be a horrendous mistake, setting a precident with unimaginable consequences.

as to the poor and needy, i know not what to say. unfortunate, but not unexpected given the political and social climate of the present. there are probably much better targets than religion for public funding, i think (im thinking of a 5 sided building. it is also, unless i am mistaken, the heading of nasa). though i agree that a secular society is much better than non. this is to state that believing or not believing should not be of any affect to any other individual, rather than continually asserting that one particular way is the One True Way that all should think.

so give me a case against faith. show me objective truth. i would like explanations for the existence of the universe, being sure to explain the resting states at the beginning and end (or the workings of aperpetual motion universe), as well as uniform background radiation and the workings and requirements for generating such values for gravity andother physical constructs (weak and strong forces, etc) that our universe even holds. i would also like an explanation for the advent of the first single cell life, increasing complexity of life in light of entropy, and a detailed discussion on the experience of conscioussness, the origins of language, and if you could offer resolution to the mind/body duality problem, i have been curious for a while.

http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
"That cluster of cells, if

"That cluster of cells, if left to develop, becomes a functional human being. If one wants to argue when something becomes a life, one could also argue the validity of an adult's life. Then murder becomes arguable and justifiable."

By that logic, not having sex any time a woman could possibly get pregnant is also wrong. The whole pro life movement is extrememly irrational.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:"That

MattShizzle wrote:
"That cluster of cells, if left to develop, becomes a functional human being. If one wants to argue when something becomes a life, one could also argue the validity of an adult's life. Then murder becomes arguable and justifiable."

By that logic, not having sex any time a woman could possibly get pregnant is also wrong. The whole pro life movement is extrememly irrational.

Where did you get that argument? That has nothing to do with that issue.

My view on pro-life is that you and you alone are responsible for yourself. Your choice was made when you had sex. Now stand up like an adult and take care of the life that was created. If you can't do that, then maybe it's not such a bad thing that they don't want to reproduce...

If only abortion sterilized people... (getting rid of stupid DNA)

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Every time a woman can

Every time a woman can become pregnant, that egg has the potential to become fertilized.

Oh yeah, personal responsibility. The mantra of every right wing nutcase. Cursing Man

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
averyv wrote: so give me a

averyv wrote:

so give me a case against faith.

I am not GodStoleMyFriends, but I too have a case against faith, so I shall present it for you.

When a child contracts a potentially lethal bacterial infection, do you let a physician treat him with antibiotics or do you instead make a sacrifice to Apollo?

When polio threatens to cripple children by the thousands, do you organize a global vaccination campaign using the latest medical science or do you, like Islamic clerics in Nigeria, use your authority to convince parents that vaccinations are a Western plot against Moslems?

When you want to travel from one continent to another, do you hop on an airliner whose design is made possible by modern physics, or do you prefer to swim?

When a bunch of Danes draw some cartoons depicting a 7th-century warlord, do you laugh heartily or do you go on a murderous rampage?

When your spouse falls ill, do you take her to the hospital or do you burn your neighbour on the stake for the sin of witchcraft?

When someone tells you that God hates a particular nation, do you try to talk sense into that person or do you take his word for it, travel to that country and fly an airliner into the nearest office building?

Clearly in order to act morally we must possess not only good intentions but also good information. It is only rational inquiry that can give us that information. Or do you know of any religion that has advanced our understanding of the natural world? Christianity, as I am sure you know, has been a great hindrance to the progress of human knowledge.

averyv wrote:
show me objective truth. i would like explanations for the existence of the universe, being sure to explain the resting states at the beginning and end (or the workings of aperpetual motion universe), as well as uniform background radiation and the workings and requirements for generating such values for gravity andother physical constructs (weak and strong forces, etc) that our universe even holds. i would also like an explanation for the advent of the first single cell life, increasing complexity of life in light of entropy, and a detailed discussion on the experience of conscioussness, the origins of language, and if you could offer resolution to the mind/body duality problem, i have been curious for a while.

I would also like these questions answered. However, I do not see the connection between them and making a case against faith. Are you perhaps under the false impression that in order not to believe in gods one must believe to know everything about the universe? That is certainly not the case. A freethinker is not someone who has all the answers but someone who is looking for the answers.


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Averyv, I'm just letting you

Averyv, I'm just letting you know I shall respond to your post soon. Possibly tonight, but most likely tomorrow. I just returned from a horrible trip to the denist and I know if I try responding to you now I may come off as if I am angry at you.

Let's just say the moron denist left me alone for too long and my numb mouth began to wake up as he was drilling.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


FreeThoughtMake...
Superfan
FreeThoughtMakesMeTingle's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
hmmmm

Ah yes those are very good reasons....the born-agains that came to my school showed us plenty of photo-shopped abortion pics *sighs*

MattShizzle wrote:
I posted this on a few sites I am on:

People who see my posts often ask why I hate religion. here is why:

Quote:
Religion at BEST - is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better - fine. But you don't need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled.

---George Carlin---


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
your 'cases against faith'

your 'cases against faith' are more questions of how you should act than what you should have faith in. im not swimming the ocean, that says nothing to my belief in god.

Quote:
I would also like these questions answered. However, I do not see the connection between them and making a case against faith. Are you perhaps under the false impression that in order not to believe in gods one must believe to know everything about the universe? That is certainly not the case. A freethinker is not someone who has all the answers but someone who is looking for the answers.

i happen to see the conglomerate of those questions pointing to god. thats all. you dont have to agree. i too am looking for the answers, however, at this moment i happen to believe that god is a part of them. my paragraph of questioning is more to state that it is reasonable to view these oddities of nature from more than one perspective.

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
ouch. that is no fun. feel

ouch. that is no fun. feel better. im looking forward to the responseSmiling


trevorus
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I forgot to mention that the

I forgot to mention that the holocaust picture you posted is ironic. Those people were Jewish. They believed in God. Most of the survivors that are alive today, and even the ones who aren't would have, or would say that God delivered them through those horrible circumstances. It's interesting that you don't make mention of that...

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:well, then provide a

Quote:
well, then provide a case that god is not and i will be more than happy to listen. note that i do not mean 'provide a case that shows you cannot prove god exists', as i am already aware that this is true. i take your statement to say that you can show me that there is no god. please do. i would love to see it.

As I always say, the burden of truth is on you. Before I answer I also must say as an agnostic atheist I do not claim to know there are no god or god's in existence. In fact, the only God I know for sure does not exist is the christian God that is told of in the Bible.

I know this because of the contradictions in the bible in regards to science and the Bible itself. For example, in the Bible it states that God created the world in 6 days and then rested upon the 7th (Gen. 1:1-31 NRSV), however, we now know that this is not true thanks to the Big Bang Theory. Also, the Bible states that the Earth is only thousands of years old (I can't recall the exact verse, a little help Rook?) when we know it to be billions of years old through science.

There are many more examples, but I think those are enough to prove my point.

Now, the bible is supposedly the word of God. This God is supposed to be perfect and all knowing and yet in his word there are many, many errors. As a perfect God making errors is an impossibility, therefore, any rational person would come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible does not exist.

I'm by no means an expert on the Bible, so I'm sure Rook could expand on these contradictions or you could just check out his Bible Errancy forum.

Quote:
and because so many have done evil in the name of government i hate it. but then i take a step back and realize it is the institutions not the concept that i hate, and then i actually have something to work toward (and against), rather than arbitrarily fighting a concept that wont ever go away.

Government is necessary, religion is not. A society cannot function correctly without some form of gov't to keept order. However, I believe with all my heart that if religion no longer existed on this planet we would be a whole lot better off.

There are so many things religion hinders. We are having trouble with something a trivial as two people of the same sex getting married. This is something I call a "non-issue." This is not something we should be fighting over. Let them get married and move on.

It is because of religion, specifically the anti-homosexual portions of the Christian Bible, that is keeping us from moving on in regards to this non-issue.

Quote:
substitute 'see' for 'understand' or 'grok'. i personally like 'grok', because it implies a deeper understanding. science is not philosophy, and it will never take the place. but, if you would like a short list of things science doesnt know:

the velocity and location of an elementary particle, how exactly water turns to ice, explanation of the mind/body duality, and who i had a crush on in the fourth grade.

more importantly, science doesnt know objective reality. science assumes objective reality and then makes measurement alongside it. it is an arbitrary but thankful mapping, not absolute truth.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a scientist. I would say I do know quite a bit about science for the average person, but only in certain areas. So, until someone with more scientific knowledge comes along, I'll give you this one Eye-wink.

Now, if it was regarding film history...Smiling

Quote:
the actions of a religious institutions is not 'religion'. this is a horriblle oversimplification and misuse of terms. i am against manditory standardized knowledged. i am against the usurping of individual consciousness and belief for the purpose of an overarching body. this is not 'religion' that i have described. it is institution, and the grievances i have noted can be (and often are) satisfied by government and education (not to mention science) as much as religion. none of these things should go away. all of them should be understood in personal terms and not set in the middle of mass society.

I see what you mean. However, it was not an insitution that bombed the World Trade Center. The terrorist were deeply religious individuals who believed they would be rewarded by Allah if they killed thousands of infidels.

Also, it's not only institutions that hate. Individual people who are religious hate homosexuals, have accused people of withcraft, and have murdered all in the name of God.

I know a girl who is very religious, but she is also a very wonderful person who I consider a very close friend. However, because she is religious she is against homosexual marriage. That is wrong and religion is responsible.

Quote:
i asked him and he told me. i meditated, prayed about it, thought about what i was doing, considered why i was doing it, placed my intentions within my belief of his will and moved forward. its totally arbitrary, of course, but, in my opinion, a useful construct against which to base myself when dealing with experience

i am not interested in proving anything to you. i am not concerned what you think about what i believe, and neither am i concerned with what you do take as truth. what does concern me is your belief that you are obviously infallibly correct. im sorry for questioning the True Wise Body of Science. im sure that it is complete, fully correct, and the measure by which every individual should view subjective reality. in every facet. always. but no...no. that was all sarcasm. see, actually, every individual should view subjective reality as they view it, and every other should leave them the hell alone about it. maybe then we could stop fighting, admit that no one actually knows, and just move on.

I'll leave this at as you stated, you not being able to prove this to me and therefore me not accepting this as evidence. I leave here because I must admit I respect you a lot and I refuse to attack you personally.

Quote:
just false. i mean, totally false. it has tons of contradictions, and it has not crumbled yet. and what is the lie, exactly? maybe you are referring to a speculation about something you cannot prove one way or the other. which is pretty much what evangelical christians do. ill admit its a little cuter when you do it.

You misunderstood what I meant by "it crumbles". I'm not saying it crumbles by everyone automatically stopping to believe it. I meant it personally crumbled for me once I learned of these vast contradictions. Also, many Christians state that if contradictions are found in the Bible their faith will crumble. Finally, the Bible is supposedly the perfect word of a perfect God. Contradictions are an error in the text and as I stated above, errors are an impossibility for a perfect God. Therefore, the Bible crumbles as the word of God.

Quote:
ok, i will accept your statement about my believing in god blindly if you will grant me that my (fake, but blind) aunt has absolutely no problem getting around her house. you seem to imply that if you close your eyes youll never end up anywhere worthwhile. i both disagree with this sentiment and the thought that i closed my eyes to arrive at my conclusions. i do not blindly believe in god, and you could pull out webster if youd like, some arbitrary definition of the word 'belief' is not going to make me agree with your inapropriate use of the word 'blind'.

my experiences around individuals of faith, the arbitrary way in which mathematics loosely maps to reality, the time arrow, the hbar, spacetime, and schizophrenics all lead to my belief of the being of god, though again i would like to point out that im not particularly concerned about his literal existence. it is immaterial. take that statement however you like.

as to philosophy: my opinions on eventualism (pre and otherwise) when juxtaposed with basic existence and the seemingly obvious truths of determinism which just break down on the more basic levels of reality (and consciousness) lead me to believe in universal direction (hence preeventuexisterminism). esp when viewed against the historical and natural historical progression of 'truth' and the constant sentiment that 'I so totally know what I am talking about because I have [religion, science, government, the masses, etc] on my side'. and then the funniest part is that no one does have a clue, but that doesnt stop everyone from insisting that I AM RIGHT!! its annoying, and getting old.

First of all, my use of the word blind was not inapropriate. You are accepting something that you have no evidence of and as the definition from dictionary.com states, you have blind faith.

I think I see what you mean by your second paragraph. As long as you don't believe there is some giant white male in the sky passing judgement on all of mankind. Smiling

Once again, the only thing I know for sure in regards to religion, is the God of The Holy Bible. The God that is the center of Christianity does not exist. Other than that, I really don't shout I am right about anything else.

Quote:
i believe in my beliefs as strongly as i believe in existence, which varies day by day, but has stayed above zero so far. i am not lying to myself. i might be 'wrong', but so might you, so i see no reason to go getting all personal about it. you dont know any more than i do. god does not need to be apparent in absolutely any way to satisfy my conception. by this conversation alone we have affirmed the existence of god as far as i have defined it, as god is concept, however inaccurate our imaginations may be.

You are right, as far as us talking about him the concept of God does exist. That is not what I am fighting agaisnt. As a member of the RRS I am against the blind faith that theists have in the literal existence of God. They have no proof in his literal existence and science is slowly closing in on what they claim he has done. Therefore, holding onto the belief that the God of the Bible exists is irrational.

Quote:
a lot of things that get said around here seem to imply to me that y'all have a pretty tight strangle on objective reality. you know where to find truth? show me. please. id love to see it.

i believe that god is a useful construct in light of the human experience. i think that it is true insofar as we are here, whether or not it is universally true is impossible to determine.

now, you state that

The only means us humans have of finding truth is science. Why? Because science has the ability to change. If one theory is proven wrong, then science moves on and leaves it in the dust. This is the best chance mankind has in revealing the truth of the Universe around us. Religion is not self-correcting. If something is stated in the Bible then it is fact, there is no room for debate. That is not how you find truth. You find truth when you accept errors and move on.

For example, the theory of evolution has held up for over one hundred years because no one has been able to prove it wrong. Therefore, we have been able to accept evolution as fact.

However, in the Bible it states that God created the Earth and all living things upon it. You can't test that. You can't prove that wrong in the confines of religion. You have to accept it as truth no matter what, even if as we now know, it is not true.

So, science is the only way mankind can even attempt to find all that is true about the cosmos.

Quote:
here we have a question of "who's is it" on our hands.

nasa (who also doesnt deserve to be capitalized) is owned by the public. churches are privately owned, though get public aid. there are aspecs of what is given from public funds to churches that should be corrected, and all of it should be questioned, but i believe that the implications of that would be essentially one of 'holy war' in the eyes of the 'true believers'if you didn't run the reasoning all the way across the board (and, lets face it, probably even if you do). that is to say, that an organization does believe in god should not discredit him from public funds any more than it entitles. private matters are exactly that, and society should have very little to say about them.

furthermore, while i too am annoyed at so-called 'mega churches', they have every right to be built. i know that the church i grew up in raised the money to do it themselves, without public funding. it would be quite fascist indeed to state that these people could not do that. not to imply that you are that or were saying that, only that such a thing would be a horrendous mistake, setting a precident with unimaginable consequences.

as to the poor and needy, i know not what to say. unfortunate, but not unexpected given the political and social climate of the present. there are probably much better targets than religion for public funding, i think (im thinking of a 5 sided building. it is also, unless i am mistaken, the heading of nasa). though i agree that a secular society is much better than non. this is to state that believing or not believing should not be of any affect to any other individual, rather than continually asserting that one particular way is the One True Way that all should think.

so give me a case against faith. show me objective truth. i would like explanations for the existence of the universe, being sure to explain the resting states at the beginning and end (or the workings of aperpetual motion universe), as well as uniform background radiation and the workings and requirements for generating such values for gravity andother physical constructs (weak and strong forces, etc) that our universe even holds. i would also like an explanation for the advent of the first single cell life, increasing complexity of life in light of entropy, and a detailed discussion on the experience of conscioussness, the origins of language, and if you could offer resolution to the mind/body duality problem, i have been curious for a while.

I have given my case for NASA and I don't think I need to repeat myself.

Regarding to the rest of your post, it is a strawman. I have never stated anywhere that I know everything. I will be the first to admit that I do not.

All I know in regards to what religion says about the creation of the Universe is that the God of the Christian Bible did not do it. I also believe it is unlikely any other god or gods had any hand in this, though I could be wrong.

As far as what I accept regarding creation? The Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution is all that I am slightly familiar with. Beyond that at this point in time I am not ashamed to admit that I do not know.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
averyv wrote:your 'cases

averyv wrote:
your 'cases against faith' are more questions of how you should act than what you should have faith in.

Certainly not. Our actions are to a great extent based on our beliefs, and my examples reflect this. The seemingly irrational actions of a believer make perfect sense given his beliefs. Flying airliners into office buildings is a brilliant idea if (and only if) you believe it to be a fast track to paradise!

Quote:
i happen to see the conglomerate of those questions pointing to god. thats all. you dont have to agree.

A belief only makes sense if it allows its holder to predict events in the natural universe with greater accurancy that he could without it. (Do we agree this far?) What predictions does belief in a god allow you to make that you would not be able to make without that belief?

Quote:
i too am looking for the answers, however, at this moment i happen to believe that god is a part of them.

I am happy to hear that you are looking for answers.

Quote:
my paragraph of questioning is more to state that it is reasonable to view these oddities of nature from more than one perspective.

Could you be more specific? Which perspective(s) are you referring to?


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As I always say, the

Quote:
As I always say, the burden of truth is on you. Before I answer I also must say as an agnostic atheist I do not claim to know there are no god or god's in existence. In fact, the only God I know for sure does not exist is the christian God that is told of in the Bible.

i certainly understand the root of this perspective. i agree with you wholeheartedly that the god directly shown by the christian bible is not reconcileable with measurable reality. however,

Quote:
i do believe in the bible as a philosophical document: ironies inconsistencies and all the rest. life is full of these things. its a strange document, to be sure, and not one to be simply understood on its writings or its employ through history (tho these are certainly to be considered for any hope of understanding).

the point of the bible is description far more than accuracy. a historical warning, anectdotal record, and philisophical base all rolled into one. the god of the bible that many have issue with, in my view, is a representation of power. it is a very complicated subject, but i do not view too simply. remember that ineffability is central to the god construct.

Quote:
Now, the bible is supposedly the word of God. This God is supposed to be perfect and all knowing and yet in his word there are many, many errors. As a perfect God making errors is an impossibility, therefore, any rational person would come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible does not exist.

even in this i say that the so-called 'errors' in the bible are purposeful strokes intended to offer historical (pre and post) perspective. to quote from earlier

Quote:
i am only trying to impress my thought that the bible is too much a caricature of nature and things to quip at and understand. not to claim i understand it. it confuses the heck out of me.

in any event, i do not disagree with your assertions, only that i do not agree that you have illustrated the most correct way to view the document. i do, though, agree with your assertions (in the largest part) given typical conversation on the topic.

Quote:
For example, in the Bible it states that God created the world in 6 days and then rested upon the 7th (Gen. 1:1-31 NRSV), however, we now know that this is not true thanks to the Big Bang Theory.

on this, however, i have a thought which may better illustrate my stance on biblical perspective. a 'day' is a period of 'time'. this is not a quantity to be put in such concrete terms as a 'yard', as gravitation and universal placement have a good deal to say about how long something appears to take. in short, the perspective of the observer would skew a great deal the apparent amount of time taken for any of those actions. in this way, i find these passages to be ironically accurate given the nature of things and at the same time oddly telling of what the reader of the book will be in for. things are not as they seem, and truth is a matter of perception against objective reality.

Quote:
There are so many things religion hinders. We are having trouble with something a trivial as two people of the same sex getting married. This is something I call a "non-issue." This is not something we should be fighting over. Let them get married and move on.

i believe strongly in a secular society. government has no place in marraige, and a church may marry who they like. as i have said before, if a church does not want to marry a gay couple, im sure the gay couple would rather find another place to be married anyhow. the problem is not viewpoint. the problem is overarching viewpoint.

i also call these things 'non-issue's. i think that is a very good description.

Quote:
I meant it personally crumbled for me once I learned of these vast contradictions. Also, many Christians state that if contradictions are found in the Bible their faith will crumble. Finally, the Bible is supposedly the perfect word of a perfect God. Contradictions are an error in the text and as I stated above, errors are an impossibility for a perfect God. Therefore, the Bible crumbles as the word of God.

the only of these statements i would ever attempt to disagree with is that inconsistency in the bible is equatable to error. again i say, as i believe, inconsistency in reality is a fine explanation for inconsistency in the bible. it is, in my opinion and very personal conception, meta. meta is a big thing for me. however, it would be condescending of me to say that you are free to take whatever you like from those texts, tho the concept is one that i agree with.

Quote:
First of all, my use of the word blind was not inapropriate. You are accepting something that you have no evidence of and as the definition from dictionary.com states, you have blind faith.

the word blind indicates that you know with which sense to gather evidence. i personally find experience worthwhile evidence on the experiential level, though others may shy away from such things in hopes of a 'more objective perspective'. however, our concept of objective is not universally accurate, and simply doesnt understand quite a few base specifics about natural reality.

and so i will concede the word 'blind' if you literally mean 'with eyes only'. if you mean 'without sense' (i am using in terms of the senses we experience, you may take however), then i have to disagree. i used sense, sensibility, reason, and experience to arrive at my conclusions. my eyes were a piece, but my time is more the evidence. i am human, of course.

Quote:
I think I see what you mean by your second paragraph. As long as you don't believe there is some giant white male in the sky passing judgement on all of mankind. Smiling

i really struggle with what to call it in conversation. God is super charged, so i try to stick with god. but that offends some people, so i just dont capitalize anything. i went with g-d for a while, but i associate that with judaism. g-dbeing, i think, is a nice description. __, i think, serves equally well. He, of course, is a 'he'. just kidding. isnt language fun?

as far as judgement goes i have no interest in speculating on what 'god' 'does' with 'his' 'time'. words are inadequate to express what that might even mean, and so i see no sense in attempting to categorize it.

as a side note, i feel that our culture is really bad at delimiting the individual, and by extention very bad at delimiting comonality. male and female are nice enough for a lot of situations, but i think a personal neutral pronoun would really help. (not 'it'. 'it' is so thatthingoverthere...)

Quote:
As a member of the RRS I am against the blind faith that theists have in the literal existence of God.

i am arguing that we have exceptionally little information about literal existence and what that means. there are lots of dimensions out there. lots of things we dont understand or get and plenty we probably dont even know about. there is plenty of room for god. his actual being is up for grabs. i personally think its there. others disagree. this is fine, but it is not so obvious.

Quote:
However, in the Bible it states that God created the Earth and all living things upon it. You can't test that. You can't prove that wrong in the confines of religion. You have to accept it as truth no matter what, even if as we now know, it is not true.

you cant test that. you can, perhaps, retrace the steps of how it happened. this i am all for, if youd like to pay for it. im not particularly interested, as i think there are much better things to worry about presently, but your investment is not my concern. however, until the theory of everything is proposed and proves me wrong, i hold belief to be a reasonable aspect of experience.

if you had re-stated that 'it is not testable' where you asserted 'it is not true', i would have just agreed. your claim of 'no matter what', however, i feel is unfounded.

i believe it to be true that there is a god based on my experience and my knowledge and understanding of the nature of being. this is based on basic understanding of modern theoretical physics, specifically string/m-theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics. the math is over my head, tho the writing is well within the grasp of almost anyone. however, i say again, there are many facets of actual reality that we simply do not grasp. there is plenty of room for universal direction.

Quote:
So, science is the only way mankind can even attempt to find all that is true about the cosmos.

i feel that philosophy is a much better route to truth than science. truth is not a facet of scientific discovery. science is a nice tool to describe mechanics and predict phenomenon. logic is a good tool to aid in deterministic reasoning, but neither are a tool with which to explain truth from the perspective of an experience. both may aid in aspects of experience, and should certainly be employed as they have obvious merit. though i also feel that respect to ultimate power is due. (excuse the phrase, i couldnt come up with anything else)

science is the only way mankind can even attempt to find all that is fact about the cosmos, on the other hand, is a statement i would not quarrel with.

before the end of this unbearably long post, i would like to comment on

Quote:
I'll leave this at as you stated, you not being able to prove this to me and therefore me not accepting this as evidence. I leave here because I must admit I respect you a lot and I refuse to attack you personally.

i appreciate this, and likewise appreciate and respect you as well as the fact that this is a freethought message board. i am not agreed with here, necessarily, but i am not met with sensless opposition either. opposition, i have no problem with. of course i realize where i amSmiling this is nice, and a conversational relationship that i do not find to be impossible by any means, even on a massive scale (though i still contend that the concept of the 'massive scale' is what is causing the problem in the first place)

Quote:
Regarding to the rest of your post, it is a strawman. I have never stated anywhere that I know everything. I will be the first to admit that I do not.

All I know in regards to what religion says about the creation of the Universe is that the God of the Christian Bible did not do it. I also believe it is unlikely any other god or gods had any hand in this, though I could be wrong.

As far as what I accept regarding creation? The Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution is all that I am slightly familiar with. Beyond that at this point in time I am not ashamed to admit that I do not know.

i am aware you dont think you know everything. you seem like a sensible enough person, and that would be a pretty crazy thing to think. however, this is a good deal of my point (and a point i feel we share in large part). we just really dont know.

however, i personally believe in god. hidden in the details, holding together nothing in the 13th dimension. the hbar, the time arrow, and possible perspective all together is something. i cant explain it, but i think it is communicative.

big bang, i agree, abiogenesis, mmmm...maybe physically accurate from our 4d perspective? i have no faith in it after that. evolution i have no issue with. it says nothing about god.

sorry so long. in reference to the necessity of government, it exists but should be kept minimal and therefore popularly controllable. the same should be said of any institution, in my opinion.

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:A belief only makes

Quote:
A belief only makes sense if it allows its holder to predict events in the natural universe with greater accurancy that he could without it. (Do we agree this far?)

no...i dont find prediction to be a benefit of any philosophy ive found. unless youre talking about ball falling or a planet moving or soething, and these thinsg are not that interesting to me. belief is for explanation, not prediction.

Quote:
What predictions does belief in a god allow you to make that you would not be able to make without that belief?

none, though it does help me to understand my place. a great many schools of philosophy help me to determine my action. i dont have much ability to predict the future. but, historical study seems to be a fairly reasonable way to find out whats going to happen next.

Quote:
Could you be more specific? Which perspective(s) are you referring to?

unimaginable ones that involve more and less dimensions than our sorry asses could have hope to survive in.

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
averyv wrote:Kemono wrote:A

averyv wrote:
Kemono wrote:
A belief only makes sense if it allows its holder to predict events in the natural universe with greater accurancy that he could without it. (Do we agree this far?)

no...i dont find prediction to be a benefit of any philosophy ive found. unless youre talking about ball falling or a planet moving or soething, and these thinsg are not that interesting to me. belief is for explanation, not prediction.

I am sure you see the problem with this. If a belief predicts nothing, it is unfalsifiable. We have no way of telling whether it is true. Indeed, it can in no meaningful sense be true (or false), as no method can ever be devised to determine its veracity.

What satisfaction is there in holding such a belief? What use is an explanation that is completely arbitrary? How does one choose between the myriad spurious "explanations" that can be concocted for any phenomenon and most importantly, how can one be happy with one's choice, knowing it is no more true than any of the others?

averyv wrote:
Kemono wrote:
What predictions does belief in a god allow you to make that you would not be able to make without that belief?

none, though it does help me to understand my place.

How does it do that? How does "god did it" help? Is the understanding different from the one you would gain from the equally "true" belief that a Cosmic Roast Beef Sandwich is the explanation for most phenomena in the universe and an Invisible Cup of Coffee for the rest?

averyv wrote:
Kemono wrote:
Could you be more specific? Which perspective(s) are you referring to?

unimaginable ones that involve more and less dimensions than our sorry asses could have hope to survive in.

How do you propose we approach the phenomena you listed from these perspectives? And what is our purpose in doing so?


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I feel I only need to

I feel I only need to respond to a few of these. The reason is that now that I've learned more about your beliefs I really don't have an issue with them. Now, I do not mean I agree with them. However, you are also on a quest for truth, your means of doing so may be slightly different from mine but our goal is still the same. With that said:

Quote:
the point of the bible is description far more than accuracy. a historical warning, anectdotal record, and philisophical base all rolled into one. the god of the bible that many have issue with, in my view, is a representation of power. it is a very complicated subject, but i do not view too simply. remember that ineffability is central to the god construct.

I see what you mean. However, the Bible is meant to be taken literally. You personally (I'm sure there are other as well)choose not to take it this way and that's fine. I personally believe it's a load of bullshit and not true at all. The problem is there are people who do take it literally and use it to justify their evil beliefs and deeds. Therefore, I have a huge problem with the Bible. It's full of racism, hate, pointless murder, and rape.

Quote:
the only of these statements i would ever attempt to disagree with is that inconsistency in the bible is equatable to error. again i say, as i believe, inconsistency in reality is a fine explanation for inconsistency in the bible. it is, in my opinion and very personal conception, meta. meta is a big thing for me. however, it would be condescending of me to say that you are free to take whatever you like from those texts, tho the concept is one that i agree with.

All I was saying here is that if there are errors in the Bible it crumbles as the perfect word of God. You only disagree with me because you view the Bible differently. However, like I said above there are people who do not feel the same way about it as you and I was referring to their beliefs regarding the Bible when I made each of those statements.

Quote:
if you had re-stated that 'it is not testable' where you asserted 'it is not true', i would have just agreed. your claim of 'no matter what', however, i feel is unfounded.

In the narrowminded reality of organized religion my use of the phrase "no matter what" is very true. Once again it may not be so with you as you are not necessarily a part of any of the mainstream orgranized religions. However, within Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. there is no room for discussion regarding the existence of a literal God, his creation of the Universe, and all living things in it. Some may attempt to argue otherwise, but in each religions true form there are no questions, only the Word of God.

Quote:
i feel that philosophy is a much better route to truth than science. truth is not a facet of scientific discovery. science is a nice tool to describe mechanics and predict phenomenon. logic is a good tool to aid in deterministic reasoning, but neither are a tool with which to explain truth from the perspective of an experience. both may aid in aspects of experience, and should certainly be employed as they have obvious merit. though i also feel that respect to ultimate power is due. (excuse the phrase, i couldnt come up with anything else)

science is the only way mankind can even attempt to find all that is fact about the cosmos, on the other hand, is a statement i would not quarrel with.

I agree and I'm sure many others here will also. Philosophy is a very important tool in finding the truth. I was wrong to not include it and say that science is the only tool mankind has.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The reason is that now

Quote:
The reason is that now that I've learned more about your beliefs I really don't have an issue with them. Now, I do not mean I agree with them. However, you are also on a quest for truth, your means of doing so may be slightly different from mine but our goal is still the same.

aye. but i wonder what we do about it. i feel that the three most significant problems of the day are institution, scope, and power (and that they are allowed to stay through greed, pride, arrogance, and general malaise). their issue is in proper limitation (or definition and employ, in the case of scope). however, i feel that so many typical discussions are inherently based around a disagreement (that doesnt actually exist), and this creates a dialogue toward change to be nearly impossible. anyway, on with the post.

Quote:
the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

i would feel much better if we could say 'the bible is supposed to be taken literally', and then we can explain that 'supposed' does not mean 'meant' or 'is purposed to', but rather that many suppose that the bible is to be taken literally. whether this is true or not is totally in the air, no matter what what church or howevermanypeople want to say.

Quote:
The problem is there are people who do take it literally and use it to justify their evil beliefs and deeds.

yes, this is a huge problem. and i will certainly agree that the negative effects of powerful organized religion are great, many, and far reaching. something should be done about them. what should be done is an interesting question, but not one that i believe needs include the abolition of a belief.

Quote:
Therefore, I have a huge problem with the Bible. It's full of racism, hate, pointless murder, and rape.

i can certainly understand your stance on the thing, but so is life. these things are disturbing aspects of reality, and their representation in the bible takes me by little surprise.

Quote:
In the narrowminded reality of organized religion my use of the phrase "no matter what" is very true. Once again it may not be so with you as you are not necessarily a part of any of the mainstream orgranized religions. However, within Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. there is no room for discussion regarding the existence of a literal God, his creation of the Universe, and all living things in it. Some may attempt to argue otherwise, but in each religions true form there are no questions, only the Word of God.

true, true, true, and oh how annoying/frightening/disturbing.... have you seen the stuff on jesus camp? craziness!

either that we're all humans, and we're just hashing it out amongst ourselves in the intereim, attempting to enjoy existence for the moment, or that we are all children of god just trying to hash it out amonst ourselves in the interim and enjoying existence for the moment. but there arent many other options than that. and even those options dont inherently indicate a problem. interpretation of that scenario, on the other hand, is pretty messed up.

but this is an issue with a direct root, and one that is purveyed through a belief in god, though not caused by it. institution is, in my opinion, the issue. and specifically institution with a mind toward dominance. institution with a mind toward simple learning is not problematic inherently (tho this can quickly turn to indoctrination). items should be addressed to their scope, keeping what is left to the individual left to the individual, and seperating your community from the 'nation' and the 'world' and other 'cultures' and so on and so on. scope. scope is important. scope is a concept that is greatly misconstrued and has horrible implementation. terrible.

at any rate, yes, we happily agree to disagree..and i find t he discussion enjoyable (i hope you do as well). i hope we can show more widely that such a thing is possible.

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
CHRISTIANITY STARTED OUT IN

CHRISTIANITY STARTED OUT IN PALESTINE AS A FELLOWSHIP
IT MOVED TO GREECE AND BECAME A PHILOSOPHY
IT MOVED TO ITALY AND BECAME AN INSTITUTION
IT MOVED TO EUROPE AND BECAME CULTURE

IT CAME TO AMERICA AND BECAME A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
-SAM PASCOE, AMERICAN SCHOLAR

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
aiya...no need to yell. all

aiya...no need to yell.
all this becomming makes ya think these things are set solid in their temporal states.

not that i would disagree with any of it from a historical perspective. im not sure how it refutes...or relates to... me?

i never said any group of them do it right.
i never said i do it right.
its an idea. execution left to the practitioner. groupings left to individuals. leadership left to groups. allegiance left to individual.

and it is anything but business enterprise to me. there are many other things it is also not, but it is certainly not business.

and i wonder, does that mean you hate business enterprise? maybe its the word 'jesus' you hate. maybe its me. do you hate me, todangst? you did request throwing me off a building.

when it were a fellowship, would it have been a problem for you? would you have run them out of town for having a story amongst friends?

who should be blamed for its original rise from fellowship to philosophy? philosophy to institution? was christianity just the godsend needed to give rise to authoritarian government? or do you think they would have figgered that out anyway? what aspects of the philosophy make it uniquely unwelcome?

do you think christianity, as it became all of these other things, maintained aspects of the previous iterations? are traces of the previous packages noticable in the successive, ultimately current, package? can i apt-get install christianity? do you know of a mirror that has the older version?

is it christianity's fault that america reduces culture into business enterprise? am i to be chided for not continuing the tradition? who is the enemy here? how do you feel about your father?

all in all i think this has been a productive conversation. you, shouting an irrelevant quote. me... well, anyway, ive enjoyed this. lets do it again sometime.

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hate religion as a

I hate religion as a movement. But living in a theistic world it is never practical to hate individuals, especially when they dont condone things like what you pictured. Guilt by association doesnt work either.

Magical fantastic claims are rampant in superstitious beliefs, be it Big Foot or vampires or religious claims such as donkeys talking or rivers of milk and wine in heaven.

A do agree that religion has caused more harm to humanity globaly than it claims to fix. But we cannot ourselves be so hatefull to go on an atheist Jehad ourselfs.

The best we can do as skeptics and freethinkers is to challenge people to think without a hand up their back in the form of a cleric, priest or rabbi. But humans will never agree on all issues all the time.

Your frustration and anger at global and political power grabs by religion is justified and the criticism must continue. But I do not want to see atheists become what they claim they are fighting.

I value free speech and am against blasphemy laws, but I'd hate to see the opression of theists in order to benifit those of other theism or even atheists.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't hate religious

I don't hate religious people (except certain ones as individuals), but I hate religion itself.


Steve-Ho
Steve-Ho's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-10-01
User is offlineOffline
i hate religion cause it

i hate religion cause it makes me sleep or think about other things. Religion is a bore... Drunk


averyv
averyv's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
User is offlineOffline
ill drink to that. don't

Drunk

ill drink to that. don't find it boring myself, but that is a fine reason if ever i heard one.


ChristianPunk
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Sad times...

I find it sad that Christianity has been given such a bad name by those who would twist it to their own ends.

I live in the so called American "BibleBelt", where you see a different church every three blocks. Yet, there are so many people that think they are "Christian" but dont really qualify...

As far as the old laws, Im sure you have heard it all before. The only way to back up what it says in the bible, however, is with the bible...

"5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Struggling With Sin
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b]" (Romans 7:5-7)

Beyond this argument, I must state that I too hate religion. The effects of such human ideas have created too much pain and hate within the world. Those so called Christians who believe that war and death is the way, I cannot accept as Christians. Their own Bible states "May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you." (Sam 24)

The most important thing in Christianity, the one that is overlooked the most, is quite simple. I am sorry that everyone has had such horrible representatives from the Christian sect. Next time you see one, you can ask them how they really call themselves what they are. ------

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

I do not judge anyone, from any faith (or the lack therof). It is simply not my job. I dont shove what I believe down anyone's throats either. If people see that I am Christian, I want them to see it in my actions, because actions do speak louder than words.

~ Kaida


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You can't be christian and

You can't be christian and punk, just had to let you know that.


ChristianPunk
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Why not? Where is that rule?

Why not? Where is that rule?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What about being atheist and

What about being atheist and a pimp?

CP, I am interested in what the lyrics you have in your signature refer to.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ChristianPunk wrote:Why not?

ChristianPunk wrote:
Why not? Where is that rule?

Because punk is rebelling against authority. Christianity is conforming to dogma.

I just wanted to add that it would be like saying you are Christian without Christ.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:What about

MattShizzle wrote:
What about being atheist and a pimp?

Haha (joking, right?)


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I agree. Keep christianity

I agree. Keep christianity out of my punk rock!!


ChristianPunk
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
The lyrics in my sig refer

The lyrics in my sig refer to a song my husbands's punk band wrote. As for being Christian and Punk, I am both. I rise up against the wrongs and the injustice, I protest Bush and his regime, I even started a chapter of the World Cant Wait in the middle of the "bible belt" where anything that is not baptist is evil. True Christians, who are few and far between, do not need to conform. That which is needed comes naturally to me...for example...taking care of my family and friends, helping those who need it, respecting views that do not coexist with my own, supporting others in their endeavors etc. The way I see it, Christ died so that we can all have the freedom to choose, thats what it says anyways.

Modern punk seems less about anarchy, and more about respecting each other and standing up for what is right...this is what Anti-Flag confered at Warped Tour anyways.

The point is this, hate is rampant today, and I just dont see any reason to breed that hate. I respect your views, and I can only hope for reciprocation. Im not here to force a set of beliefs and rituals on you, Im simply trying to say that there are Christians out there that have read that one little line that says not to judge others. In today's world, that is the most important thing that should be followed.

~CP~


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Well, I should be thankful

Well, I should be thankful it's not Christian death metal or Christian black metal, I guess.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
ChristianPunk wrote:True

ChristianPunk wrote:
True Christians, who are few and far between, do not need to conform. That which is needed comes naturally to me...for example...taking care of my family and friends, helping those who need it, respecting views that do not coexist with my own, supporting others in their endeavors etc. The way I see it, Christ died so that we can all have the freedom to choose, thats what it says anyways.

Problem. I would say that you would probably do those things without a 'christ' to be an example. Would I be correct? Doesn't the idea that a man had to be killed for you to be good seem a bit ridiculous?

Quote:
Modern punk seems less about anarchy, and more about respecting each other and standing up for what is right...this is what Anti-Flag confered at Warped Tour anyways.

In some realms of thought, that is considered anarchy. 'Standing up for what is right' isn't an exclusive endeavor for modern punk. The 'debates' between theism(specifically christianity) and atheism in this forum are people asserting their view of what is 'right' and 'wrong'.

You have affiliated yourself with christians. Thus you are endorsing the agendas presented by its leaders and other supporters. Picking and choosing the 'best' bible verses simply implies that you are using your own judgment and twisting it(the bible) to fit your personal ideological view of the world. That is also what those 'lesser christians' are doing that you say bother you so much. You seem to be choosing the nicer way that will still get you into paradise.

Quote:
The point is this, hate is rampant today, and I just dont see any reason to breed that hate. I respect your views, and I can only hope for reciprocation. Im not here to force a set of beliefs and rituals on you, Im simply trying to say that there are Christians out there that have read that one little line that says not to judge others. In today's world, that is the most important thing that should be followed.

~CP~

Likewise, we're not here to impose ANY belief structure upon you. Our 'hatred' for religion has come from repeated instances of unwanted religious superstition being slammed down upon us over the course of our lives. In theory, we have no choice BUT to speak out against not only the injustices of the past but the present as well. No one on this board expects you to relinquish your grip on the jesus myth. However, it seems that we would like for you to analyze our evidence before dismissing it off-handedly as just simple 'hate'.

We spend alot of time looking at religions for more reasons than just simple base hate. We want changes. We want theism to be relegated to its place far away from science, government, and power. It makes no sense for us to simply lie down and accept the flaws of religion. Complacency on the part of the 'non-judging' christians is what occurred when the travesties against humanity were being enacted by religion(specifically christianity in this thread).

I'm confident that if the christians not in favor of some of the practices of their ideology were to speak out then it would make a greater difference in getting the bad things changed. Yet you present to us that 'these were done by people that weren't true christians'? It isn't us that is causing them, it's the other way around while you attack us for being the way we are.
Honey, we was made to dislike religion. It took understanding those dislikes that caused us to hate it.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.