The "God is Imaginary" blog

[der Astronom]

Orly? Let's talk about the raging violence between Islam and Hinduism in India. And the resulting millions of deaths. When someone is in the religious majority or is ALMOST in the religious majority and wants to be, they generally tend to try to push it on people. I think Buddhism and Shintoism are probably exceptions. However, I would like to point out that in Japan, Christians were heavily persecuted in the past for...wait for it...not being part of the MAJORITY religion. It's not a surprise. People tend to get into a sort of mob mentality. Like I said, it's not just the Christians who are guilty of it.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Why do Christians get persecuted for not being part of the majority of religion? Read that again and tell me how that makes any sense at all. You don't persecute a religion because it's not more mainstream; you popularize it.

Regardless, there are many religions out there, and I highly doubt a few religions being a bit more aggressive means that every religious person wants to push their religious ideals onto everyone else. Besides the three big religions, I can't see where it says in any other holy text to convert others who don't believe in the same things that you do.

I think Catholicism is a little....hypocritical of divorce. They'll divorce you...but only if you pay them. That just seems strange. But I don't see what divorce has to do with happiness or anything having to do with this religious discussion. Marriage and love is too complicated a subject to try to dissect from a "this person is religious and this person isn't" type of viewpoint.

One can imply that if you have a divorce, it means that you're not happy living with the person you were with, and if you divorce several times, it must means you're not particularly happy being with a lot of people. Of course I realize that's only a part of it, but I'm not denying that it's relevant at all.

Well, I personally think it's a little condescending and arrogant of you to call religious people "deluded" but whatever. I definitely hate whenever religion is used against gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, or scientific fact. I've had heated arguments about all of those issues with people. I just am trying to say that not ALL Christians think gays/abortionists are going to hell. There are many reasonable and intelligent Christians. Also, there are also many people who feel a certain way, which is NOT religiously motivated, on those issues. I know some people who are against gay marriage, not because of religion, but just because of personal convictions. Same with abortion and stem cell research. And as much as I want to throw up on my keyboard for typing this, those people are allowed to have those opinions. Some people earnestly believe that abortion is equivalent to murdering an innocent child (although, I can tell you if abortion were ever made illegal, I'd march the street protesting....but I digress...) Just because they hold those viewpoint, it doesn't necessarily make them stupid or ignorant (with a few exceptions...specifically creationism vs evolution...). They just have differing morals and opinions from yours.

I never said anything against the people that choose to go against gay marriages, stem cell research or abortion for non religious reasons. All I said was that religion is a bad reason against those things, particularly because it has no rational basis, as you've already conceded in past debates.

But think of it this way. If you're going to buy whatever some contradictory, violent and nonsensical book says and not even question the validity of it, or if you do, but choose to pick out the parts you want to hear, then you must be pretty deluded.

 

[Erythritol]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Why do Christians get persecuted for not being part of the majority of religion? Read that again and tell me how that makes any sense at all. You don't persecute a religion because it's not more mainstream; you popularize it.

Uh, you want to argue with history? Be my guest. I think you'll find it a losing battle, though. What I described actually happened. Christians were persecuted by Shintoists for not being part of the majority religion (aka: Shinto). Oh, and also, "State Shinto" was used to rally the population towards the Japanese military actions in World War II. Hmm...using a religion....to promote violence and fighting?! Why persecute when the religion is in the minority? Why not ask the Romans? They did the same. I could give you a long list of people who persecuted Christians (or other religions) even though they were in the minority. People are easily threatened by strange, new things. I'd also like to point out that you're looking at the workings of people through a very ethnocentric lens. Western religious philosophy and reasons for persecution differ from those in the east. Eastern mindset and philosophies are different from ours.

Regardless, there are many religions out there, and I highly doubt a few religions being a bit more aggressive means that every religious person wants to push their religious ideals onto everyone else. Besides the three big religions, I can't see where it says in any other holy text to convert others who don't believe in the same things that you do.

By three major religions, I'm guessing you mean Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I can't really argue with that because I haven't really read any other religious texts other than the Bible and bits and pieces of the Quran. And yet, those religions that you say do not have violent holy texts are guilty of the same things at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism: persecuting others and pushing their beliefs on others. Hmmm. Perhaps...like I've been saying all along, it is the people who pervert the religion, and not the fault of the religious texts themselves. After all, Shinto isn't a violent religion by any means, and they persecuted others and pressured many to convert.

One can imply that if you have a divorce, it means that you're not happy living with the person you were with, and if you divorce several times, it must means you're not particularly happy being with a lot of people. Of course I realize that's only a part of it, but I'm not denying that it's relevant at all.

Divorce happens for many reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean you aren't happy with the person. And there are many people who aren't happy with their spouse who don't get divorced. But that's kind of irrelevant. Just like the subject of divorce in a religious discussion.

I never said anything against the people that choose to go against gay marriages, stem cell research or abortion for non religious reasons. All I said was that religion is a bad reason against those things, particularly because it has no rational basis, as you've already conceded in past debates.

To those who believe it, it has a rational basis. I bet some of your opinions are formed from different texts that you've read. Why are the texts you've read and borrowed ideas from any more valid than the Bible? All texts are riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Just because YOU say that basing morals off the Bible is illogical/irrational, it doesn't make it so. There is no universal or correct set of morals to which humans should adhere. It's all completely and utterly arbitrary. Tell me, why are your morals and beliefs more rational than those of people who use the Bible to justify what they do? For example: abortion. Many people who are prolife are also very religious and use the Bible as a moral guidelines. Why is your opinion more logical or rational than their opinion? I have a hint: it's not. The basis on which you've set your opinion is just as arbitrary. You can try to pull science out to support your view, but face it, you actually are terminating a potential life when you abort a pregnancy. Any doctor will tell you that.

But think of it this way. If you're going to buy whatever some contradictory, violent and nonsensical book says and not even question the validity of it, or if you do, but choose to pick out the parts you want to hear, then you must be pretty deluded.

You keep repeating the same thing about the Bible, over and over and over. It's getting repetitive. It's not really as nonsensical as you like to portray it. In fact, I get the feeling you haven't actually read much (if any) of it. That makes any comments of yours on the Bible completely irrelevant. Because one cannot write a book review for a book that one has not read.

 

[der Astronom]

Uh, you want to argue with history? Be my guest. I think you'll find it a losing battle, though. What I described actually happened. Christians were persecuted by Shintoists for not being part of the majority religion (aka: Shinto). Oh, and also, "State Shinto" was used to rally the population towards the Japanese military actions in World War II. Hmm...using a religion....to promote violence and fighting?! Why persecute when the religion is in the minority? Why not ask the Romans? They did the same. I could give you a long list of people who persecuted Christians (or other religions) even though they were in the minority. People are easily threatened by strange, new things. I'd also like to point out that you're looking at the workings of people through a very ethnocentric lens. Western religious philosophy and reasons for persecution differ from those in the east. Eastern mindset and philosophies are different from ours.

I'm just saying it would make more sense if they persecuted Christianity if they wanted to get rid of it, and if they wanted to make it a majority, then they'd have no reason to persecute people who believe in Christianity and not Shintoism. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case though because they don't have a very good impression of foreigners. It's still there today.

But whatever. People don't make any sense at all.

By three major religions, I'm guessing you mean Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I can't really argue with that because I haven't really read any other religious texts other than the Bible and bits and pieces of the Quran. And yet, those religions that you say do not have violent holy texts are guilty of the same things at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism: persecuting others and pushing their beliefs on others. Hmmm. Perhaps...like I've been saying all along, it is the people who pervert the religion, and not the fault of the religious texts themselves. After all, Shinto isn't a violent religion by any means, and they persecuted others and pressured many to convert.

The fact that certain religions have texts that tell people what to do makes it infinitely worse--at least it's not wrong to not convert others if you're from a different religion, but if you're not converting people and your religious text tells you to, then there's a problem with the religion. But one religion persecuting others without a text telling them to do so isn't really a big deal and won't prove your point. Because I already gave that example of Buddhism, and there are probably several other spirutual or naturalistic religions that don't do that to other people as well.

Divorce happens for many reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean you aren't happy with the person. And there are many people who aren't happy with their spouse who don't get divorced. But that's kind of irrelevant. Just like the subject of divorce in a religious discussion.

Certain religions say divorce is wrong, and yet, the people from these same religions have divorces, particularly at a rate higher than people from secular societies do.

But if you're going to say that divorce happens for many reasons, then I could say that people consider themselves "happy" for different reasons, but unlike divorce, the concept of happiness is just about as subjective as the concept of "good". Just because you're happy doesn't necessarily mean you live a "better" life. It's not up to anyone to judge whether or not religious people are "happier" than non religious people, nor should non religious people stop being non religious just because religious people are "happier" than they are.

In other words, I don't think much of the fact that a study, bar its accuracy, says religious people are happier than non religious people. I would think it's because people can't accept reality the way it is, harsh or not, and need or want some comfort from the unknown.

Are you going to start believing in creationism just because some study says the majority of Americans believe in it, and it's being taught in place of science? Hell no. Are you going to start believing you're depressed and need drugs just because some study says more and more people are becoming depressed? No. At least I know I wouldn't. Such studies, particularly ones from the media are too generalized to apply to every single person on this planet, and you can only know through common sense.

To those who believe it, it has a rational basis. I bet some of your opinions are formed from different texts that you've read. Why are the texts you've read and borrowed ideas from any more valid than the Bible? All texts are riddled with inconsistencies and flaws.

Actually, I don't base any of my morals off of any texts, holy or not. I base them off of the consequences and the probability of them happening. If any of the texts I've read happened to agree, it's a mutual thing. At the very least, if there was a contradiction or inconsistency, I'd be able to point it out. However, you've been missing out on something I've been saying all along, which is that the bible has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've read. Ever. And I never asked that any book have no flaws at all, only that there are few of them. Although that's probably because most of the books I read and ever cared about are math related, and are nearly clean from flaws--if they aren't, they'll write a better edition. But actually, that's a reason why certain books are more worthwhile. Because they are able to admit flaws when they've been made, and newer editions attempt to fix them. But no one ever attempts to fix the bible. It's remained just about as ridiculous (if not more so) as it ever was since it first appeared.

But do me a favor and read the Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, and try telling me it's riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Do that before you bother telling me that every text is riddled with inconsistencies and flaws again. I can tell you that it's been read by lots of people, and not even one of them to my knowledge was able to find a flaw in it.

Just because YOU say that basing morals off the Bible is illogical/irrational, it doesn't make it so. There is no universal or correct set of morals to which humans should adhere. It's all completely and utterly arbitrary. Tell me, why are your morals and beliefs more rational than those of people who use the Bible to justify what they do? For example: abortion. Many people who are prolife are also very religious and use the Bible as a moral guidelines. Why is your opinion more logical or rational than their opinion? I have a hint: it's not. The basis on which you've set your opinion is just as arbitrary. You can try to pull science out to support your view, but face it, you actually are terminating a potential life when you abort a pregnancy. Any doctor will tell you that.

My opinions are at least not based off of a book that has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've ever read. And finding books with fewer inconsistencies and contradictions isn't all that hard. There are such books before and after the bible. Although I would say you don't even need to base your opinions off of a book. The fact that you blindly follow a book without questioning whether or not it makes any sense doesn't sound particularly logical or rational at all. What do you think some abortion argument from religion looks like? That abortion is wrong just because some book says so? Well, why don't I ask some Neo-Nazi why they think all the Jews should be killed, and they'll probably say something like Mein Kampf. Does that make them right? Hell no.

As for the concept of terminating life, that would depend on at what stage the abortion happens, and this would also have to do with the controversy over when life is actually life--there are too many different views of when a fetus is considered living, and I doubt any scientist actually agrees with what it is. Furthermore, parents not having access to child support can't raise a child in a good environment--even if they could have child support, they might just make for bad parents. Would that really be a smart thing to do to allow children to grow up not having a good childhood? But I think this topic deserves a thread of its own because abortion was only an example of what I was explaining.

You keep repeating the same thing about the Bible, over and over and over. It's getting repetitive. It's not really as nonsensical as you like to portray it. In fact, I get the feeling you haven't actually read much (if any) of it. That makes any comments of yours on the Bible completely irrelevant. Because one cannot write a book review for a book that one has not read.

Sure I have. Only to fall asleep halfway through, and everytime I try to pick it up, the same thing happens. From which I can only conclude that it's not really all that great--why would anyone want to read a book or watch a movie who reads or watches it halfway through and find it so terrible and bad that they don't even want to see the rest of it because trying to read or watch through the rest of it would be like torture? In the interest of seeing how bad those things are without enduring oneself through anymore torture, there are websites, critiques and other books on these kinds of things in which you can learn more about the book or movie without having to torture yourself through it.

I don't particularly care if you don't think much of my interpretation of the bible just because I refuse to subject myself to more torture by reading it. But it is undeniable that a flat Earth is ridiculous, a 6000 year old Earth is ridiculous, the global flood is ridiculous, splitting the waters is ridiculous, the Garden of Eden is ridiculous, the earth-centered universe is ridiculous, a guy living in a whale and living is ridiculous, a physical heaven and hell directly "above" and "below" the Earth are ridiculous, a book written by some guy who pretends to be Moses who isn't actually Moses is ridiculous, and a book written by four guys who wrote about the same thing that don't say the same thing is ridiculous. I have never ever in my life ever read any other book that claimed such nonsense to be absolutely and absurdly as true as the bible--and quite stupidly and arrogantly without any evidence at all. You can deny this all you want, but there's absolutely nothing mathematical (ie, rational) whatsoever about the bible, and there's nothing in it that makes sense at all in it. You already admitted that religion isn't logical and is completely based on faith, so why you think opinions based off of it even have a rational basis is completely beyond me.

 

[Jordy]

Contradiction in the bible:
God loves all of his children equally...Homosexuality is a sin.
So never say god doesn't contradict himself.

Apparently God (in Joshua) stopped the sun which doesn't make sense because according to scientific proof the Earth revolves around the sun and if the Earth stopped (which would give the illusion of the sun stopping) we would burn up and fly into the sun.

 

[Erythritol]

I'm just saying it would make more sense if they persecuted Christianity if they wanted to get rid of it, and if they wanted to make it a majority, then they'd have no reason to persecute people who believe in Christianity and not Shintoism. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case though because they don't have a very good impression of foreigners. It's still there today.

But whatever. People don't make any sense at all.

Well, whether you want to label it rational or not, it happened. So accept it. I could give you a long list of historical situations in which a minority religion was persecuted by a majority religion. Hell, I could give you current examples. Let's talk about the situation in Iraq, eh?

The fact that certain religions have texts that tell people what to do makes it infinitely worse--at least it's not wrong to not convert others if you're from a different religion, but if you're not converting people and your religious text tells you to, then there's a problem with the religion. But one religion persecuting others without a text telling them to do so isn't really a big deal and won't prove your point. Because I already gave that example of Buddhism, and there are probably several other spirutual or naturalistic religions that don't do that to other people as well.

Okay, admittedly, I don't remember what your example of Buddhism was for. But if it was an example of a religion that has never tried to convert others, you'd be pretty wrong. Buddhists in Japan have persecuted others and attempted to convert them to Buddhism. And you thought Buddhism was such a peace-loving religion. Aw. This just further proves my point: it's not the religion that's inherently violent; it's the certain PEOPLE in the religion that make it violent. And I'm still waiting for you to show me all of the violent quotes you've found in the New Testament.

Certain religions say divorce is wrong, and yet, the people from these same religions have divorces, particularly at a rate higher than people from secular societies do.

But if you're going to say that divorce happens for many reasons, then I could say that people consider themselves "happy" for different reasons, but unlike divorce, the concept of happiness is just about as subjective as the concept of "good". Just because you're happy doesn't necessarily mean you live a "better" life. It's not up to anyone to judge whether or not religious people are "happier" than non religious people, nor should non religious people stop being non religious just because religious people are "happier" than they are.

In other words, I don't think much of the fact that a study, bar its accuracy, says religious people are happier than non religious people. I would think it's because people can't accept reality the way it is, harsh or not, and need or want some comfort from the unknown.

Are you going to start believing in creationism just because some study says the majority of Americans believe in it, and it's being taught in place of science? Hell no. Are you going to start believing you're depressed and need drugs just because some study says more and more people are becoming depressed? No. At least I know I wouldn't. Such studies, particularly ones from the media are too generalized to apply to every single person on this planet, and you can only know through common sense.

All I said was that the study found that religious people, on average, reported themselves as happier than non-religious people. If you want to philosophize about what it means to be happy, be my guest, though it's more than a little irrelevant. How can religion be seen as "irrational" if it brings joy or happiness to people? If someone finds joy in believing in something unknown, what's wrong with that? The rational and obvious choice is to do something that brings you joy. That doesn't mean its meant for everyone. I never said that. I just don't understand why you're constantly putting so much effort into badmouthing something that a) you don't fully understand and b) actually helps people in life. If, say, we were living in Spain in the 1400s, I could maybe understand your dislike of Christianity. But we aren't. And you're hating a religion based mainly on stereotypes you have of it. But I digress.

Actually, I don't base any of my morals off of any texts, holy or not. I base them off of the consequences and the probability of them happening. If any of the texts I've read happened to agree, it's a mutual thing. At the very least, if there was a contradiction or inconsistency, I'd be able to point it out. However, you've been missing out on something I've been saying all along, which is that the bible has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've read. Ever. And I never asked that any book have no flaws at all, only that there are few of them. Although that's probably because most of the books I read and ever cared about are math related, and are nearly clean from flaws--if they aren't, they'll write a better edition. But actually, that's a reason why certain books are more worthwhile. Because they are able to admit flaws when they've been made, and newer editions attempt to fix them. But no one ever attempts to fix the bible. It's remained just about as ridiculous (if not more so) as it ever was since it first appeared.

I know everyone likes to think that they came out of the womb as a fully formed individually-minded person, but it's just not the case. Your personality and morals have been shaped by things you have seen, things you have read, people you have talked to: in short, the society that has surrounded you. To think otherwise is just ignorant and a little arrogant. Whether it is a conscious decision or not, you have based your morals and ideals on things you have read. Things you have read throughout the course of your life have shaped you in some way. The Bible does have some flaws, but I personally don't believe they're so substantial that they seriously detract from the religion. That you even suggest "fixing" the Bible is evidence that you don't understand religion. And what would you even suggest "fixing"?

But do me a favor and read the Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, and try telling me it's riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Do that before you bother telling me that every text is riddled with inconsistencies and flaws again. I can tell you that it's been read by lots of people, and not even one of them to my knowledge was able to find a flaw in it.

No. I only like to read things that have some sort of relevency in my life, and abstract useless mathematics does nothing for me. And to compare a religious text-- one that has multiple writers, was compiled over centuries, was translated countless times, and was written over 2000 years ago -- to a relatively recent mathematic text is ridiculous. That's like complaining that the Egyptians didn't have cars.

My opinions are at least not based off of a book that has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've ever read. And finding books with fewer inconsistencies and contradictions isn't all that hard. There are such books before and after the bible. Although I would say you don't even need to base your opinions off of a book. The fact that you blindly follow a book without questioning whether or not it makes any sense doesn't sound particularly logical or rational at all. What do you think some abortion argument from religion looks like? That abortion is wrong just because some book says so? Well, why don't I ask some Neo-Nazi why they think all the Jews should be killed, and they'll probably say something like Mein Kampf. Does that make them right? Hell no.

I hope you do realize that the Bible is probably the most influential book in the world. It has had a heavy hand in shaping western society as we know it. Not too shabby for a book that, according to you, is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. What you really need to understand is that the Bible is a compilation of different books. The point of the Bible is not to be flawless like some mathematics book. It has a much different function than a mathematics book. And for God's sake, stop assuming that every Christian is some drooling moron who never questions the Bible and believes every word. It's so....disgustingly ignorant. Many Christians BASE their morals off the Bible. I didn't say they strictly follow every word written. And using literature to support the belief that potential children shouldn't be killed versus supporting the idea of mass genocide. Yeah. That's comparable.

As for the concept of terminating life, that would depend on at what stage the abortion happens, and this would also have to do with the controversy over when life is actually life--there are too many different views of when a fetus is considered living, and I doubt any scientist actually agrees with what it is. Furthermore, parents not having access to child support can't raise a child in a good environment--even if they could have child support, they might just make for bad parents. Would that really be a smart thing to do to allow children to grow up not having a good childhood? But I think this topic deserves a thread of its own because abortion was only an example of what I was explaining.

I don't particularly agree with pro-lifers. I was just saying that you can't just discredit their beliefs just because their morals don't match yours. It's a fact that you are ending a potential life, no matter when you abort it. Like I said, I don't particularly agree, but I can understand where they're coming from.

Sure I have. Only to fall asleep halfway through, and everytime I try to pick it up, the same thing happens. From which I can only conclude that it's not really all that great--why would anyone want to read a book or watch a movie who reads or watches it halfway through and find it so terrible and bad that they don't even want to see the rest of it because trying to read or watch through the rest of it would be like torture? In the interest of seeing how bad those things are without enduring oneself through anymore torture, there are websites, critiques and other books on these kinds of things in which you can learn more about the book or movie without having to torture yourself through it.

Yeah, you haven't read it. That's what I thought. And I bet you've been to all those atheist sites to "learn" about the Bible. Ha. They're definitely credible teachers. But yeah, if you want to continue to argue about something you haven't even READ, please do. Although, I do think I recall you saying-- in this very post, actually-- that you didn't base your opinion off of things you've read. Instead, you've based your opinion of something you haven't actually read yourself off of the opinions of others. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry but I think that's ridiculous. How can you even THINK to criticize its consistency if you haven't read it? Let me guess: you found a website where it picks out a few quotes from the Bible, strips them of their context, and criticizes them.

I don't particularly care if you don't think much of my interpretation of the bible just because I refuse to subject myself to more torture by reading it. But it is undeniable that a flat Earth is ridiculous, a 6000 year old Earth is ridiculous, the global flood is ridiculous, splitting the waters is ridiculous, the Garden of Eden is ridiculous, the earth-centered universe is ridiculous, a guy living in a whale and living is ridiculous, a physical heaven and hell directly "above" and "below" the Earth are ridiculous, a book written by some guy who pretends to be Moses who isn't actually Moses is ridiculous, and a book written by four guys who wrote about the same thing that don't say the same thing is ridiculous. I have never ever in my life ever read any other book that claimed such nonsense to be absolutely and absurdly as true as the bible--and quite stupidly and arrogantly without any evidence at all. You can deny this all you want, but there's absolutely nothing mathematical (ie, rational) whatsoever about the bible, and there's nothing in it that makes sense at all in it. You already admitted that religion isn't logical and is completely based on faith, so why you think opinions based off of it even have a rational basis is completely beyond me.

Somebody was never an English major and doesn't recognize allegory when she sees it. Unlike math, the Bible is not literal. Many things in the Bible are highly allegorical. And the flood in the Bible is based on another, older text. So yeah, that was probably an actual historical event. Is it rational to want to be happy? I think we can all agree that it is. And to choose religion in order to seek out happiness, thus, is rational, regardless of whether religion itself is rational. And to base your opinions off of something that brings you happiness, why then, is that irrational? Hate to break it to you, but rationality is not a concrete or absolute value. It's completely subjective. So, as I said, just because you deemed it irrational doesn't mean that it is to others. You base your opinions off of the experiences that have shaped you. Your so called "rationality" is a result of your cultural shaping. For some, those experiences include religion. So, it's not that they're irrational and you aren't. They just come from a different social shaping than you do. Here's something I think you don't get: while math can be global in its rationality because it can be presented in a vacuum separate from morals and culture, things like the Bible and religion cannot. It's your personal choice that you are an atheist. Good for you if that's the choice you've made because you feel it is the most rational. However, to badmouth others and call them weak or whatever for choosing religion is unacceptable to me. It just makes you seem highly ethnocentric and close minded. The majority of religious people are not stupid, irrational, or ignorant.

 

[der Astronom]

Well, whether you want to label it rational or not, it happened. So accept it. I could give you a long list of historical situations in which a minority religion was persecuted by a majority religion. Hell, I could give you current examples. Let's talk about the situation in Iraq, eh?

I'm not simply content to read every little thing I can find anywhere and say that it happened without questioning it; that's all. I'm not that gullible of a reader.

Okay, admittedly, I don't remember what your example of Buddhism was for. But if it was an example of a religion that has never tried to convert others, you'd be pretty wrong. Buddhists in Japan have persecuted others and attempted to convert them to Buddhism. And you thought Buddhism was such a peace-loving religion. Aw. This just further proves my point: it's not the religion that's inherently violent; it's the certain PEOPLE in the religion that make it violent. And I'm still waiting for you to show me all of the violent quotes you've found in the New Testament.

Well gee, I didn't know that. Why don't you provide me sources that show that Buddhism was actually not so peace-loving, and then maybe I'll provide you with some violent quotes from the New Testament. However, even if you don't think Buddhism is peace-loving, there are plenty of other pagan religions that don't force other people to convert.

All I said was that the study found that religious people, on average, reported themselves as happier than non-religious people. If you want to philosophize about what it means to be happy, be my guest, though it's more than a little irrelevant. How can religion be seen as "irrational" if it brings joy or happiness to people? If someone finds joy in believing in something unknown, what's wrong with that? The rational and obvious choice is to do something that brings you joy. That doesn't mean its meant for everyone. I never said that. I just don't understand why you're constantly putting so much effort into badmouthing something that a) you don't fully understand and b) actually helps people in life. If, say, we were living in Spain in the 1400s, I could maybe understand your dislike of Christianity. But we aren't. And you're hating a religion based mainly on stereotypes you have of it. But I digress.

Well gee, I don't know; love makes people happy, and yet, it's considered irrational because it makes people do irrational things--is that impossible? Of course not. You can do irrational things to make yourself happy. You can choose not to go to work and take the day off; it will make you happy for awhile because you don't have to work, but then you're not earning any money. There are many ways of being happy, and not all of them involve being rational. Just because it's rational to WANT to be happy doesn't mean the means by which you achieve happiness is rational.

I've had to repeat this several times, but it seems you're not quite getting it. I do express my dislike for Christianity because it's true that I don't like it--I can do so to explain why I'm not Christian. But I would never tell people they shouldn't believe in Christianity, nor would I call them "stupid" for believing in it. But there are two things to consider: There are still people (ie, fundamentalists) who still don't act any differently from those in Spain in the 1400's, and my opinion of the bible is that it's fundamentally flawed. You don't have to like my opinion of it, but my opinion of it is that it's so terrible I can't even finish reading it without falling asleep. I don't have a problem with liberal Christians. I still think it's strange that they read a book that says the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old and choose to believe certain parts of it rather than reading a different book from which the bible's morals originally came from, but I have no beef with them. I think there are better things people could be doing with their lives, but I'm not going to tell them what to do because it's none of my business. But I don't believe it's wrong to express an opinion of something.

And also remember that in previous threads, you yourself admitted that religion is not rational. So why don't you answer for yourself why something irrational like religion gives people happiness?

I know everyone likes to think that they came out of the womb as a fully formed individually-minded person, but it's just not the case. Your personality and morals have been shaped by things you have seen, things you have read, people you have talked to: in short, the society that has surrounded you. To think otherwise is just ignorant and a little arrogant. Whether it is a conscious decision or not, you have based your morals and ideals on things you have read. Things you have read throughout the course of your life have shaped you in some way. The Bible does have some flaws, but I personally don't believe they're so substantial that they seriously detract from the religion. That you even suggest "fixing" the Bible is evidence that you don't understand religion. And what would you even suggest "fixing"?

Remove all the contradictions, get rid of the ridiculous stories that are scientifically inaccurate, remove all the references about God committing violence or other horrible acts, or at least make them less ambiguous, and don't make him seem like he's shooting himself in the foot when he says he's omnipotent and omniscient--oh wait, that last one is nearly impossible. But instead of trying to fix a book that has too many inconsistencies, I'd think it's better to find other books (if it has to be a book) that explains its point better. None of these useless metaphors, ambiguity and other contradictions. It's like you have to sift through miles and miles of pages before you find what you're looking for, and the rest is just fluff.

No. I only like to read things that have some sort of relevency in my life, and abstract useless mathematics does nothing for me. And to compare a religious text-- one that has multiple writers, was compiled over centuries, was translated countless times, and was written over 2000 years ago -- to a relatively recent mathematic text is ridiculous. That's like complaining that the Egyptians didn't have cars.

Then you must concede that the bible is a really old book, and it may as well be obsolete because it's not being updated, nor has any of its morals been considered original, if it could be right about anything, and the "factual" bits are not so factual.

I hope you do realize that the Bible is probably the most influential book in the world. It has had a heavy hand in shaping western society as we know it. Not too shabby for a book that, according to you, is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. What you really need to understand is that the Bible is a compilation of different books. The point of the Bible is not to be flawless like some mathematics book. It has a much different function than a mathematics book. And for God's sake, stop assuming that every Christian is some drooling moron who never questions the Bible and believes every word. It's so....disgustingly ignorant. Many Christians BASE their morals off the Bible. I didn't say they strictly follow every word written. And using literature to support the belief that potential children shouldn't be killed versus supporting the idea of mass genocide. Yeah. That's comparable.

Not really. The founding fathers of America never used the bible to make their laws or for their own guiding principles--the majority of them were atheists or deists, and suggested a separation of church and state.

People who read a book and enjoy it don't necessarily do so because they think--they do so because they feel.

I don't recall making any statement about every Christian basing their morals off of the bible without question--there are such people, and there are people that don't, but it wouldn't hurt not to bash me on something I never said.

The purpose of my analogy was not the subject in the books themselves, but that you can excuse almost anything by saying it was in a book. Which I think is ridiculous because it is, in a way, the fallacy of appeal to authority.

I don't particularly agree with pro-lifers. I was just saying that you can't just discredit their beliefs just because their morals don't match yours. It's a fact that you are ending a potential life, no matter when you abort it. Like I said, I don't particularly agree, but I can understand where they're coming from.

Abortion is complicated. Ending a potential life that wouldn't have much of a life because the parent has no access to child support or won't make a decent parent and can't otherwise provide for a child isn't much different from if they lived anyways, or someone was raped and didn't ask for it.

But I'm not speaking about people choosing to be pro-life because they have different morals; I just object to people using a book to excuse their reasons because it sounds like they didn't do much work. So you say that not all Christians believe every word of the bible, so would it be so much work to be able to explain why for this one case involving abortion, they choose to believe in the book? If it's little more than "God says so..." I don't think it's much of a reason.

If they have their own reasons that differ from the bible, then I don't have a problem with that.

Yeah, you haven't read it. That's what I thought. And I bet you've been to all those atheist sites to "learn" about the Bible. Ha. They're definitely credible teachers. But yeah, if you want to continue to argue about something you haven't even READ, please do. Although, I do think I recall you saying-- in this very post, actually-- that you didn't base your opinion off of things you've read. Instead, you've based your opinion of something you haven't actually read yourself off of the opinions of others. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry but I think that's ridiculous. How can you even THINK to criticize its consistency if you haven't read it? Let me guess: you found a website where it picks out a few quotes from the Bible, strips them of their context, and criticizes them.

I tried to read it, but if I fall asleep while reading it, that tells you something, doesn't it?

If I could have read the book without falling asleep, I doubt my opinion of it changes much. I don't particularly like reading things that are ridiculously metaphorical and ambiguous as to be confusing. It's all too human.

Somebody was never an English major and doesn't recognize allegory when she sees it. Unlike math, the Bible is not literal. Many things in the Bible are highly allegorical. And the flood in the Bible is based on another, older text. So yeah, that was probably an actual historical event. Is it rational to want to be happy? I think we can all agree that it is. And to choose religion in order to seek out happiness, thus, is rational, regardless of whether religion itself is rational. And to base your opinions off of something that brings you happiness, why then, is that irrational?

As I said before, love isn't rational and yet, it makes people happy. Wanting to seek happiness might be considered rational, but how you achieve it is independent of your desire, and can be considered rational or irrational. In other words, it's irrelevant.

Hate to break it to you, but rationality is not a concrete or absolute value. It's completely subjective. So, as I said, just because you deemed it irrational doesn't mean that it is to others. You base your opinions off of the experiences that have shaped you. Your so called "rationality" is a result of your cultural shaping. For some, those experiences include religion. So, it's not that they're irrational and you aren't. They just come from a different social shaping than you do.

Well, that's only partly true because I would think it's more accurate to say that we are partly nature and partly nurture--there are parts of us that don't change, like the parts of our mind that interpret the world, and everyone does this differently--you can expose someone to the same environment, and they might still be completely different because they think about the same things differently. I may be born and raised in a similar environment as other people, and they may still be religious, and if I liked math, it doesn't mean that other people who get raised in the same environment might do the same.

No, rationality is an objective term, but you just disagree that it's irrational to base life off of a book that makes little sense, and probably isn't supposed to be rational, and you simply believe that I label it as irrational because you think it has to do with the way I'm socially wired.

But it's not wrong if they might be considered "irrational" for choosing religion. I simply choose not to live life based off of irrational decisions. Whether or not other people do is none of my business--it's wrong to me, but not wrong to them, and nothing changes that. I don't see how it couldn't be irrational to pick a religion, and live life based off of it, since you already admitted that religion isn't rational.

But people will go on making irrational decisions--it's only natural.

Here's something I think you don't get: while math can be global in its rationality because it can be presented in a vacuum separate from morals and culture, things like the Bible and religion cannot. It's your personal choice that you are an atheist. Good for you if that's the choice you've made because you feel it is the most rational. However, to badmouth others and call them weak or whatever for choosing religion is unacceptable to me. It just makes you seem highly ethnocentric and close minded. The majority of religious people are not stupid, irrational, or ignorant.

I also don't recall badmouthing particular Christians for believing in the bible. I only recall badmouthing what the bible actually says, unless you wish to think that saying people are irrational or make irrational decisions when people in general are irrational and make irrational decisions is somehow offensive. My opinion in general is that I don't think much of people who don't think rationally, and it does not matter whether it's because they believe in the bible, because they don't think well, or for whatever other reason people think irrationally or do irrational things--but I don't recall calling religious people stupid for what they choose to believe in, even if it could be irrational, and I will never insult or try to convert other people for what they choose to believe in. The only thing I've been trying to pick on to begin with is the book itself, and not the people that believe in it, and I choose not to pick on the people that believe in it because there are far too many variations of things that people believe in in the bible--but how you've continuously missed this is beyond me.

 

[HardkoreEnigma]

I don't know what my view on religion is. I'm half and half. I have many theories. I can understand why people bash religion. All these christian nuts are running around saying that religion has proved nothing. Well guess what? MAYBE GOD MADE SCIENCE???? EVER THINK OF THAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

I have a theory that when bad things happen to good people, it's the Devil's doing. Some how he interferes with God's plan.

I go to a catholic school. So there are alot of nuts. They belive everything in the bible like, "so and so" is wrong. Well, I think that God is differnt. I belive God is understanding. I doubt that he would forgive you and not make you burn in hell for all eternity.

But, what ever. No one knows what happens untill your dead. So I supose we'll just have to wait.

 

[Coco]

Reading that blog made me want to tear my hair out.

Seriously.

I am not here to represent God. And although the maker of this blog has pointed out a lot of interesting points for contradicting Him, I still have to wonder what his intentions were for trying so hard (even to the point of researching the Bible passages he so clearly wanted to rebuke as crap) to convince others and himself that there IS no God.

Maybe a case of superiority complex? Maybe a case of utter depression?

Those things pass my mind at times, but really, isn't it better to spend your life believing in the Lord then finding out after death that there wasn't, rather than spending your life saying there is no God then finding out in the end that there is?

 

[der Astronom]

That's Pascal's Wager, and by no means is it necessarily free from flaws. One problem with it is that there are many other religions that exist, and if you choose to believe in a God, there may be equally many other Gods that could exist, and no one would be the wiser to know whether there are many Gods or only one. In other words, you don't know which religion is correct, and assuming that only believing in one God is the safest path is illogical because you may believe in the wrong God, and could be punished for it if the correct religion had different Gods in it that you didn't believe in.

But I say: Isn't it a better way to spend your life not believing, worrying, loving or relying on a God you can't even see rather than worrying about which religion is correct?

 

[Donald Trump]

But I say: Isn't it a better way to spend your life not believing, worrying, loving or relying on a God you can't even see rather than worrying about which religion is correct?

Religion is a faith. It's not something you go into and gambling that you get lucky.
Also not all religious people go around putting down other people's religion. That isn't what religions do, some followers perhaps but not religions. Also not seeing god is subjective, some people believe in the shroud of Turin, others see evidence of god in nature. I highly doubt whether god would be recognisable.

 

[der Astronom]

So it's not subjective to say that nobody sees any gnomes?

I did not say anywhere in my post that all religious people worry over which religion is correct; I only said this in response to the previous poster. You would do well not to assume the things that I did not state.

 

[Donald Trump]

So it's not subjective to say that nobody sees any gnomes?

I see garden gnomes.
Oh Wait, you didn't go and compare god to a mythical creature did you?
Because that would be extremely ignorant.

I did not say anywhere in my post that all religious people worry over which religion is correct; I only said this in response to the previous poster. You would do well not to assume the things that I did not state.

And I never said you did. You would do well not to assume things I did not state dear.

 

[der Astronom]

I see garden gnomes.
Oh Wait, you didn't go and compare god to a mythical creature did you?
Because that would be extremely ignorant.

No, I'm afraid I don't see the difference between someone believing in garden gnomes and someone believing in God, or gnomes being intangible and unevidenced and God not being tangible and unevidenced as well. Please actually explain the difference.

And I never said you did. You would do well not to assume things I did not state dear.

Same goes for you. Although if you did not assume that I think all religious people worry over which religion is correct, I wonder why you ever bothered to bring up that point.

 

[Erythritol]

Uhh...oops. Totally forgot this thread existed. Anywaaaaay....

I'm not simply content to read every little thing I can find anywhere and say that it happened without questioning it; that's all. I'm not that gullible of a reader.

A lot of churches I've encountered encourage people to question the Bible, actually. In questioning the Bible and your faith, they believe you'll find your path to God. It will also strengthen your bond with God.

Well gee, I didn't know that. Why don't you provide me sources that show that Buddhism was actually not so peace-loving, and then maybe I'll provide you with some violent quotes from the New Testament. However, even if you don't think Buddhism is peace-loving, there are plenty of other pagan religions that don't force other people to convert.

Okay, it's reading comprehension time. I never said Buddhism the RELIGION wasn't peaceful. In their holy texts, I don't think it says, "SLAUGHTER EVERYONE IN THE NAME OF BUDDHA, HURRAH!" However, BUDDHISTS themselves have been guilty of persecuting and slaughtering people due to religious differences. Shintoists? Same. Christians? Same. Muslims? Same. Hindus? Same. Give me ANY religion, and I guarantee you that at some point, they have persecuted others in the name of religion. What I'm trying to say is that Christianity, and any other religion, is not inherently violent. It is the followers that warp the religion. Human nature gets in the way and makes it violent.

Well gee, I don't know; love makes people happy, and yet, it's considered irrational because it makes people do irrational things--is that impossible? Of course not. You can do irrational things to make yourself happy. You can choose not to go to work and take the day off; it will make you happy for awhile because you don't have to work, but then you're not earning any money. There are many ways of being happy, and not all of them involve being rational. Just because it's rational to WANT to be happy doesn't mean the means by which you achieve happiness is rational.

But to perform the act in the first place to achieve the goal of happiness is rational.

I've had to repeat this several times, but it seems you're not quite getting it. I do express my dislike for Christianity because it's true that I don't like it--I can do so to explain why I'm not Christian. But I would never tell people they shouldn't believe in Christianity, nor would I call them "stupid" for believing in it. But there are two things to consider: There are still people (ie, fundamentalists) who still don't act any differently from those in Spain in the 1400's, and my opinion of the bible is that it's fundamentally flawed. You don't have to like my opinion of it, but my opinion of it is that it's so terrible I can't even finish reading it without falling asleep. I don't have a problem with liberal Christians. I still think it's strange that they read a book that says the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old and choose to believe certain parts of it rather than reading a different book from which the bible's morals originally came from, but I have no beef with them. I think there are better things people could be doing with their lives, but I'm not going to tell them what to do because it's none of my business. But I don't believe it's wrong to express an opinion of something.

I don't really care if you hate Christianity or not. That's your own deal. But I could go back and find posts you made where you insinuated that people were stupid for believing in Christianity.

I have heard of such things, and it is ridiculous, although these people are willfully ignorant of the fact that their same book says the Earth is flat or 6000 years old when it clearly isn't, and are throwing stones from a glass house when they accuse fiction stories for being "offensive" just because it says things they don't like to hear.

Hope (it's probably faith though) is ridiculous and useless.

Hmm, those don't exactly sound like shining, tolerant words towards Christians, eh? In fact, you sound kind of like an elitist bitch But moving on, will you please stop with the flat earth example? It's not written anywhere in the Bible, so stop using it as an example. It just makes you look ignorant, which you are when it comes to religion. Say it were written in the Bible. What difference does it make? It's a completely irrelevant detail. It's just you, to use that pet phrase of yours, attacking a straw man. Whether the Bible says the earth is flat (it doesn't) or not, it has nothing to do with violence or morality. That being said, while the Bible was influenced by older more pagan myths, it also included the religion's own morals and views. And I don't know what these "different books" to which you're referring are.

And also remember that in previous threads, you yourself admitted that religion is not rational. So why don't you answer for yourself why something irrational like religion gives people happiness?

I suppose to believe in something like God without much proof is considered "irrational" but it's really easy to see why something "irrational" like religion gives people happiness. It means that life is not without meaning and that death is not the end. It means that people going through painful and horribly difficult times in life have some sort of hope. They can believe there is a reason for their suffering. And while to believe in God itself, you might call irrational, to make the decision to choose to believe something that will make you happier in the long run is rational.

Remove all the contradictions, get rid of the ridiculous stories that are scientifically inaccurate, remove all the references about God committing violence or other horrible acts, or at least make them less ambiguous, and don't make him seem like he's shooting himself in the foot when he says he's omnipotent and omniscient--oh wait, that last one is nearly impossible. But instead of trying to fix a book that has too many inconsistencies, I'd think it's better to find other books (if it has to be a book) that explains its point better. None of these useless metaphors, ambiguity and other contradictions. It's like you have to sift through miles and miles of pages before you find what you're looking for, and the rest is just fluff.

I think I've said this before, but the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Stop trying to treat it like one. That's just ridiculous. I'm so sorry to inform you, but not every book ever written is some kind of science or math book. Just because the form in which it was written does not please you, that doesn't mean it's illegitimate. To remove this argument from a historical vacuum, let's consider that fact that wild persecution of the Jews AND Christians was occuring at the time. To avoid persecution, they HAD to write things in metaphors and codes. What were they gonna say? "Nero's a douchebag! I hate him!" No, not unless they wanted to die. Hence the subtle references. The Bible is only one example of this. There have been COUNTLESS works of literature written about current situations in heavy metaphors and allegories to avoid censorship or persecution. Now, that being said, stop with the scientifically inaccurate bullshit. It's completely irrelevant and-- I'm gonna pull that phrase out again-- you're beating the strawman! We're arguing whether the Bible itself is inherently violent, aren't we? If so, whether it has scientific inaccuracies is irrelevant. Please, stay focused. The stories with the "scientific inaccuracies" probably have some greater moral meaning. Like I said, the Bible is more focused on spiritual or moral matters. It's not a science textbook and wasn't written as one.

Then you must concede that the bible is a really old book, and it may as well be obsolete because it's not being updated, nor has any of its morals been considered original, if it could be right about anything, and the "factual" bits are not so factual.

It didn't just take everything from other religions. Many of its teachings are original. Just because it is older or not updated, that does not mean it is obsolete. Why? Because of what I just said and you might do well to remember: it is not a science textbook. It is a book of religious, spiritual, and moral teachings. Such matters of the spirit are never too old or too obsolete for millions of people.

Not really. The founding fathers of America never used the bible to make their laws or for their own guiding principles--the majority of them were atheists or deists, and suggested a separation of church and state.

Nice assumption there. I said western society. Not America. Think back a little farther, like to Europe. The Bible helped shaped the views, culture, morals, and ideals in Europe, and that has traveled down through history. I'm not saying it was the Bible alone, but it was a big part of it.

People who read a book and enjoy it don't necessarily do so because they think--they do so because they feel.

I don't recall making any statement about every Christian basing their morals off of the bible without question--there are such people, and there are people that don't, but it wouldn't hurt not to bash me on something I never said.

The purpose of my analogy was not the subject in the books themselves, but that you can excuse almost anything by saying it was in a book. Which I think is ridiculous because it is, in a way, the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Mein Kampf is not the Bible. They are not comparable works of literature. And yes, you keep ranting about people just reading and accepting the Bible without question, whether you realize it or not.

Abortion is complicated. Ending a potential life that wouldn't have much of a life because the parent has no access to child support or won't make a decent parent and can't otherwise provide for a child isn't much different from if they lived anyways, or someone was raped and didn't ask for it.

But I'm not speaking about people choosing to be pro-life because they have different morals; I just object to people using a book to excuse their reasons because it sounds like they didn't do much work. So you say that not all Christians believe every word of the bible, so would it be so much work to be able to explain why for this one case involving abortion, they choose to believe in the book? If it's little more than "God says so..." I don't think it's much of a reason.

If they have their own reasons that differ from the bible, then I don't have a problem with that.

This isn't really an abortion debate. And it doesn't say explicitly in the Bible, "hey you! Don't have an abortion!" Pro-lifers didn't just read it in the Bible and blindly follow. Many pro-lifers just happen to agree with the Church's view on abortion. The church and pro-lifers both agree on the view of abortion for the same reason: it's the taking of a potential life. Both feel that it is morally wrong. What the hell else other reasons are there that people could have that "differ from the Bible"? Because it's bad for the economy?

I tried to read it, but if I fall asleep while reading it, that tells you something, doesn't it?

If I could have read the book without falling asleep, I doubt my opinion of it changes much. I don't particularly like reading things that are ridiculously metaphorical and ambiguous as to be confusing. It's all too human.

That says something about you, not the Bible. For someone so logical, that sure is an illogical and dumb statement. Unless it was a shot at humor. But in any case, seeing how hundreds of millions of people read it throughout the ages WITHOUT falling asleep, I'd say you're just lazy or don't understand it very well. And while I don't really care if you've read it or not, it seems sort of ill-informed and ignorant of you to try and argue about a book you've never read. It also shows in your arguments, as you tend to include misinformation

As I said before, love isn't rational and yet, it makes people happy. Wanting to seek happiness might be considered rational, but how you achieve it is independent of your desire, and can be considered rational or irrational. In other words, it's irrelevant.

This paragraph seems irrelevant...

Well, that's only partly true because I would think it's more accurate to say that we are partly nature and partly nurture--there are parts of us that don't change, like the parts of our mind that interpret the world, and everyone does this differently--you can expose someone to the same environment, and they might still be completely different because they think about the same things differently. I may be born and raised in a similar environment as other people, and they may still be religious, and if I liked math, it doesn't mean that other people who get raised in the same environment might do the same.

No, rationality is an objective term, but you just disagree that it's irrational to base life off of a book that makes little sense, and probably isn't supposed to be rational, and you simply believe that I label it as irrational because you think it has to do with the way I'm socially wired.

But it's not wrong if they might be considered "irrational" for choosing religion. I simply choose not to live life based off of irrational decisions. Whether or not other people do is none of my business--it's wrong to me, but not wrong to them, and nothing changes that. I don't see how it couldn't be irrational to pick a religion, and live life based off of it, since you already admitted that religion isn't rational.

But people will go on making irrational decisions--it's only natural.

Nope, sorry Because we're talking about culture and religion and not math or science, we're talking about the rationality of people and their cultural interactions and beliefs. In math, certainly, there is concrete rationality because you are dealing with numbers. This cultural kind of rationality is completely subjective. One thing that may be considered completely irrational in one country could be viewed as rational in another.

I also don't recall badmouthing particular Christians for believing in the bible. I only recall badmouthing what the bible actually says, unless you wish to think that saying people are irrational or make irrational decisions when people in general are irrational and make irrational decisions is somehow offensive. My opinion in general is that I don't think much of people who don't think rationally, and it does not matter whether it's because they believe in the bible, because they don't think well, or for whatever other reason people think irrationally or do irrational things--but I don't recall calling religious people stupid for what they choose to believe in, even if it could be irrational, and I will never insult or try to convert other people for what they choose to believe in. The only thing I've been trying to pick on to begin with is the book itself, and not the people that believe in it, and I choose not to pick on the people that believe in it because there are far too many variations of things that people believe in in the bible--but how you've continuously missed this is beyond me.

I'd personally badmouth some of the followers on the religion and not the religious text itself, for any religion. Almost without fail, it is historically the followers who have perverted the religion and committed crimes in the name of the religion. The religious texts themselves do not really advocate such crimes. It is the FOLLOWERS who twist the words of the religious texts and use them for their own agenda. Let's take early western Europe as an example, shall we? Most people were illiterate or were unable to read the Bible in Latin. There was a REASON that the church didn't want the Bible translated so that people could read it for themselves. If that had happened, people would be able to interpret the Bible for themselves and, y'know, think for themselves, instead of believe everything the church told them. Clearly, the Bible itself is not the problem. It is the ways in which people have misused it over the millennia.

 

[der Astronom]

Uhh...oops. Totally forgot this thread existed. Anywaaaaay....



A lot of churches I've encountered encourage people to question the Bible, actually. In questioning the Bible and your faith, they believe you'll find your path to God. It will also strengthen your bond with God.

That doesn't explain the verses that say not to question the lord or not to put him to the test.

Okay, it's reading comprehension time. I never said Buddhism the RELIGION wasn't peaceful. In their holy texts, I don't think it says, "SLAUGHTER EVERYONE IN THE NAME OF BUDDHA, HURRAH!" However, BUDDHISTS themselves have been guilty of persecuting and slaughtering people due to religious differences. Shintoists? Same. Christians? Same. Muslims? Same. Hindus? Same. Give me ANY religion, and I guarantee you that at some point, they have persecuted others in the name of religion. What I'm trying to say is that Christianity, and any other religion, is not inherently violent. It is the followers that warp the religion. Human nature gets in the way and makes it violent.

Reading comprehension time yourself. Read the post you made before mine, and you'll see, in your own words, that you wrote Buddhism was peaceful. I simply re-iterated what you wrote.

I also don't entirely remember exactly what the argument was about because it was a long time ago, but if this is about whether or not religion is at fault, or people are at fault, I would like you to consider the scenario of when a religion actually does advocate violence and other things that modern society might consider to be unacceptable--perhaps such a religion might not be accepted now, but consider this without intervention from modern society--can you really say that the people are at fault if they choose to believe such things if they didn't know better? I don't think you can assume that people all believe what is right or wrong the same way; some people will follow it because they lack the judgment to know better, and what they have read is at fault. I know that people can twist what they read to be what they want it to be, but there are also people that don't know how to do that.

But to perform the act in the first place to achieve the goal of happiness is rational.

That is not a justification that makes religion rational.

I don't really care if you hate Christianity or not. That's your own deal. But I could go back and find posts you made where you insinuated that people were stupid for believing in Christianity.

I have heard of such things, and it is ridiculous, although these people are willfully ignorant of the fact that their same book says the Earth is flat or 6000 years old when it clearly isn't, and are throwing stones from a glass house when they accuse fiction stories for being "offensive" just because it says things they don't like to hear.

Hope (it's probably faith though) is ridiculous and useless.

Hmm, those don't exactly sound like shining, tolerant words towards Christians, eh?

Try not to take that quote out of context, because I was speaking of the people who advocated banning Harry Potter on reasons that most people agree were ridiculous. Not every Christian advocates banning Harry Potter.

In fact, you sound kind of like an elitist bitch But moving on, will you please stop with the flat earth example? It's not written anywhere in the Bible, so stop using it as an example.

But if you will concede to the metaphors in the bible, and the stuff I consider nonsense that somehow makes sense to people with emotions and all that jazz, then please explain why it says the Earth is a circle, yet has four corners and can be seen in its entirety from a mountain--you cannot do this with a spherical Earth. Furthermore, a circle with four corners contradicts itself. You have never completely explained this "metaphor".

It just makes you look ignorant, which you are when it comes to religion. Say it were written in the Bible. What difference does it make? It's a completely irrelevant detail. It's just you, to use that pet phrase of yours, attacking a straw man. Whether the Bible says the earth is flat (it doesn't) or not, it has nothing to do with violence or morality. That being said, while the Bible was influenced by older more pagan myths, it also included the religion's own morals and views. And I don't know what these "different books" to which you're referring are.

Attacking a strawman is when you mistake an argument for something it isn't. But I can't see how the flat earth description in the bible isn't valid--like I said, it's only because you choose to ignore that part of the bible. I guess I didn't say this here explicitly either, but my opinion of metaphors is bullshit. So you can say that maybe heaven and hell aren't physical because we know what lies directly above and below us on Earth, but did the people who existed before people flew planes or knew about the shape of the Earth or anything about astronomy know that? Did they have any other way of knowing how to interpret a passage when it says to torture or kill people who don't believe? Can you still say that Jesus rose from the dead if it was described in four contradictory ways? You may say this is all "science" and "math" all you want--but if Moses himself said he was the "meekest" of all mankind on Earth, and he really did say that, then he's a terrible liar. If he didn't say that, then the metaphors people interpret about Moses being the writer are wrong. Lastly, if you concede that the bible is all metaphor, then it is all strictly interpretation, and subjective. No one can necessarily agree that God must be good, or that the bible isn't violent or contradictory--it is only because you make such an interpretation and choose to attach ambiguous metaphors, which may be entirely something else to someone else that you see it as being good. So if you say it is good, then others have the right to say it's bad from their own interpretation, and disagree with you without being ignorant--just because you don't understand it doesn't mean their opinion isn't valid.

This is why I hate metaphors. They never tell you anything useful. They only tell you what you want to see.

I suppose to believe in something like God without much proof is considered "irrational" but it's really easy to see why something "irrational" like religion gives people happiness. It means that life is not without meaning and that death is not the end. It means that people going through painful and horribly difficult times in life have some sort of hope. They can believe there is a reason for their suffering. And while to believe in God itself, you might call irrational, to make the decision to choose to believe something that will make you happier in the long run is rational.

Religion isn't the only thing that gives people happiness or meaning in life. It's tempting and easy to think that religion gives you these things, but only if you don't think about them. Now so that you don't go and mention this, because I doubt you'll figure it out, I'm not saying that every religious person doesn't think or choose their religion for themselves, but some people don't. Some people choose religion because it's easier to believe God exists and looks after them than to think about whether or not God exists, or if any of those things are ever true at all, and simply concede that they are--because God said so. It's easy to believe in something, so long as you don't have to verify it and simply deny that it could ever be false. And that's the part I find most disturbing and blind about faith. If seeking happiness by choosing something irrational as religion might be considered rational, this does not dismiss the fact that choosing to believe in something and denying any possibility that it could be wrong is irrational. In other words, it is irrational in principle to believe in religion, but you may call it rational to believe in religion out of ignorance of bliss. But only if you dismiss the irrationality of the ignorance.

I think I've said this before, but the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Stop trying to treat it like one. That's just ridiculous. I'm so sorry to inform you, but not every book ever written is some kind of science or math book. Just because the form in which it was written does not please you, that doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

I have read plenty of other books that are much clearer than the bible and better to read that aren't science or math books. Given the choice, I'd sooner read those books than read the bible.

To remove this argument from a historical vacuum, let's consider that fact that wild persecution of the Jews AND Christians was occuring at the time. To avoid persecution, they HAD to write things in metaphors and codes. What were they gonna say? "Nero's a douchebag! I hate him!" No, not unless they wanted to die. Hence the subtle references. The Bible is only one example of this. There have been COUNTLESS works of literature written about current situations in heavy metaphors and allegories to avoid censorship or persecution. Now, that being said, stop with the scientifically inaccurate bullshit. It's completely irrelevant and-- I'm gonna pull that phrase out again-- you're beating the strawman!

The fact that they stuffed it with metaphors and other bullshit to escape detection doesn't excuse how it's written. If those metaphors make the message less clear and more ambiguous to the point it means nothing but nonsense, then it's incomprehensible. It's like someone typing with bad grammar--maybe they have a good message, but it makes little difference to you because you can't read it.
A contradiction is not what you may categorize as "scientifically inaccurate"--it's logic, plain and simple. It's a contradiction to write four separate accounts of the same event and none of them agree. It's a contradiction to claim you're the writer of the book you're in when you're not. A metaphor is not a contradiction, and neither is an allegory. If you claim they are, then that makes all literature bullshit then, doesn't it?

We're arguing whether the Bible itself is inherently violent, aren't we? If so, whether it has scientific inaccuracies is irrelevant. Please, stay focused. The stories with the "scientific inaccuracies" probably have some greater moral meaning. Like I said, the Bible is more focused on spiritual or moral matters. It's not a science textbook and wasn't written as one.

Which is why they should just leave out all the details about how the Earth was formed or what it looked like. Read a different book on morals, and you'll see they don't all talk about the extra irrelevant fluff. And if it is scientifically inaccurate, what should stop me from being more inclined to think this is nothing more than a fairy tale? Stuff about violent Gods, and violent people killing each other all at the hands of some "benevolent" being, who claims he's omnipotent, made a circular Earth with four pillars in merely 6 days, only 6000 years old, and with people living in whales--sounds like a different universe to me. If there ever was a moral message in it, it makes little difference to me whether it was a fairy tale told for fun, or a fiction piece with morals that happened to be there, but could stand to have a better setting.

It didn't just take everything from other religions. Many of its teachings are original. Just because it is older or not updated, that does not mean it is obsolete. Why? Because of what I just said and you might do well to remember: it is not a science textbook. It is a book of religious, spiritual, and moral teachings. Such matters of the spirit are never too old or too obsolete for millions of people.

I dare you to prove that. I already told you that Confucian's teachings and other Greek philosophers's works existed before the bible did, and other religions, particularly the pagan ones, possibly older than Christianity had similar elements in them. The majority of the major religions from antiquity all shared similar elements, even if they appeared different. What's the probability that Christianity didn't borrow their ideas from them?
If you really believe the "morals" of intolerance, violence and other things that are considered unacceptable in today's society are never too old for us, I wonder how it is nobody believes that stuff anymore. Or how uncircumsized boys have to be abandoned by their parents and community. Or how homosexuals that sleep with each other must be killed (I'm definitely not seeing that in society). Only some of the stuff from the bible survived, and the parts that did were the ones that agreed with the morals that also appeared in other writings, some of which predate the bible. Original and not obsolete, indeed.

Nice assumption there. I said western society. Not America. Think back a little farther, like to Europe. The Bible helped shaped the views, culture, morals, and ideals in Europe, and that has traveled down through history. I'm not saying it was the Bible alone, but it was a big part of it.

Including the anti-semitism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and all the other torturing bits? You say that's just people twisting the bible for their needs--but how do you know some of them didn't interpret the bible that way? As I said above, a metaphorical interpretation is too subjective, and therefore, not obsolete. You cannot rule out this possibility with this reason alone.

Mein Kampf is not the Bible. They are not comparable works of literature. And yes, you keep ranting about people just reading and accepting the Bible without question, whether you realize it or not.

Well, neither are L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books for Scientology, but whether or not you believe Mein Kampf is comparable to the bible is irrelevant, as you can do this with any book--I simply don't view the bible as some book so sacredly untouchable as some people do that it cannot be compared with other books at all.

This isn't really an abortion debate. And it doesn't say explicitly in the Bible, "hey you! Don't have an abortion!" Pro-lifers didn't just read it in the Bible and blindly follow. Many pro-lifers just happen to agree with the Church's view on abortion. The church and pro-lifers both agree on the view of abortion for the same reason: it's the taking of a potential life. Both feel that it is morally wrong. What the hell else other reasons are there that people could have that "differ from the Bible"? Because it's bad for the economy?

This is all a matter of interpretation. Maybe to you the bible doesn't say that abortion is wrong, but certain people may interpret certain verses to mean that, so they use that as their reasoning against abortion. However, I don't recall saying that every pro-lifer said that the bible was their only reason for their stance. I just said that if people used a book to justify something without verifying it, then they are committing the appeal to authority fallacy. I personally don't assume that there is one and only one reason (or a few) for why pro-lifers are pro-lifers.

(However, my opinion on the reasoning that there should be no abortion because of the taking away of potential life is a bit short-sighted.)

That says something about you, not the Bible. For someone so logical, that sure is an illogical and dumb statement. Unless it was a shot at humor. But in any case, seeing how hundreds of millions of people read it throughout the ages WITHOUT falling asleep, I'd say you're just lazy or don't understand it very well. And while I don't really care if you've read it or not, it seems sort of ill-informed and ignorant of you to try and argue about a book you've never read. It also shows in your arguments, as you tend to include misinformation

I have better things to spend my rationality on, and since the bible isn't rational, that isn't one of them. Furthermore, invalidating my opinions because I haven't read the entire book is an ad hominem. My justification is irrelevant to how I've obtained it. You can be an asshole, and still be right. You can be a criminal, and still tell the truth. In other words, I can still do my research without having read the entire bible. You choosing not to believe it on the basis that I haven't read it, and possibly ignoring what I'm saying as invalid on that basis is a fallacy.

Nope, sorry Because we're talking about culture and religion and not math or science, we're talking about the rationality of people and their cultural interactions and beliefs. In math, certainly, there is concrete rationality because you are dealing with numbers. This cultural kind of rationality is completely subjective. One thing that may be considered completely irrational in one country could be viewed as rational in another.

Then we're not speaking of rationality at all; we're speaking of perspective. In other words, what makes certain people happy, and what they believe to be right or wrong. I was speaking in particular of the principle of religion and denial of the truth being an irrational concept.

I'd personally badmouth some of the followers on the religion and not the religious text itself, for any religion. Almost without fail, it is historically the followers who have perverted the religion and committed crimes in the name of the religion. The religious texts themselves do not really advocate such crimes. It is the FOLLOWERS who twist the words of the religious texts and use them for their own agenda. Let's take early western Europe as an example, shall we? Most people were illiterate or were unable to read the Bible in Latin. There was a REASON that the church didn't want the Bible translated so that people could read it for themselves. If that had happened, people would be able to interpret the Bible for themselves and, y'know, think for themselves, instead of believe everything the church told them. Clearly, the Bible itself is not the problem. It is the ways in which people have misused it over the millennia.

It is only because you have bound yourself to such an interpretation of the religious text that you do not see that others may have a different interpretation from you, and it's entirely possible that they saw what they did from the text, and acted on it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe other people simply didn't interpret the text the same way you did, and you can't assume that everyone who reads the book will make the exact same interpretation as you. If we did, then everyone would agree, but people don't.
But the people then were iliterate back then, most likely because they didn't have the money or time to be educated about it. They were probably mostly peasants doing what their parents did, and most likely couldn't afford the time off to learn to read or write. In other words, it might be entirely possible that people could read and write and interpret the bible themselves--they just never had such a chance, and it's entirely possible that whoever read the bible, most likely someone with almost no knowledge of astronomy, and no idea how the entire Earth looked like, or how old it was, or what was directly above or below it, simply didn't interpret the bible the same way you did, and told everyone to believe what they saw. If there were people who could read the bible and make independent interpretations, they probably couldn't speak loudly about it without being persecuted, since speaking contrary to what the bible says (or what they interpreted it to say) would mean getting tortured or killed, as per the punishments of heathens--as they believed what the bible said. Another possibility--it's written all over the bible about how great--and terrible God is. If the person who read the book, not knowing the truth, or denying it and believing whatever he reads as truth, then he might as well be afraid of God, and simply done everything he could as it is said in the bible. Perhaps your interpretation doesn't make God seem terrible or fear-inspiring--but there are people that only believe in God out of fear. Maybe you believe it's wrong, or that they have the "wrong" interpretation of the bible, but by asserting that the bible is metaphorical, you have invalidated your interpretation of the bible as mere opinion, and can be no more "correct" than anyone else who interprets the bible and says God is terrible.

 

[Soul Saver]

I am agnostic, unsure as to the existence of God or not. I respect religion, and believe that it should be accepted and tolerated. The only thing I won't tolerate is intolerance; which, ironically, may come from Atheists who preach "tolerance" and acceptance, but who won't tolerate religion! Both theist and atheist intolerance are intolerance nonetheless.
I have no respect for hypocrites. This applies to ALL hypocrites, whether it's tolerance-preaching atheists, or their theist counterparts.

Religion has its merits, just as it has its disadvantages.
Personally, I'd rather believe that there is a God, rather than believe that people face total annihilation upon death.

I think that Freeman Dyson(for those who don't know, a famous Christian physicist) has said some great things about religion and science.

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg.

To which F. Dyson replied:

Weinberg's statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: "And for bad people to do good things—that takes religion." The main point of Christianity is that it is a religion for sinners. Jesus made that very clear. When the Pharisees asked his disciples, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" he said, "I come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance." Only a small fraction of sinners repent and do good things, but only a small fraction of good people are led by their religion to do bad things.

The bible might not all add up, but does religion add up? Religious texts can be more symbolic than trustworthy.
Some people need a refuge from the cold nothingness, some form of hope, and that is what religion provides. I find it highly respectable. I find attempts to tear people away from religion, misguided.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

My answers are as follows,


1. God doesnt heal amputees, because in theory that wouldn't make any sense, while it definately is a clever question, God(if he was real) wouldn't heal amputees, because for an amputee to be healed that would mean he/she would have to magically sprout a new leg, while I agree doctors are miracle workers, they are not Jesus.

2. Another good question, theres alot of hunger in the world for several reasons, I will use Africa as my example. Africa is a mix of tropical and arid land. In arid land crops cannot be grown, not even wheat, as such food is very hard to come by. Another reason people are hungry is because their leaders spend all of the money on weapons instead of food, an example of this is Korea. Some people also cannot afford food, because they are poor. This isn't gods fault.

3. The bible has been translated about 3 times or more. Somewhere along the line some biggot put those translations in there so he/she could control people. In exodus there is a phrase that says 'Thou Shall not suffer a witch", its original passage was "Thou shall not suffer a poisoner", somebody changed this because he/she didn't like people who practiced Witchcraft. As such God doesn't demand the death of so many people, Humans demand the deaths of so many people, after all the bible wasn't written by God.

4. The bible again was written by man, of course theres no mention of the dinosaurs, because the person who wrote the bible wasn't a scientific man. Lets use two sources as an example: Conservative & Liberal: Both sources have different answers for a different point. As such Science & Religion are both contradicting sources, and are always far apart, as such why would the bible contain any science info?

5. Again the bible was written by man, not by God, whether god supports or is against Slavery is unknown.

6. Bad things happen to everyone, not just exclusively to people who are "bad". Statiscally something bad will happen to you sooner or later.

7. Thats a good question. Jesus's miracle of multiplying the fish, and changing water-wine couldn't have left behind any evidence, as much of the stuff he did was miraculous, and miracles are often witnessed, and leave behind no evidence.

8. Jesus is a figure of faith, somebody who believes in him will claim hes always around when he/she prays, or when they go to church hes always present, if Jesus made a tangible appearance to you, he'd have to appear to all. The same applies to somebody who practices Wicca, they believe magic is real, and people who don't believe in magic think their crazy. The same can apply to people who believe in ghosts or aliens, people who believe see what they believe, people who dont believe do not see what they dont believe in.

9. Its not cannabalism as the author of the video trys to claim it is, its symbolic. Your not litterally eating Jesus's body, the unleavened piece of bread your given is symbolic of his body, as is the wine, why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood, I have no idea lol.

10. This question is stupid. When two people of christian faith are bound together by god, that doesn't mean they'll stay bound together. God as a primary rule doesn't interfere with free will, as such he cannot keep two people who dont love each-other bound together in Holy Matrimony.

Well those are my reponses, Feel free to speak your mind ^^.

- Kuja