Mocking Those of Faith

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

So it all basically comes down to this:

It's wrong to mock someone because of something that they had no choice in. It's also wrong to mock someone purely because they're different. However it is okay to mock someone when the way they are different is just plain wrong, and is of their own choice.

Which goes for religion. There is no religion as far as I know (not counting the godless religions) that doesn't 'know for sure' that there is a god. But it can't be 100% proven that a god exists, so that stance is plain wrong, and very far from what stance you should be taken. (the further you are from the proper stance on a matter, the more you get mocked.) Gnostic atheists are the same, though they are less far from the proper stance to take, so are mocked less. The proper stance in the matter of god is "There is no good evidence for a god or gods, and there never has been, so there probably is no god or gods."

I personally only mock people of faith when they push their religion/god onto me. That or when someone comes with plain ignorant/stupid views on religion or god on a forum or some such. I will also debate with someone of faith, in a civil manner, if the other side stays civil as well.

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:
However, religion is fundamentally a good thing

That is...highly debatable to say the least.

SimpleThunda':

I am not claiming anything, so I have nothing to prove.

If I claimed god existed and then started this debate, THEN I would've been "appealing to ignorance".

The fact of the matter is, I am an atheist, and I am sick of seeing other atheists starting the same holy war theists are starting over religion, both making claims which they can't prove.

That is and has been my point and apparently, no one seems to grasp it.

I noticed in my last post a 'your' slipped in, I apologize for the association with you it caused. It was intended to address religion as a whole rather then you and the devils advocate your playing right now.

But the point still stands and we can push the boundaries further with Evidence of Absence.
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
"A deity's existence can mean different things to different people. Some claims about the existence of gods or about their actions can be falsified, such as the claim that a god Helios pulls the sun across the sky. Some related claims can be empirically tested: There is evidence of absence for the power of faith healing (which the American Cancer Society also calls potentially dangerous if it replaces proper medical care)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Pretty much that we don't have anything from religion that can be tested or proven true ergo we can safely assume until that time religion is nothing more then a thing created by people for people.

I do not make fun of people because of there religion

I make fun of people for saying/doing something stupid. If it is because there religion I will still be making fun of them(YEC for example).

sanquin:
...There is no religion as far as I know (not counting the godless religions) that doesn't 'know for sure' that there is a god. But it can't be 100% proven that a god exists, so that stance is plain wrong, and very far from what stance you should be taken... The proper stance in the matter of god is "There is no good evidence for a god or gods, and there never has been, so there probably is no god or gods."...

It seems to me, and I'm happy to be corrected on this so please chime in if needed, that you're saying that you believe that without evidence, one should not have a belief in something. Ok.
Of course, in the context of this thread, you've chosen that particular belief. You believe it in your bones, and will defend it as you see fit because you believe it to be the absolute truth. Good for you.

My question is that is if you mock those of differing beliefs, are they free to mock you? You would argue ... whatever it is you'll argue. Unless the answer is: "Yes, they're free to mock me, degrade me, insult me, verbally insult me and treat me as a lower class of human being" then you're being a hypocrite.

What you believe isn't "the way". It's your belief. That stands true for absolutely everything you believe.

I believe that anyone should be able to believe whatever they want to believe. Be it in Gods, non-Gods, Aliens, Dragons, The Matrix, etc.

Silvanus:
I do not concern myself with people's personally held, harmless beliefs. I do not try to convert people from them;

Silvanus:

AgedGrunt:
you cannot fill every heart and community using graduated cylinders.

No, but you can with reasoned and humanist ideals, ideals antithetical to most of the religious doctrines of the world

Yes, I believe that is a self-contradiction. If you do not concern yourself with others' beliefs then you would not contend that "reasoned and humanist ideals" can fulfill everyone in life. Speak for yourself.

Zeh Don:
It seems to me, and I'm happy to be corrected on this so please chime in if needed, that you're saying that you believe that without evidence, one should not have a belief in something. Ok.
Of course, in the context of this thread, you've chosen that particular belief. You believe it in your bones, and will defend it as you see fit because you believe it to be the absolute truth. Good for you.

My question is that is if you mock those of differing beliefs, are they free to mock you? You would argue ... whatever it is you'll argue. Unless the answer is: "Yes, they're free to mock me, degrade me, insult me, verbally insult me and treat me as a lower class of human being" then you're being a hypocrite.

What you believe isn't "the way". It's your belief. That stands true for absolutely everything you believe.

I believe that anyone should be able to believe whatever they want to believe. Be it in Gods, non-Gods, Aliens, Dragons, The Matrix, etc.

What I'm saying is, you can believe that something might exist without evidence. You can't believe something does exist without evidence. I do not believe anything to be an absolute truth, as science continuously corrects and adds to itself. Every time they find out something new it adds to/changes what we already knew and raised more questions.

People of different beliefs have every right to mock me, if they can prove that my beliefs are unfounded and wrong. Which quite frankly, religious people can't. Too much evidence points to agnostic atheism as being the most correct viewpoint on the matter of god.

What I believe IS the way. It's scepticism until proof is provided. (not denial, scepticism) As if everyone started believing all kinds of things without evidence for them we would get thrown right back to the dark ages or even worse.

My belief in a god or gods is of the same level as my belief in an invisible unicorn existing. I can't prove one doesn't exist, so I can't claim with absolute certainty that one doesn't exist. But there is no empirical evidence for one existing, so agnostic atheism is the right viewpoint on invisible unicorns.

And quite frankly, every theist is an atheist as well, when it's about any and all religions but their own. A Christian is an Allah atheist, and a Zeus atheist, and a Gaia atheist, and you name it. I just go one god further with my atheism.

sanquin:
What I'm saying is, you can believe that something might exist without evidence. You can't believe something does exist without evidence...

Then you fail to grasp the concept of belief and its intricacies. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'd recommend looking into belief as a concept.
Delusions, for example, are defined as believing despite all evidence to the contrary. So, right there your statement is inherently wrong. The human mind is a wonderful machine, capable of being entirely logical, and incomprehensibly illogical at the exact same moment.

sanquin:
I do not believe anything to be an absolute truth...

Sounds good, until...

sanquin:
...What I believe IS the way. It's scepticism until proof is provided...

Critical Thinking - or Skeptical Thinking - is a defined structure of belief: something this false until it is proved. This is your belief, and you hold to it. It is accepted within the scientific community and forms a key component of the scientific method due to it's allocation of the burden of proof. However, it is a belief, and there are differing beliefs.

"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?" - John Lennon.

As I said above, the human mind is a wonderful machine. But, the scientific method is not "The Way". It is not the default position of universe, and nothing dictates it. We assimilated it into our thought processes as it's a tool to ensure we're the "least amount of wrong" at any one time - the goal of the scientific community at large.

sanquin:
People of different beliefs have every right to mock me, if they can prove that my beliefs are unfounded and wrong.

So you believe the Catholic Church was right to treat Scientists who asked for time and money to assist in proving their unproven theories and completely complex scientific experimentation to gather the evidence we take for granted today, when it held the power of Education, as idiots?
What a horrible opinion this is. Someone is wrong, or perceived to be wrong, and so they should be openly mocked, scorned and treated badly?

sanquin:
...Too much evidence points to agnostic atheism as being the most correct viewpoint on the matter of god...

Ignoring any specific Religion, the belief in God has no physical evidence, however there is no evidence to contrary either. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and all that. If someone believes for any reason - objective or otherwise - and anyone wishes them not to, as the instigator of change the burden of proof is on them. Hence the problem - theists can't prove it, but believe it, and atheists can't prove it doesn't exist and don't believe in it.

sanquin:
And quite frankly, every theist is an atheist as well, when it's about any and all religions but their own. A Christian is an Allah atheist, and a Zeus atheist, and a Gaia atheist, and you name it. I just go one god further with my atheism.

A tired, worthless argument when dealing monotheism... and entirely pointless given the body of our discussion.

AgedGrunt:
If you do not concern yourself with others' beliefs then you would not contend that "reasoned and humanist ideals" can fulfill everyone in life. Speak for yourself.

Ahh, Okay, I see what you're saying now. I misunderstood before, I think.

The thing is, I don't believe you (or anybody) genuinely needs religious fulfillment. I believe it's a crutch, and that it gives them things they can find elsewhere, but teaches them that its only available through superstition.

So, I don't try to convert people. But I don't believe that religious belief is necessary to anybody.

Seanchaidh:

Assassin Xaero:
Like people on this site, they will even go so low as changing the meaning of certain words (such as "belief") to fit their own definition and attack anyone else who actually knows what the word means.

What does "belief" mean to you?

A belief is something you hold to be true without having proof of it. For example, I believe life on other planets exist. With the billions of planets around the billions of stars in existence, I find it highly unlikely that this is the only one with life on it. Can I prove that there is life on other planets or do I have evidence of it? No. Does that mean there isn't and no chance at all that there can be to the point where I have to make fun of anyone who thinks there is? Of course not. On the other side, I know this chair is under me. I can see it and touch it, and can obviously prove to someone else that it is in fact here. So, I don't believe the chair is here, I know it is here.

SimpleThunda':

itsthesheppy:

SimpleThunda':

As long as you can't disprove the existence of god, you have just as much right to say God doesn't exist, as they have to say God does exist.

I'm going to add to the dogpile here and repeat points other have made and I don't care. You obviously don't understand how the burden of proof works.

Nor do you, apparently.

It goes both ways.

Okay, so you've confirmed you don't understand how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof in any argument always falls on the person making the positive claim about something's existence. If I were to make the claim that distilled water freezes at around zero degrees Celsius, but you lived in the desert and had never seen ice before, you would be correct to ask me to prove it. But if I had no proof, you do not have to prove it doesn't freeze at zero degrees Celsius to say it doesn't as though it were fact until such evidence exists.

Same goes for the existence of God's and any other mythological creature. Positive proof of non-existence is largely impossible for such things. In fact, proving anything doesn't exist is often nigh impossible. But if there's no proof it exists, then the default assumption is it doesn't until the evidence changes, and stating that something like God doesn't exist is perfectly acceptable. It's on the person stating God does exist to prove it, not the person stating God doesn't exist to prove their claim. Their claim is already supported by the available evidence and is established fact until new evidence suggesting the existence of God is found.

So please drop this silly bullshit about the burden of proof going both ways. It doesn't, and no one should ever argue otherwise as it only serves to leave people with a poor understanding of how to form an acceptable argument, and gives fanatics and zealots the mistaken idea that they are just as right as everyone else.

Assassin Xaero:

Seanchaidh:

Assassin Xaero:
Like people on this site, they will even go so low as changing the meaning of certain words (such as "belief") to fit their own definition and attack anyone else who actually knows what the word means.

What does "belief" mean to you?

A belief is something you hold to be true without having proof of it. For example, I believe life on other planets exist. With the billions of planets around the billions of stars in existence, I find it highly unlikely that this is the only one with life on it. Can I prove that there is life on other planets or do I have evidence of it? No. Does that mean there isn't and no chance at all that there can be to the point where I have to make fun of anyone who thinks there is? Of course not. On the other side, I know this chair is under me. I can see it and touch it, and can obviously prove to someone else that it is in fact here. So, I don't believe the chair is here, I know it is here.

Not a very solid definition. do you also believe that a pencil will fall to the ground if you let it go? There's evidence to suggest that. Also, believing in extraterrestrial life also carries with it some backing because life happened on this planet, and this planet is made up of highly common elements, universally speaking. Scientists estimate with reasonable certainty that there could be billions of earthlike planets in this galaxy alone.

I don't like the word "belief" being co-opted to mean what the word "faith" defines perfectly well on its own. Faith refers, in my mind, to the 'claim assumed to be true in the absence of evidence'. Belief, to me, refers to expectation based on experience.

When atheists like myself campaign against religious foolishness, it's faith - the claim assumed to be true in the absence of any evidence to support it - that I am attacking, or in the service of the OP's subject, mocking.

Imagine the same ridicule you would have if an adult genuinely worshipped Thor, Zeus or Huitzilopochtli.

itsthesheppy:

Assassin Xaero:

Seanchaidh:

What does "belief" mean to you?

A belief is something you hold to be true without having proof of it. For example, I believe life on other planets exist. With the billions of planets around the billions of stars in existence, I find it highly unlikely that this is the only one with life on it. Can I prove that there is life on other planets or do I have evidence of it? No. Does that mean there isn't and no chance at all that there can be to the point where I have to make fun of anyone who thinks there is? Of course not. On the other side, I know this chair is under me. I can see it and touch it, and can obviously prove to someone else that it is in fact here. So, I don't believe the chair is here, I know it is here.

Not a very solid definition. do you also believe that a pencil will fall to the ground if you let it go? There's evidence to suggest that. Also, believing in extraterrestrial life also carries with it some backing because life happened on this planet, and this planet is made up of highly common elements, universally speaking. Scientists estimate with reasonable certainty that there could be billions of earthlike planets in this galaxy alone.

I don't like the word "belief" being co-opted to mean what the word "faith" defines perfectly well on its own. Faith refers, in my mind, to the 'claim assumed to be true in the absence of evidence'. Belief, to me, refers to expectation based on experience.

When atheists like myself campaign against religious foolishness, it's faith - the claim assumed to be true in the absence of any evidence to support it - that I am attacking, or in the service of the OP's subject, mocking.

I find that interesting. Not sure if I'll be able to put my thoughts here into words, but I'll give it a shot. I could say I know that a pencil will fall to the ground based on my understanding of gravity, and as you said, that provides evidence. It has been established that gravity will pull things towards it, and on Earth, the largest source of gravity is the Earth itself, so the pencil would be pulled towards the Earth (or fall, rather). However, if there is a case where I drop a pencil, but it doesn't fall, that would mean I don't know for a fact that it will always fall, making it a belief. Just like how I don't know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but seeing how it has for millions of years, I'm pretty sure it will. Taking it to the extreme, would that then mean that everything is a belief and you can't know anything? If so, what is knowledge then?

For me, "faith" is more of a substitute for evidence when it comes to beliefs. Over the past 5 months I went from being an atheist to becoming a Christian. So, I can't really give you (or anyone) evidence of God, or any evidence of all the things that happened during those 5 months or how I felt, because I can't really make you experience and feel the same things I did in the situations I was in. I have no evidence to back up my belief of God, but after all I've been through, I have faith that backs up my belief of God.

And just googling around on random dictionaries, belief:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief:

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

None of those say anything about requiring any evidence.

The whole "I mock people who believe in something without evidence" thing to me is about the same as people who are going "does anyone need an assault rifle?" when they are referring to any gun that is full auto (which is not what is considered an assault rifle). Basically giving your own definition to a word and then going on about it just seems arrogant.

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:

Assassin Xaero:

A belief is something you hold to be true without having proof of it. For example, I believe life on other planets exist. With the billions of planets around the billions of stars in existence, I find it highly unlikely that this is the only one with life on it. Can I prove that there is life on other planets or do I have evidence of it? No. Does that mean there isn't and no chance at all that there can be to the point where I have to make fun of anyone who thinks there is? Of course not. On the other side, I know this chair is under me. I can see it and touch it, and can obviously prove to someone else that it is in fact here. So, I don't believe the chair is here, I know it is here.

Not a very solid definition. do you also believe that a pencil will fall to the ground if you let it go? There's evidence to suggest that. Also, believing in extraterrestrial life also carries with it some backing because life happened on this planet, and this planet is made up of highly common elements, universally speaking. Scientists estimate with reasonable certainty that there could be billions of earthlike planets in this galaxy alone.

I don't like the word "belief" being co-opted to mean what the word "faith" defines perfectly well on its own. Faith refers, in my mind, to the 'claim assumed to be true in the absence of evidence'. Belief, to me, refers to expectation based on experience.

When atheists like myself campaign against religious foolishness, it's faith - the claim assumed to be true in the absence of any evidence to support it - that I am attacking, or in the service of the OP's subject, mocking.

I find that interesting. Not sure if I'll be able to put my thoughts here into words, but I'll give it a shot. I could say I know that a pencil will fall to the ground based on my understanding of gravity, and as you said, that provides evidence. It has been established that gravity will pull things towards it, and on Earth, the largest source of gravity is the Earth itself, so the pencil would be pulled towards the Earth (or fall, rather). However, if there is a case where I drop a pencil, but it doesn't fall, that would mean I don't know for a fact that it will always fall, making it a belief. Just like how I don't know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but seeing how it has for millions of years, I'm pretty sure it will. Taking it to the extreme, would that then mean that everything is a belief and you can't know anything? If so, what is knowledge then?

For me, "faith" is more of a substitute for evidence when it comes to beliefs. Over the past 5 months I went from being an atheist to becoming a Christian. So, I can't really give you (or anyone) evidence of God, or any evidence of all the things that happened during those 5 months or how I felt, because I can't really make you experience and feel the same things I did in the situations I was in. I have no evidence to back up my belief of God, but after all I've been through, I have faith that backs up my belief of God.

And just googling around on random dictionaries, belief:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief:

a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

None of those say anything about requiring any evidence.

The whole "I mock people who believe in something without evidence" thing to me is about the same as people who are going "does anyone need an assault rifle?" when they are referring to any gun that is full auto (which is not what is considered an assault rifle). Basically giving your own definition to a word and then going on about it just seems arrogant.

Fumbling as though through a darkened room, you have brushed up against a salient observation. You point out the question of: can we really know anything? Practically speaking, yes. If communication is to be possible, and language to have any meaning, we're going to have to settle on some generally-accepted things. I can say that I 'know' that the pencil will "fall" and that the sun will "rise". But if you want to talk about "absolute" knowledge, such a thing does not, in fact, exist.

Science actually never makes a claim to "absolute" knowledge. There are no irrefutable facts; what we have instead are theories, which are one and all of them subject to revision upon discovery of new information. We accept that the pencil moves towards the earth because of gravity, but it could be tomorrow that we find out something new that alters how we understand gravity, and the theory might change.

The problem is that faith in god does not apply to these rules, or really to any level of rational discourse in any other corner of our lives. God is given a free pass because if he were not, he would evaporate as the imaginary construct he is. You and every other godly individual capable of banging two thoughts together realizes this on some level. You know there is no evidence; you'd admitted that directly. You will (I imagine) freely admit that you do not conduct your life in similar ways for anything else. Most people will not engage in risky purchases, investments, or life alterations without some evidence on-hand to suggest to them that it would be a reasonable action to take. For example, if I tell you that if you mail me $100 today, I'll have a brand-new Lamborghini sent to your house tomorrow, you're unlikely to take that deal on my say-so alone. Despite the risk/reward being heavily in your favor numbers wise (a risk of 100 dollars for the reward of over a hundred thousand) you rationally know that without some kind of evidence to back up my claim, my offer is worthless. You need to see the car, the deed, have someone else sign off on it...

And yet here we're talking about perhaps the biggest risk/reward gamble of all. Gambling your time (priceless; it's constantly spent and there's no way to recover it) to hedge your bets against a possible afterlife, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You are spending a commodity that is nonrenewable, finite and eventually fatal, investing in the biggest, most cosmic imaginary Lamborghini of all. Why does god get a pass? Why would he not be subjected to the same scrutiny as literally every other aspect of your life? Well, simple. Because even casual scrutiny is fatal for gods, and nobody wants to kill their imaginary friend.

Or to quote someone more clever than I:

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.

itsthesheppy:
And yet here we're talking about perhaps the biggest risk/reward gamble of all. Gambling your time (priceless; it's constantly spent and there's no way to recover it) to hedge your bets against a possible afterlife, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You are spending a commodity that is nonrenewable, finite and eventually fatal, investing in the biggest, most cosmic imaginary Lamborghini of all. Why does god get a pass? Why would he not be subjected to the same scrutiny as literally every other aspect of your life? Well, simple. Because even casual scrutiny is fatal for gods, and nobody wants to kill their imaginary friend.

Or to quote someone more clever than I:

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.

Gambling my time (or "wasting it", as a lot of people here would probably say) on God when there is no evidence of an after life, well, that ultimately is my choice, which I'm sure most everyone would agree with. But doing so, even if logically there is very little to no chance that there is a God, there is hope and a chance that there is, so I put my faith in it. I enjoy it, and desire to do so, even. If instead I spent my time playing video games, or just reading other books, or hell, even talking with people on the internet about beliefs, is that not wasting nonrenewable time on something?

Another question, do you believe in a conscience? That seems along the same lines as no evidence (unless someone has proved something about hearing voice in your head that I do not know about). What about good and bad or right and wrong? There are the obvious ones, like killing is wrong, but what about the not so obvious ones? This may be a bad example, but it's about all I can think of at the moment: eating meat. There are people who say it is wrong and evil to eat meat since you are eating a living thing (which, plants are also a living thing, but not going to go into that now), but the majority of people are fine with it. Or, as I said on another site (but more with an argument of gun control), here (in the USA) we see it wrong to eat dogs, but I'm sure people in other countries are completely fine with it. So then who or what determines what is right or wrong? If I lost my job, I'd probably say it was bad, but then, if later down the line, something better came from it, I'd probably say it was good.

Zeh Don:
So you believe the Catholic Church was right to treat Scientists who asked for time and money to assist in proving their unproven theories and completely complex scientific experimentation to gather the evidence we take for granted today, when it held the power of Education, as idiots?
What a horrible opinion this is. Someone is wrong, or perceived to be wrong, and so they should be openly mocked, scorned and treated badly?

There's a difference between a statement for which there is no proof, and one that has yet to be proven. A scientist wanting to prove something should be able to do so. Only when he doesn't find his proof or even proof to the contrary, yet still keeps to his beliefs, then he should be considered an 'idiot' as you said it.

Zeh Don:
Ignoring any specific Religion, the belief in God has no physical evidence, however there is no evidence to contrary either. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and all that. If someone believes for any reason - objective or otherwise - and anyone wishes them not to, as the instigator of change the burden of proof is on them. Hence the problem - theists can't prove it, but believe it, and atheists can't prove it doesn't exist and don't believe in it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, no. Which is why it is also false to say "God doesn't exist." The absence of evidence does point to a god PROBABLY not existing. Which is why I said agnostic atheism, not gnostic atheism is the most accurate position to take at this time.

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:
And yet here we're talking about perhaps the biggest risk/reward gamble of all. Gambling your time (priceless; it's constantly spent and there's no way to recover it) to hedge your bets against a possible afterlife, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You are spending a commodity that is nonrenewable, finite and eventually fatal, investing in the biggest, most cosmic imaginary Lamborghini of all. Why does god get a pass? Why would he not be subjected to the same scrutiny as literally every other aspect of your life? Well, simple. Because even casual scrutiny is fatal for gods, and nobody wants to kill their imaginary friend.

Or to quote someone more clever than I:

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.

Gambling my time (or "wasting it", as a lot of people here would probably say) on God when there is no evidence of an after life, well, that ultimately is my choice, which I'm sure most everyone would agree with. But doing so, even if logically there is very little to no chance that there is a God, there is hope and a chance that there is, so I put my faith in it. I enjoy it, and desire to do so, even. If instead I spent my time playing video games, or just reading other books, or hell, even talking with people on the internet about beliefs, is that not wasting nonrenewable time on something?

Another question, do you believe in a conscience? That seems along the same lines as no evidence (unless someone has proved something about hearing voice in your head that I do not know about). What about good and bad or right and wrong? There are the obvious ones, like killing is wrong, but what about the not so obvious ones? This may be a bad example, but it's about all I can think of at the moment: eating meat. There are people who say it is wrong and evil to eat meat since you are eating a living thing (which, plants are also a living thing, but not going to go into that now), but the majority of people are fine with it. Or, as I said on another site (but more with an argument of gun control), here (in the USA) we see it wrong to eat dogs, but I'm sure people in other countries are completely fine with it. So then who or what determines what is right or wrong? If I lost my job, I'd probably say it was bad, but then, if later down the line, something better came from it, I'd probably say it was good.

People can make their own choices. I reserve the right to possess opinions about those choices and if engaged in public about them, I'll share them. Truth be told, playing video games adds little of value to the world. Religious indoctrination, on the other hand, I would argue actively detracts from it. Religion represents a force of antagonism in this world; a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end. To ally yourself with such a group is in my opinion morally reprehensible. You described yourself as a christian. The bible advocates slavery and in fact never comes out clearly against it. I would put it to you simply: explain yourself.

It is incumbent on us as thinking adults to challenge each other. I sincerely do not believe that someone's 'faith' and beliefs are immune from scrutiny. In fact, I consider the opposite to be true; there is little of greater value to talk about, as a persona's beliefs inform their actions. And when someone believes in the imaginary; the ridiculous; the morally corrupt, it's worth pointing out and discussing, because in a very direct way these things impact our lives.

You bring up morality; I would advise you not to. This is a philosophical question that is, in my opinion, of no value to cover because the theory of evolution answered it years ago. We are a tribal, community-based species. As individual animals we are weak; we are slow, we lack significant physical defensive abilities, we're weak, we're soft, we're deeply vulnerable to the elements, and we have to eat a lot. We could only survive as a tribal species. The strongest tribes were the ones with the strongest community bonds; where members were more likely to help each other, to display altruistic tendency, to avoid self-destructive behavior. Over time these qualities were bred more and more into, as the communities that displayed them succeeded, and the ones that did not, failed. Murder, rape, theft and so forth still exist because our evolutionary process is ongoing, not complete.

No magical, supernatural source is necessary. You will find that this statement applies to every god question. God can be removed from every process, every element of this universe and every aspect of our behavior, and everything works just fine (indeed, unchanged) for the removal. God is unnecessary. An imaginary friend that comes prepackaged with dangerously bad ideas.

itsthesheppy:
People can make their own choices. I reserve the right to possess opinions about those choices and if engaged in public about them, I'll share them. Truth be told, playing video games adds little of value to the world. Religious indoctrination, on the other hand, I would argue actively detracts from it. Religion represents a force of antagonism in this world; a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end. To ally yourself with such a group is in my opinion morally reprehensible. You described yourself as a christian. The bible advocates slavery and in fact never comes out clearly against it. I would put it to you simply: explain yourself.

So, since I'm a Christian, I take all the blame for things they've done in the past? Please tell me that isn't what you are saying because that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. By saying you are atheist you are allying yourself with a group of people whose goal in life is to attack and humiliate others for what? Because they think differently? Their life is dedicated to making the lives of others as miserable as possible. Explain that.

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:
People can make their own choices. I reserve the right to possess opinions about those choices and if engaged in public about them, I'll share them. Truth be told, playing video games adds little of value to the world. Religious indoctrination, on the other hand, I would argue actively detracts from it. Religion represents a force of antagonism in this world; a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end. To ally yourself with such a group is in my opinion morally reprehensible. You described yourself as a christian. The bible advocates slavery and in fact never comes out clearly against it. I would put it to you simply: explain yourself.

So, since I'm a Christian, I take all the blame for things they've done in the past? Please tell me that isn't what you are saying because that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. By saying you are atheist you are allying yourself with a group of people whose goal in life is to attack and humiliate others for what? Because they think differently? Their life is dedicated to making the lives of others as miserable as possible. Explain that.

You cannot provide evidence that 'their life is dedicated to making the lives of others miserable'. I can, however, quote the bible passages advocating slavery to you if you like (I'll spare you that sanctimony; I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). That happens to be a crucial difference. Your retaliatory accusation is baseless on many levels; not only do you lack the data to back up your claim, but atheism is not a 'club' one belongs to by virtue of saying it; there are no doctrines and no guidebooks. Christianity is different.

Unless you are some fringe sect of Christianity (and there are a great many to choose from) that does not use the bible to reinforce the divinity of Jesus, I'm just going to assume that the bible is the source material you are using. If you are going to join a club and identify yourself as a member of it, I don't see it as being unfair if I hold the charter and rulebook of your club up and ask you some questions about it. Jesus is divine because the bible describes it as such, and the bible is understood to be a reliable source of this information because the bible is the word of god and god would not lie. However, the bible also advocates slavery. I do not see why it is unfair to point this out and ask you, a self-identifying member of this community, to answer for it. If you can.

itsthesheppy:

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:
People can make their own choices. I reserve the right to possess opinions about those choices and if engaged in public about them, I'll share them. Truth be told, playing video games adds little of value to the world. Religious indoctrination, on the other hand, I would argue actively detracts from it. Religion represents a force of antagonism in this world; a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end. To ally yourself with such a group is in my opinion morally reprehensible. You described yourself as a christian. The bible advocates slavery and in fact never comes out clearly against it. I would put it to you simply: explain yourself.

So, since I'm a Christian, I take all the blame for things they've done in the past? Please tell me that isn't what you are saying because that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. By saying you are atheist you are allying yourself with a group of people whose goal in life is to attack and humiliate others for what? Because they think differently? Their life is dedicated to making the lives of others as miserable as possible. Explain that.

You cannot provide evidence that 'their life is dedicated to making the lives of others miserable'. I can, however, quote the bible passages advocating slavery to you if you like (I'll spare you that sanctimony; I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). That happens to be a crucial difference. Your retaliatory accusation is baseless on many levels; not only do you lack the data to back up your claim, but atheism is not a 'club' one belongs to by virtue of saying it; there are no doctrines and no guidebooks. Christianity is different.

Unless you are some fringe sect of Christianity (and there are a great many to choose from) that does not use the bible to reinforce the divinity of Jesus, I'm just going to assume that the bible is the source material you are using. If you are going to join a club and identify yourself as a member of it, I don't see it as being unfair if I hold the charter and rulebook of your club up and ask you some questions about it. Jesus is divine because the bible describes it as such, and the bible is understood to be a reliable source of this information because the bible is the word of god and god would not lie. However, the bible also advocates slavery. I do not see why it is unfair to point this out and ask you, a self-identifying member of this community, to answer for it. If you can.

So, I need evidence, but you don't? Since there isn't a book on atheism, that means you can do whatever you want? You seem to think that any Christian just does what the bible says and doesn't stray from it, which is insanely narrow minded. Also, you seem to be leaving out this:

a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end

No need to explanation or evidence for that? If religion is a source of hate, then why do so many "non-religious" atheist feel the need to hate and attack those who are religious? All of those have to do with the people, not the religion.

sanquin:

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:
However, religion is fundamentally a good thing

That is...highly debatable to say the least.

Grasp the term 'fundamentally'. Are you saying that the idea of everyone following ethically sound principles is wrong? Im not saying it happens in reality, but as a concept, theres no doubt its a good thing.

My opinion on this has gradually shifted. It used to be " don't do it, it's very dickish".

But then I thought; How would I treat other non-religious beliefs I didn't share.

If someone genuinely believed in Bigfoot or Nessie or magic, I would genuinely struggle to keep a straight face. That is different, because those beliefs are so rare, that I consider it more likely the other person is taking the piss, and that would be the main source of my incredulity.

What about more common ideas then. Ghosts for example. I'd be polite and leave the great big elephant in the corner, unacknowledged, unless they insisted in talking about it, where I would tentatively admit my scepticism. You don't want to hurt anyone's feelings after all.
In other company, I would rip the piss out of people with those views. Certainly on the internet, I would not hold back my critique.

This is where the 'respect religion' argument falls down. Almost every Christian I know would happily take the piss out of people who believed in 'healing crystals' or suchlike. Talk to a Christian about Scientology; they don't show much in the way of 'respect'.

So they are asking for a special exemption. In fact they are asking for a whole knew category, many religious people would be offended by the comparisons I just made. The fact that genuinely held beliefs about a creator who wrote a book of rules could be considered comparable to genuinely held beliefs they happen not to hold is in itself considered to be mockery. Surely, that is hugely disrespectful to the myriad other beliefs out there.

So now I'm of the opinion that you should always try and be polite and all, but there is no reason to treat religion like a sacred cow.

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:

Assassin Xaero:

So, since I'm a Christian, I take all the blame for things they've done in the past? Please tell me that isn't what you are saying because that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. By saying you are atheist you are allying yourself with a group of people whose goal in life is to attack and humiliate others for what? Because they think differently? Their life is dedicated to making the lives of others as miserable as possible. Explain that.

You cannot provide evidence that 'their life is dedicated to making the lives of others miserable'. I can, however, quote the bible passages advocating slavery to you if you like (I'll spare you that sanctimony; I'm sure you know what I'm talking about). That happens to be a crucial difference. Your retaliatory accusation is baseless on many levels; not only do you lack the data to back up your claim, but atheism is not a 'club' one belongs to by virtue of saying it; there are no doctrines and no guidebooks. Christianity is different.

Unless you are some fringe sect of Christianity (and there are a great many to choose from) that does not use the bible to reinforce the divinity of Jesus, I'm just going to assume that the bible is the source material you are using. If you are going to join a club and identify yourself as a member of it, I don't see it as being unfair if I hold the charter and rulebook of your club up and ask you some questions about it. Jesus is divine because the bible describes it as such, and the bible is understood to be a reliable source of this information because the bible is the word of god and god would not lie. However, the bible also advocates slavery. I do not see why it is unfair to point this out and ask you, a self-identifying member of this community, to answer for it. If you can.

So, I need evidence, but you don't? Since there isn't a book on atheism, that means you can do whatever you want? You seem to think that any Christian just does what the bible says and doesn't stray from it, which is insanely narrow minded. Also, you seem to be leaving out this:

a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end

No need to explanation or evidence for that? If religion is a source of hate, then why do so many "non-religious" atheist feel the need to hate and attack those who are religious? All of those have to do with the people, not the religion.

Atheists debating the godly on twitter and facebook and video game forums does not quite equate to the murder of abortion doctors, the voting to prohibit homosexuals equal rights, suicide bombings, child abuse, etc. It's just not the same. Hitchens as usual said it best, though I'll paraphrase here: There is not a single act of charity or goodwill for which religious belief is an absolutely necessary component. An atheist or nonbeliever is equally capable of kindness and altruism for his or her fellow person as a godly individual. But if I were to say to you, think of an act of evil, of discrimination, violence, or abuse for which religious belief happens to be a prime motivator: everyone reading this has just thought of something.

So if you'd like examples, I'll happily provide some: The catholic/protestant/orthodox conflicts in many european states, such as Ireland, or eastern europe; the christian/muslim conflict in the Balkans; the shia/sunni divide that takes lives every day; the historical and ongoing suppression of women; the persecution of homosexuals; the resistance to condoms and safe sex practices, contributing directly to a sweeping aids epidemic in Africa in particular; the pushing of creationism and the resistance to the education of folks into the (globally accepted) theory of evolution; the rape of children in the church and the protection of criminal priests. None of this is news.

But all of this is inconsequential to the conversation as it happens, because don't think I didn't notice what you're doing. I asked you a direct question, one adult to another, in good faith. I would like you to explain why it is you can in good conscience ally yourself with a group whose rulebook advocates slavery. I'm not letting you off the hook for this, however mightily you may try to change the subject to avoid the question.

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:

sanquin:

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:
However, religion is fundamentally a good thing

That is...highly debatable to say the least.

Grasp the term 'fundamentally'. Are you saying that the idea of everyone following ethically sound principles is wrong? Im not saying it happens in reality, but as a concept, theres no doubt its a good thing.

Not necessarily. I do not consider the advocating of slavery or the stoning of homosexuals to be a good thing, and that stuff is right in the very rulebook. I also don't see the moral value in sweeping declarations that the path to salvation is through one source, and if that one source is not embraced than the individual is somehow cursed or doomed. Such proclamations has to date contributed to pain and suffering and death that is incalculable and continues into the present day.

I don't see much about religion that is 'fundamentally' good. In much the same way that a broken clock is correct twice a day, religions have managed to stumble accidentally across positive philosophical concepts any toddler could tell you and have been discussed thoroughly by secularists with perfect eloquence. Stealing is bad, don't hit, be polite, nobody likes a mean person. Religion is hardly a necessary component and in my opinion, could be shed wholly from our modern culture and little of value would be lost. The art, architecture and so on from the bygone period would be nice to keep around, as historical curiosity, but there is no need for it moving forward.

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:
[quote="Assassin Xaero" post="528.400475.16482577"]the bible says and doesn't stray from it, which is insanely narrow minded. Also, you seem to be leaving out this:

[quote]
a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end

No need to explanation or evidence for that? If religion is a source of hate, then why do so many "non-religious" atheist feel the need to hate and attack those who are religious? All of those have to do with the people, not the religion.

Because people like to feel superior to others? It's pretty basic psychology. We like to make camps and then mock those that are outside our camp.

itsthesheppy:

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:

sanquin:

That is...highly debatable to say the least.

Grasp the term 'fundamentally'. Are you saying that the idea of everyone following ethically sound principles is wrong? Im not saying it happens in reality, but as a concept, theres no doubt its a good thing.

Not necessarily. I do not consider the advocating of slavery or the stoning of homosexuals to be a good thing, and that stuff is right in the very rulebook. I also don't see the moral value in sweeping declarations that the path to salvation is through one source, and if that one source is not embraced than the individual is somehow cursed or doomed. Such proclamations has to date contributed to pain and suffering and death that is incalculable and continues into the present day.

If everyone followed the same religion, then 'fundamentally', it would be a good thing, since there would only be one moral teaching, and said teaching would approve of the religion.
If everyone followed the same religion, then A = Good and B = Evil. So asking such a question as 'is religion a good thing?' would be absurd, it would be a non-question, since 'Religion' would literary mean 'Good'.
So yeah..If everyone followed the same religion, I'd agree that it would, 'fundamentally', be a good thing.
Since we'd have no other ethical theories to define 'good' with.

itsthesheppy:
Atheists debating the godly on twitter and facebook and video game forums does not quite equate to the murder of abortion doctors, the voting to prohibit homosexuals equal rights, suicide bombings, child abuse, etc. It's just not the same.

You seem to go to a minimal on one and the extreme on the other. That about church burnings done by atheists? I know there was a big problem with that in the 90's when black metal started to rise (well, I guess that one is my fault, too, since I listen to metal).

itsthesheppy:
But all of this is inconsequential to the conversation as it happens, because don't think I didn't notice what you're doing. I asked you a direct question, one adult to another, in good faith. I would like you to explain why it is you can in good conscience ally yourself with a group whose rulebook advocates slavery. I'm not letting you off the hook for this, however mightily you may try to change the subject to avoid the question.

Technically, I'm at work right now and probably shouldn't be on here, so I'm just trying to respond quickly to what sticks out to me. I've been a Christian for a little over a month and not even close to knowing the answers to everything, and nobody knows the answer to everything (Christian, atheist, whatever). From my understanding, I heard at one point, slavery in the Bible is different then how we see it. For example, if I owed you however much, I'd work for you and basically be your "slave" until the debt was paid off (or something along those lines). Just some quick googling and I found this:

The concept of slavery in ancient Israel and many ancient near eastern cultures is quite different than the type of slavery practiced in the Southern United States during the early 1800's.1 The term slavery was much broader then, since a king's subjects may be referred to as his slaves.2 Slaves were understood to be human beings instead of mere chattel. Slaves could own land and property - something that was illegal in the modern western version.

But again, I don't completely know what they meant by "slavery" back then. I'd be happy to ask some people I know and get back to you, if you care enough.

Realitycrash:

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:
[quote="Assassin Xaero" post="528.400475.16482577"]the bible says and doesn't stray from it, which is insanely narrow minded. Also, you seem to be leaving out this:

[quote]
a source from which hate, bad science, bad policy, social divisiveness and child abuse flows without end

No need to explanation or evidence for that? If religion is a source of hate, then why do so many "non-religious" atheist feel the need to hate and attack those who are religious? All of those have to do with the people, not the religion.

Because people like to feel superior to others? It's pretty basic psychology. We like to make camps and then mock those that are outside our camp.

So then, that would apply to any group of people (political, social, etc.), not just religions.

Assassin Xaero:

Realitycrash:

Assassin Xaero:

No need to explanation or evidence for that? If religion is a source of hate, then why do so many "non-religious" atheist feel the need to hate and attack those who are religious? All of those have to do with the people, not the religion.

Because people like to feel superior to others? It's pretty basic psychology. We like to make camps and then mock those that are outside our camp.

So then, that would apply to any group of people (political, social, etc.), not just religions.

Yup.
It's not like people would suddenly be all peace & love if religions went away. We'd still have disputes (political, geographical, fucking morons killing each-other over which sport-team is the best, etc). But it's fully possible that SOME issues would go away, or at least be lessened.

itsthesheppy:

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:

sanquin:

That is...highly debatable to say the least.

Grasp the term 'fundamentally'. Are you saying that the idea of everyone following ethically sound principles is wrong? Im not saying it happens in reality, but as a concept, theres no doubt its a good thing.

Not necessarily. I do not consider the advocating of slavery or the stoning of homosexuals to be a good thing, and that stuff is right in the very rulebook. I also don't see the moral value in sweeping declarations that the path to salvation is through one source, and if that one source is not embraced than the individual is somehow cursed or doomed. Such proclamations has to date contributed to pain and suffering and death that is incalculable and continues into the present day.

I don't see much about religion that is 'fundamentally' good. In much the same way that a broken clock is correct twice a day, religions have managed to stumble accidentally across positive philosophical concepts any toddler could tell you and have been discussed thoroughly by secularists with perfect eloquence. Stealing is bad, don't hit, be polite, nobody likes a mean person. Religion is hardly a necessary component and in my opinion, could be shed wholly from our modern culture and little of value would be lost. The art, architecture and so on from the bygone period would be nice to keep around, as historical curiosity, but there is no need for it moving forward.

You say little value would be lost but I whole heartedly disagree. Whilst its true that secularists have developed similar ethical concepts as that of the major religions, it has to be said that in no manner could secularism present these ideas to the masses in the way that religion has. Also, its sad to admit but I whole heartedly believe that drastically fewer individuals would follow said ethical practises without the thought of an omnipotent being judging their every move. One also must take into account that for some, religion gives a sense of purpose and reassurance in life. Perhaps even for this reason alone it is incorrect to say that religion could be shed from modern culture and little value would be lost.

Assassin Xaero:

itsthesheppy:
Atheists debating the godly on twitter and facebook and video game forums does not quite equate to the murder of abortion doctors, the voting to prohibit homosexuals equal rights, suicide bombings, child abuse, etc. It's just not the same.

You seem to go to a minimal on one and the extreme on the other. That about church burnings done by atheists? I know there was a big problem with that in the 90's when black metal started to rise (well, I guess that one is my fault, too, since I listen to metal).

itsthesheppy:
But all of this is inconsequential to the conversation as it happens, because don't think I didn't notice what you're doing. I asked you a direct question, one adult to another, in good faith. I would like you to explain why it is you can in good conscience ally yourself with a group whose rulebook advocates slavery. I'm not letting you off the hook for this, however mightily you may try to change the subject to avoid the question.

Technically, I'm at work right now and probably shouldn't be on here, so I'm just trying to respond quickly to what sticks out to me. I've been a Christian for a little over a month and not even close to knowing the answers to everything, and nobody knows the answer to everything (Christian, atheist, whatever). From my understanding, I heard at one point, slavery in the Bible is different then how we see it. For example, if I owed you however much, I'd work for you and basically be your "slave" until the debt was paid off (or something along those lines). Just some quick googling and I found this:

The concept of slavery in ancient Israel and many ancient near eastern cultures is quite different than the type of slavery practiced in the Southern United States during the early 1800's.1 The term slavery was much broader then, since a king's subjects may be referred to as his slaves.2 Slaves were understood to be human beings instead of mere chattel. Slaves could own land and property - something that was illegal in the modern western version.

But again, I don't completely know what they meant by "slavery" back then. I'd be happy to ask some people I know and get back to you, if you care enough.

I find myself unconvinced that there is a "good" kind of slavery. Do you think it is morally correct that debtors become the slaves of their moneylenders? If you owe me money and cannot pay it, do you really think it would be reasonable and moral for me to take you to court and have that court declare you my slave until such time as your debt is considered to be repaid? Can you imagine a reason why this might no longer be the case?

The reply that it wasn't the "bad" kind of slavery suggests that there was a "good" kind of slavery. Truth be told, some slaveholders were indeed worse than others. But I find it hard to reach down into even the deepest, darkest, worst parts of me to rationalize how slavery could ever be a positive thing.

It's also worth noting that most of the "be nice to your slaves, let them go after a few years, etc" rules were written when dealing with jewish slaves. I'm reasonably certain those rules did not deal with heathen slaves. Also, since the bible makes it a point to tell you that one should not beat their slaves too badly leads me to believe it wasn't the soft-handed debt-repayment alternative you would like it to be.

I'm pretty sure it was moreso the humanity-revoking hard-labor rape engine we understand slavery to typically manifest itself as. Can you really in good conscience say that our slaveholding practices became crueler and more barbaric the further away we moved from the bronze ages? And you wonder why folks like myself won't shut up about the consequences of holding irrational beliefs.

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:

You say little value would be lost but I whole heartedly disagree. Whilst its true that secularists have developed similar ethical concepts as that of the major religions, it has to be said that in no manner could secularism present these ideas to the masses in the way that religion has.

At gunpoint? Under threat of torture? Once the holy book has been turned away, historically that has been the alternate method of spreading the Good Word.

Also, its sad to admit but I whole heartedly believe that drastically fewer individuals would follow said ethical practises without the thought of an omnipotent being judging their every move. One also must take into account that for some, religion gives a sense of purpose and reassurance in life. Perhaps even for this reason alone it is incorrect to say that religion could be shed from modern culture and little value would be lost.

You would support a cultural practice that hedges its moral teachings not on the message that good should be done for the sake of itself and the community, but rather that evil should be avoided because of some sort of divine punishment? Let me make something clear: Anyone who is good only because they fear punishment is not an inherently moral person. This is how sociopaths view the world; acting out of pure self interest, with no real capacity of understanding that their actions have repercussions on people who can think and feel the way they can.

It is a sad, scary world you live in if you think that this is the case in the majority, and not in the very, very small minority of individuals who are many of them medicated (if discovered). There is a great deal of solid, good science and research that suggests that our capacity for empathy is innate; most if not all of us are born with the ability to tell right from wrong; it is a crucial aspect of our revolution and is as human as opposable thumbs. The finer points are indeed instructed by culture, but religion isn't a necessary component and hasn't been for centuries.

There needs be no mystical cosmic teaching. One needs only the golden rule: don't hit your neighbor, because you wouldn't want him to hit you. We can all understand that, those that cannot are mentally ill. But if your objective is to get otherwise reasonable people to commit acts of horror while thinking themselves to be doing good work, history has thoroughly instructed us that nothing will get you there faster than religion.

Assassin Xaero:
I'd be happy to ask some people I know and get back to you, if you care enough.

Di you mind if I ask some questions for you to forward along? Things I am legitimately curious about Christian dogma and would love to get the "official" answer to.

itsthesheppy:
However, the bible also advocates slavery. I do not see why it is unfair to point this out and ask you, a self-identifying member of this community, to answer for it. If you can.

I can answer for it. That passage of the bible is BS.

Some Christians believe the bible is a perfect and untouched guide to all moral questions that can be used even today. But the truth is, much of the rules that went into it is a product of it's time. If I were still fully into the Christian community, I'd advocate that some things do need to just be left out of modern versions of the bible, as no same Preacher agrees with slavery and stoning.

Aris Khandr:

Assassin Xaero:
I'd be happy to ask some people I know and get back to you, if you care enough.

Di you mind if I ask some questions for you to forward along? Things I am legitimately curious about Christian dogma and would love to get the "official" answer to.

*raises hand*

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here