@PhilosophicalFrog; man..... I feel like a dick now. I hope you're happy

STILL (and to adress Inhumanist's point), I dislike the way people separate the God dude from the OT and the one from the NT. Oh sure, he's all love and forgiveness now, but one should remember that he used to order the mass murder of entire cities for starters (and I don't even want to talk about the Job story that Grave mentioned). I have a hard time understanding how one can ignore that. Plus, despite all the present love and forgiveness schtick, he's still perfectly willing to throw you head first into hell for not repenting and shit. Yeah, not cool, dude.

This will surely get across what I'm trying to say more clearly.

Funnily enough, the idea of an eternal hell is mostly a New Testament thing. That's why the Jews generally can't agree on what happens after you die: it's barely talked about in the Torah in anything but the vaguest of terms.

Yeah, it's interesting to think how the "new", infinitely kind God is actually the one with the eternal damnation policy.

It being impossible to not break the rules means, to me, that the game is fixed and that failure is built into the system .. like Spock's test in Star Trek. Totally putting aside the debate of the existence of god, I'm not cut out for religion because it grates on me to have to live up to someone else's expectation, particularly when the benefits aren't worth the price of admission.

Honestly, I have a bone to pick with whomever or whatever started this reality because there's the whole death thing to contend with and I have feelings about that.

Eternal hell ain't really a New Testament thing either...the language is of permanence is only for life - Jesus is peculiar in that sense - he promises eternal life in lieu of death over and over again - but never once mentions an eternal hell. Most hellish depictions come from prophetic books and letters - mostly hyperbole used to convey secretly the messages of the early church.

But then there's the fact that Jesus also said that he came to enforce the ancient laws, not erase them. You know, the merciless, horrible ones.

Kind of a mindscrew, eh?

Matthew 5:17 in a dozen different translations - this is a tricky sentence.

NIV - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

NLT - "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

KJV - "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

ABPE - "Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill."

One thing is oddly clear - that the will of God is not necessarily the will of Moses/the prophets/the Written Law. Christ comes to fulfill the Law not the laws and certainly not the pharisees' or Sadducee's will - there's a sort of current running through Christ as a Jewish messianic figure that says that the only "law" he is fulfilling is that of Moses and the Prophets - which is to say that he is fulfillment of the Messianic promise - not necessarily the political and earthly messianic position either. This is what infuriates Judas and the other Maccabees - Jesus isn't militant enough.

But, because he is fulfilling the Law proper, and not the laws, he changes the code of conduct to "love thy neighbor" as opposed to a strict code of conduct - which is reserved for Paul much later who serves, in turn, as the Jewish prophetic vessel - oddly shaping the Pauline theology as both a "retrogression" back to Judaism, and the first branch of recorded Christianity - which is....perhaps another interesting conversation for another interesting day.

The Jews are kind of tricky in this way, and write with a peculiar air of whimsy that sort of distances God from his works on Earth - hence there's an odd detachment and essentially, a lack of caring, about being reunited with God/family/souls/happiness when you die - you just sort of die. It's not until the literal end of time that one is raised up. So, when they speak of Law/divinity/souls/whatever - you have to view the entirety of the argument as kind of dualistic - otherwise you're ignoring an important linguistic development for the Western world.

Mmmmmm, as you say, this is a pretty tricky subject (albeit a fascinating one). Besides, we're kinda off the rails by now.

I need rest. Perhaps we can continue this at another time through PMs, Frog? Because I certainly enjoy reading the viewpoints of someone as familiar with the topic as you. Until then, au revoir.

Some old conservative guy started a conversation with my friend and I at McDonald's about a week ago. He said that gay marriage is a disgrace to God and that gay people are disgusting and unnatural. He then said that the bible was true because it is a prophecy and all prophesies in it have come true so far.

I would have responded with Ezekial 26:1-14. Basically it says the city of tyre would be attacked and never rebuilt except the city is still standing today after it has been rebuilt:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon#After_1920



There's also Matthew 5:18:"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.". Another reference that jesus makes to old testament law is in Matthew 15:4-6:"4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.". Even more troubling is jesus's stories about lazarus and the rich man suffering in hell, as well as his descriptions relating it to the flaming waste pits of 'gehenna' behind jarusalem where 'the worm deith not' and describing it in another verse as where there is 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'. So I would argue that jesus sees hell as a literal place, and is very much behind it. So the kind of apologetic that jesus is 'all about love' or stands apart from the old testament is kind of bunk.

Adding to the general topic, the most general thing that irritates me about some christians is the notion that I haven't read the bible, or haven't been exposed to christianity and if I just did, I would believe. In actuality, the reason why I don't believe is because I've read the bible and don't see anything in there as divinely inspired.

Let's also not forget the fact that Jesus was supposed to return very soon after his "resurrection". I don't remember the exact words, but I think he mentioned that not so much as a couple of generations would pass before the Rapture.

Jeezy is an umpunctual dude.

Let's not forget that the NT was written by people who lived numerous decades apart from Jesus and that it is very hard to tell if anything of it is historical in the slightest sense, safe for the fact that he was crucified by the romans (they kept record of those things). Jesus life and teachings as depicted in the bible could be almost entirely mythical, an idealized projection of the beliefs of early christians.

All these bible quotes got me wondering what if people are put off religion by all the quotes and dogma, which hardly apply to modern life, but still believe in a God?

How about Unitarian Universalism?


"To the Unitarian Universalist, Jesus was a good moral teacher, but nothing more. He is not considered to be divine, and every miracle associated with Him is rejected as being outside of human reason"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 112AA2lDYK

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

I can do without the "could" and the "almost" in your last sentence, Inhumanist.

And that whole Unitarian Universalism thing sounds nice, save for the fact that Jesus' teachings were made to turn you into a doormat.

FTR, I accidentally wrote "centuries" instead of "decades". That's not correct.

Yeah, but that's the Cliff's Notes version, whereas talking to PhilosophicalFrog about it is actually interesting, not to mention from a scholarly and personal perspective.



It's a major sticking point for many. How to verify the bible is even worth referring to? Faith. It's loggerheads. Better to hear it from the mouths (or typing fingers) of the actual, and depressingly rare, religious philosophers.

I have a question for those of you who aren't religious:

I have always wondered where all the hate comes from. Is it that you guys just say the anti religious things just because? Or do you believe in God and just chose to not follow because you don't like something? Or is it something all together different? I can understand being an atheist but all the hate that I have seen directed towards religion just baffles me. I'm just wondering for my own personal knowledge so if you don't feel like answering that's cool. Also I'm not going to throw a bunch or religious stuff back in your face about your answers either I'm just genuinely curious.

Edit: I wanted to throw in my two cents about the bible in. I think it is hard (at least it is for me personally) to take the bible word for word, not only is it mostly parables but it was also written by men often not even near Jesus or while He was living as already stated by some. My other issue is that because of the First Council of Nicaea who decided many moons ago what all the Christians would get to read in the bible as we know it today. Who knows what sort of information was lost to time because they deemed it unworthy of being included for whatever reason they had. We as religious people just have to take it on faith that we are getting all the stuff that we need.

I hate the things organized religion has done to the world. Wars, disease, ignorance, suppression of knowledge and truth, the killing of people who don't believe in the same god, etc etc. I don't hate personal religion. I just disagree with it.

EDIt If I did see a reason to believe in a biblical god I wouldn't agree with him, I wouldn't worship him, and I wouldn't acknowledge him as the supreme being of goodness people say he is.... He's kind of an evil bastard.

Erosion, I'll recommend you to never ask those first two questions to anyone who has a problem with religion, because you'll simply anger them. You have proven yourself to be a fairly reasonable dude, so I won't shout at you, but consider this friendly advice when dealing with people who dislike religion and also don't know you.

And to echo what Henk said (yet again), the anger against organized religion stems from the many ways in which it has been used to promote bigotry, violence, and fear throughout the ages. We can't honestly blame God, because we don't believe in him, but we do see his image as a vehicle for commiting all kinds of atrocities; from mass indoctrination to fucking genocide.

We simply can't help ourselves from pointing at the potential religion has for evil, for it's almost unlimited.

Stop fluffing up my comments with your superior linguistic skills!

I disagree with X|x|x here. It's easy enough to answer, so long as one doesn't fall into the old "IT'S SO FUCKING OBVIOUS".

Personally, it's frustration, not hate. I'm not religion's enemy by any means. Nor am I its friend. In the marketplace of ideas, I see no worth to their wares. At worst they're malicious counterfeit, at best I can make it myself.

As to the flaring hatred, there's a lot of generalized association that goes on, obviously, what with all the stupid shit religious people do and say, and considering how our brains work, that's sensible. We group and generalize in our heuristic tendencies. It takes exceptions for that to change. Knee-jerk bigotry is common mainly because it's easier to come by a religious person who is stupid than one who investigates and delves.

I find religion irrelevant and counterproductive to what I want to achieve. It might be a sense of superiority on my part, or more likely a universalizing of my own experience and needs [to think others should agree], but I don't see how constantly checking in with a lifestyle proctor is going to help me improve. I'm just working for someone else's agenda, and I prefer sovereignty in so far as I have it under my control, which is not all that much, when you get right down to it.

To me, religion is sanctimonious, not sacred. When two individuals stand facing one another, their beliefs affect only how they interpret the interaction, not the facts of the interaction; the circumstances, not the reality, if you see what I mean. Beliefs only affect actions and choices, not the rules under which the objects operate. I'm comfortable with that, but religion seems to want to either nerf it with God, or escalate it with God. People can't just leave shit alone and take it for what it is as we can perceive it, not inflate it into something "glorified" or "sinful/godless". It's just infuriating because it doesn't seem sane. Like I can't just like something until I check with God to see if it's ok. fucking babysitting

To me, it looks like religion lacks common sense and bets far too heavily on the horses Faith and Belief, but of course such things are in large part culturally relative, and because of this blind spot to sober/sane engagement with one's life and circumstances ([e.g.] always recontextualizing everything that happens into "God's plan", or in the case of some philosophies "God's body") many poor decisions are made. Religious people are called upon to answer for the deeds and poor choices of other people of that religion because that religion counts as a kind of team. "You've thrown in with those folks who did this dumb shit. How do you explain it!?" Naturally, no person should be held responsible for the actions of another, but with none of the guilty around, the ones who are around get the brunt.



And to some of us on the other side, it adds up to "why bother" and "why do you trust them, considering their completely fucked track record!? Don't you care about your family!?" Though coming from me, those are not rhetorical questions.

Well said, Grave_Wyrm. You hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

Truths written two thousand years ago must stand up today, they shouldn't need changing or updating for different times.

Cool thank you guys for your answers. And @ xlxlx I in no way intended any maliciousness I was just curious.

@Erosion
Atheists are people who asked themselves if there is a god, looked at the arguments and concluded that there is no such thing. We see no need for an entity that designs and governs the universe for said universe to be. Personally, I attack religion because I think it's mankind's failure. For a race that claims to have free will, we have a knack for following blindly. Some people go about in life, they see and experience things, they hear about a religion (any religion), they get informed. One day, everything clicks and you just know something great has happened and you have faith. I respect that.

On the other hand, you have people who inherited their religion or those who took a religion because, what the hell and they claim they never, even once had doubt. But they must have had doubt, however they do nothing to learn or improve: they are dead weight, too lazy to even consider what would happen if they were wrong. They do not consider to learn other ideas to fortify their own. If free will is the definite factor in defining what is human, then they are not worthy of such privileges.

Furthermore, apostasy is harder than it seems. I was raised Catholic (rather loosely, I'll admit). I went to mass on Sundays, I was baptized, I knew my way around a Bible and I fully believed every word. One day in my early teens, I didn't feel so sure. I had doubts. So I read about other religions and read all I could about it. A few years later, (I was 16 or so) I had renounced Catholicism and thought of myself as a theist. I read on though and I saw no space for god anywhere in the universe. I was now an atheist, but I fought really hard against it: I thought that somewhere I was wrong and that I'd pay a price for my mistake. I tried really hard to find that error in logic that would lead me back to, at least, theism. I eventually embraced my train of thought and accepted my condition as atheist. No regrets, I appreciate what I have so much, because this is all there is. One day I'll be gone and hope I leave behind a better world than the one I came in. My victories and defeats are my own.

See this I understand and respect. Well I actually respect every one's opinions cause they are just that and we are all entitled to think/believe what ever we want. Again I'm not trying to get people mad or anything just trying to further my knowledge and make better decisions/have better judgement in the future. And just trying to understand the reasons people feel the way they do just as I try to help you all understand why I feel the way I do as best I can.

@Erosion; don't worry, I know that you meant no harm

@Nochielo and Grave; I didn't think stating my personal reasons for gravitating towards atheism was of any importance (that's why I only mentioned the whole general thing about religion's potential for evil). I'm glad that you guys proved me wrong, and I even find myself identified with most of what both of you said.
Unless they aren't..... You know..... Truths. I'll leave the whole issue to die here though, because I see no point about getting into a debate dealing with what "truth" is.

@X|x|x : I neglected to quote again, damn my eyes, I should clarify. I was referring to this:


I just disagreed that he shouldn't ask. "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." - and that kind of thing.

Wow after a 6 page religious discussion we're all still friends. slap hands slap hands. Cheers guys I think I'm gonna just leave it at this while we're all still ahead.

@Grave; ooooooooh..... Gotcha now. I just thought it would make sense to recommend that, seeing that those questions could be interpreted as insulting depending on the context.

And yeah, it's rather curious to see that we haven't tried to claw each other's eyes out..... Which is quite the feat. Cheers indeed

It's cause we are all mature and secure in our beliefs and we don't get butthurt when people disagree with us.

Don't get your hopes up, I'm about to send an anthrax letter your way.

Yeah, I really enjoyed partaking in this discussion, atleast to the extent that my limited english vocabulary and knowledge on the subject allowed me to. Cheers, guys!

Yeah, this was a surprisingly nice debate.

Now let's get back to the thread's topic of bashing religious people for their stupidity

Thanks for the heads up now I know not to open any mail from The Netherlands. And as far as your English goes I though it was quite good homie.



Ohhh you trickster you.

That's what reasonable people do!
In other words, in Mexico religion is often linked to a whole new world of bullshit (Oh man I miss Penn & Teller's bullshit!). I mean, religios fellows often follow other shit as witchcraft, astrology, and etc.
Mi kid woke up with a bite on his cheek the other day (he is crazy and sleeps right in my mouth, what do you expected?) and his great grandmother started talking about witches entering in your house in the middle of the night and biting your kids. Why? Because witches are so mean.
She is a very religious person, and I have no dia where the hell she came up with that, who told her that or how the fuck is logic to believe in witches.
She is also old and blind so: debate off.
A couple of days ago me and the gf were talking about how this little kid is unable to sleep some nights. Oh, well, someone gave him "the eye"
The most annoying and stupid crap ever! How can you look at someone and give him "the eye"? Specially when I do the horns sign everytime someone looks at me (Thanks, Dio!)...
The other thing, that actually bothers my soul, is my grandmother. She keeps saying that she'll be sad when she dies because she will die knowing that her grandson (me) will go to hell because he is not baptised. My father in law spoke to her when he met her and he used the same crappy argument to try to convince me to baptise my kid. In his words, he doesn't believe in church, just in God, but he does follow the stupid rites pushed on us by religion.

It actually bothers the hell out of me that they take my kid to the church, and try to teach him how to make the sign of the cross, while I try to teach him what the hell a square is.

I'm sorry buddies, I try to educate not indoctrinate!!! You can question my words, but I sure will question yours!!!

I think this is oversimplifying the issue a bit. I think religion was a ground necessary for society's rise. I'm not at all sure if mankind could've flourished from the get-go as a more or less rational, sceptical and atheistical species even if these had been innate qualities. I see it more as the training wheels of society without which there probably wouldn't be much to fail at, cause we would've never even got going without these. You can argue that we've outgrown our need for these training wheels but to say that these wheels are the whole problem in itself is not right or particularly insightful to my mind. Unless you meant that needing the wheels was the problem, in which case, yeah, you could technically argue that our problem is not being born perfect but having to struggle towards progress.

^ Religion is one of, if not the main motivation of cultural accomplishments in history. That can't be denied. And cultural efforts without any use to survival are probably the reason we eventually became civilizations. Sure there are other factors like domestication of animals and the rise of agriculture etc. that have little to do with religion, but we simply can't know how history would look like without it. To me it appears that religion has been mostly a driving factor in human development, even if it hindered us in some things.

The neckbeard just completes it.

While that is hilarious (and it really is) a lot of American atheists are scared of being cast out by their community if they come out as an atheist. It's fair to say that some atheists do suffer from discrimination and ridicule.

Not to mention facing persecution and death in Islamic countries, but to say that the discrimination faced by atheists (at worst, death) is somehow worse than the discrimination faced by blacks, LGBTs and women is somehow worse even when the punishment for being an atheist or gay it's completely comparable, and especially when the atheist in the picture is a neckbearded (and weirdly shirtless) white guy (so presumably not from a place where atheists are put to death), this "YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DISCRIMINATION - UGANDAN HOMOSEXUAL" argument really fails.