Mocking Those of Faith

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

Shadowstar38:

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.

The thing is, if you start using morality not based in the bible to edit the bible, then you are tacitly admitting that the bible is not the source for morality, and there goes a very significant pillar to religions' claim to legitimacy.

It also knocks out another pillar, which was that the word of god and his plan for his chosen people was laid out; unless we are saying that god could be wrong, in which case, why consider him god?

I find it hard to imagine how the bible can be riddles with errors and yet still be viewed as anything other than a historical curiosity about a bunch of things that more than likely didn't happen. How can one assert the divinity of jesus without using the bible, the sole source of such claims? I realize I am introducing a catch-22. Either the bible is imperfect, in which case the entire legitimacy of the religion fails, or it is considered perfect and anyone backing it is implicated in endorsing slavery. Which, really, is kind of my point in a nutshell.

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.[/quote]

In your eyes there need be no mystical teaching but you seem to do coming from a very closed minded stance, many still rely on religion for whatever personal justification they have, and this will continue indefinitely in some form or other. Furthermore can you not appreciate that you are taking some of my statements to illogical extremes. It was not my intention to suggest that one (theoretically) all religion was rid of people would start to commit atrocities, whilst its true that there is a predisposed sense of morality within people, I merely meant that many retain their morality to a greater extent with the thought of an omnipotent being watching over them. My point revolves around the fact that morality is a completely grey area and not the two antipodal points you took me to mean which also boils down to the fact that humans are infinitely more flawed than you make them out to be. Specifically when you say "Anyone who is good only because they fear punishment is not an inherently moral person." i believe you have missed the fact that I wasn't referring to moral absolutes. i.e. one can be good through their own sense of morality but can be made to be even more morally sound through the use of religion. (Please don't take this as an advertisement in favour of religion, I am an atheist but I am very in favour of exploring opposing beliefs to my own.)

Shadowstar38:

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*

Is that you offering to answer questions, or wanting to ask some yourself? Kind of ambiguous.

Aris Khandr:

Shadowstar38:

Aris Khandr:

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*

Is that you offering to answer questions, or wanting to ask some yourself? Kind of ambiguous.

Offering to answer them. Sorry about that.

Shadowstar38:

Aris Khandr:

Shadowstar38:

*raises hand*

Is that you offering to answer questions, or wanting to ask some yourself? Kind of ambiguous.

Offering to answer them. Sorry about that.

Is homosexuality wrong, and if so, why?
I never honestly got why this would be, other than 'God created Adam and Eve' and 'thou shalt not lie with a man as one does with a woman'. God created Adam and Eve, sure, but so what? Does that mean that Adam and Steve can't have sex? B (No Adam and Steve) does not follow from A (God created Adam and Eve).
'Thou shalt not blah blah' wasn't even Jesus, as far as I know, so basically there's a fallible man preaching, and not the word of God.

Okay, here we go:

Is the story of Creation literal or metaphorical? If literal, how did one man and one woman (who then had two sons and no daughters) populate the Earth without serious inbreeding? If it is metaphorical, then what is the justification for Original Sin absent the Garden of Eden myth?

Similarly, if the story of Noah and the Great Flood isn't a metaphor, again, how did the world get repopulated without the entire population being so inbred that we wouldn't survive to the point of producing future offspring?

Tangentially, didn't God promise not to do the whole "End of the World" thing again after the Great Flood? So what is up with Revelation?

The same book of the Old Testament (Leviticus) that forbids homosexuality also forbids eating aquatic creatures that are not fish (such as shrimp, lobsters, and crabs), wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, wearing jewelry, braiding your hair, and a host of other things. Why is it that these are okay now, but homosexuality is still bad?

If we assume that God created the world, that means that he created all of the rules that govern it, correct? So what is the point of the Ten Commandments? Why allow such things at all? I don't need a carving on a rock that says "Though shalt not fly". The way the world works actively forbids me from flying. Why, then, didn't God just make the world in such a way that humans cannot break the laws against killing? Usually they say "free will", but God didn't give me the free will to walk through walls or ignore gravity. If "Though shalt not kill" was so important to him, why not just disallow it in the first place?

Why does the Devil punish people? If he has rejected God, and is trying to convince others to do the same, why would he "reward" them with eternal suffering? That sounds more like he's employed as God's jail warden, not so much like an enemy.

What is up with the Old Testament using "Pharaoh" like a proper noun? Everywhere else, if someone has a title they also get a name to identify them, but in the Egyptian stories they keep saying "Pharaoh" like that is his given name.

Keep in mind the following is what I learned from Baptist preachers and scholars. So if you're another sect and this doesn't sound right, chime in.

Aris Khandr:
Okay, here we go:

Is the story of Creation literal or metaphorical? If literal, how did one man and one woman (who then had two sons and no daughters) populate the Earth without serious inbreeding? If it is metaphorical, then what is the justification for Original Sin absent the Garden of Eden myth?

Similarly, if the story of Noah and the Great Flood isn't a metaphor, again, how did the world get repopulated without the entire population being so inbred that we wouldn't survive to the point of producing future offspring?

Tangentially, didn't God promise not to do the whole "End of the World" thing again after the Great Flood? So what is up with Revelation?

The same book of the Old Testament (Leviticus) that forbids homosexuality also forbids eating aquatic creatures that are not fish (such as shrimp, lobsters, and crabs), wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, wearing jewelry, braiding your hair, and a host of other things. Why is it that these are okay now, but homosexuality is still bad?

If we assume that God created the world, that means that he created all of the rules that govern it, correct? So what is the point of the Ten Commandments? Why allow such things at all? I don't need a carving on a rock that says "Though shalt not fly". The way the world works actively forbids me from flying. Why, then, didn't God just make the world in such a way that humans cannot break the laws against killing? Usually they say "free will", but God didn't give me the free will to walk through walls or ignore gravity. If "Though shalt not kill" was so important to him, why not just disallow it in the first place?

Why does the Devil punish people? If he has rejected God, and is trying to convince others to do the same, why would he "reward" them with eternal suffering? That sounds more like he's employed as God's jail warden, not so much like an enemy.

What is up with the Old Testament using "Pharaoh" like a proper noun? Everywhere else, if someone has a title they also get a name to identify them, but in the Egyptian stories they keep saying "Pharaoh" like that is his given name.

The bible as far as the church I went to is concerned is a literal record of history equal any other historical text. So both the creation story and the Flood were literal. Why inbreeding was not a problem is one of those things that no one I talked to ever gave me a satisfactory answer to. It always in some way boiled down to God just making it possible.

God didn't promise to never end the world again. He said that he would never end the world with another flood. Other methods are fair gain.

When Jesus came into the picture, a lot of the old Jewish law was thrown out. This includes some of the old customs. That's why we don't do blood sacrifices anymore ect. Homosexuals are still sinners in the churches I eyes, I would guess, because of the oddities of same sex couples. I never really understood this. But when I came out, no one treated me differently. I think it's just Catholics.

You answered the first half of the next part. Free will. If you're allowed to break the law and choose not to, then you are worthy of heaven. As for why we aren't allowed to break the laws of physics...honestly, It never occurred to me to ask anyone that. So you got me there.

I don't think it's the Devil that punishes people(if there's a verse saying he does, point it out to me). It's just that, in Revelations, anyone who isn't saved goes to hell along with the Devil.

Why is Job's wife only called Job's wife? Whoever wrote this thing seemed fit to not include several proper names for people in a multitude of places. You'd think it's because the people without names are not important but I wouldn't say that for Pharaoh. I guess there's only one pharaoh at any given time and that's enough to go on.

Realitycrash:

Shadowstar38:

Aris Khandr:

Is that you offering to answer questions, or wanting to ask some yourself? Kind of ambiguous.

Offering to answer them. Sorry about that.

Is homosexuality wrong, and if so, why?
I never honestly got why this would be, other than 'God created Adam and Eve' and 'thou shalt not lie with a man as one does with a woman'. God created Adam and Eve, sure, but so what? Does that mean that Adam and Steve can't have sex? B (No Adam and Steve) does not follow from A (God created Adam and Eve).
'Thou shalt not blah blah' wasn't even Jesus, as far as I know, so basically there's a fallible man preaching, and not the word of God.

I don't get it either because, again, most members of my church thought nothing of it when I told them I dated dudes and women. I think it's the fact that same sex couples can't reproduce that makes them think it's so unnatural.

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.

The Platonic definition of knowledge is "justified true belief". It is generally accepted by philosophers of epistemology that knowing something involves believing it. And that is because belief isn't actually only that which is not proven or which has no evidence. It applies to every idea one thinks is true.

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:
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.

However that's not what religion fundamentally is... Sure it's what most people proclaim to follow, or try to at least, but it's not the foundations of religion.

Aww man, can I join? I'm a bit late to the party, but I love arguing religion over the internet. Don't ask, it just validates my existence.

Anyway, send questions/arguments in my direction, please.

Aris Khandr:
snip

Realitycrash:
snip

I was starting to write out a response, then realized that it's late, I'm massively tired, and I need to ask a few questions to make sure I've got things right. Actual response forthcoming. (Also, thanks for being respectful.)

OT: I don't have a problem with making fun behind my back (I do it to others too) or in a non-serious way, but when your entire argument is FLYING SPAGHETTI CHILD ABUSER you'd better sit down and read some Aquinas. (Not saying anyone on this thread is like that, there's been a lot of reasonable discussion, but it's happened on occasion.)

GoodGodItsAnOxymoron:
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.

In your eyes there need be no mystical teaching but you seem to do coming from a very closed minded stance, many still rely on religion for whatever personal justification they have, and this will continue indefinitely in some form or other. Furthermore can you not appreciate that you are taking some of my statements to illogical extremes. It was not my intention to suggest that one (theoretically) all religion was rid of people would start to commit atrocities, whilst its true that there is a predisposed sense of morality within people, I merely meant that many retain their morality to a greater extent with the thought of an omnipotent being watching over them. My point revolves around the fact that morality is a completely grey area and not the two antipodal points you took me to mean which also boils down to the fact that humans are infinitely more flawed than you make them out to be. Specifically when you say "Anyone who is good only because they fear punishment is not an inherently moral person." i believe you have missed the fact that I wasn't referring to moral absolutes. i.e. one can be good through their own sense of morality but can be made to be even more morally sound through the use of religion. (Please don't take this as an advertisement in favour of religion, I am an atheist but I am very in favour of exploring opposing beliefs to my own.)[/quote]

I had a really hard time making sense of the brick of text I have quoted above. It's a bit of a rambling word salad but from what I can suss out, you disagree with my notion that religion is wholly unnecessary to the formation of a morally grounded society. I would merely point to you that in many of the most religious societies we see on the planet, we find that these societies are not necessarily paragons of stable cultures. Quite to the contrary, they tend towardfs higher degrees of moral depravity and lawlessness. If religion was important to people maintaining a moral compass, I think you would find fewer people in prison with crosses tattooed on them.

The United States is deeply christian; I believe it's something like 80% of the country profess to be christian, of one form or another. Our prisons are filled to bursting, we have a deplorably high murder rate, and I think we can generally agree that things could be a lot better. We had 11,000 gun murders in one year. The UK had a little over 100. The UK doesn't have 1/11th our population.

Countries that are defined most strongly by religious conviction tend to be places that rank rather low on my dream vacation spots, I think it suffices to say.

Far from being necessary, I think we find that religion stands as an obstacle to mature, moral grounding in our societies, when it is not acting as a license to commit atrocity.

Shadowstar38:
-snip-

I have to say, based on your answers here, it sounds to me like you consider a lot of this stuff to be nonsense. Your attitude seems to be "My church says this and that, but I dunno, whatever".

Do you actually believe in the factual truth of the biblical flood, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, all that other kooky stuff?

Answering from a Catholic perspective here.

Aris Khandr:

Is the story of Creation literal or metaphorical? If literal, how did one man and one woman (who then had two sons and no daughters) populate the Earth without serious inbreeding? If it is metaphorical, then what is the justification for Original Sin absent the Garden of Eden myth?

Catholics do believe that humanity is descended from only two people (although most of the rest of the creation story is generally not taken literally.) Inbreeding was permissible because there was no other option. I'll get back to you on the genetic ramifications, but this might be once circumstance where "God of the gaps" is an acceptable answer.

Similarly, if the story of Noah and the Great Flood isn't a metaphor, again, how did the world get repopulated without the entire population being so inbred that we wouldn't survive to the point of producing future offspring?

Catholics tend to take a less literal view of the Flood, especially concerning its power. The prevailing view is that the Flood happened but didn't cover the entire world. I seem to remember a history book arguing that there was archeological evidence for a massive flood of the Black Sea during prehistory, but I don't quite remember what it was.

Tangentially, didn't God promise not to do the whole "End of the World" thing again after the Great Flood? So what is up with Revelation?

Good question, one I haven't heard before. I'd say the major difference is that Revelation is about the permanent end of the world rather than a temporary catastrophe, but I'll look it up.

The same book of the Old Testament (Leviticus) that forbids homosexuality also forbids eating aquatic creatures that are not fish (such as shrimp, lobsters, and crabs), wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, wearing jewelry, braiding your hair, and a host of other things. Why is it that these are okay now, but homosexuality is still bad?

See below for why Catholics consider homosexuality immoral. To why it still applies when the dietary and similar restrictions don't, the difference is that some laws were simply designed to help the Jews preserve their cultural identity. Others were intrinsic moral laws. Homosexuality, as I'll talk about below, was under the heading of "this is intrinsically wrong."

If we assume that God created the world, that means that he created all of the rules that govern it, correct? So what is the point of the Ten Commandments? Why allow such things at all? I don't need a carving on a rock that says "Though shalt not fly". The way the world works actively forbids me from flying. Why, then, didn't God just make the world in such a way that humans cannot break the laws against killing? Usually they say "free will", but God didn't give me the free will to walk through walls or ignore gravity. If "Though shalt not kill" was so important to him, why not just disallow it in the first place?

Sorry, but the only answer to this question is "free will." "God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him." If we couldn't choose evil, then we couldn't choose good, and we would be no more than puppets.

Why does the Devil punish people? If he has rejected God, and is trying to convince others to do the same, why would he "reward" them with eternal suffering? That sounds more like he's employed as God's jail warden, not so much like an enemy.

A better understanding of Hell is less that the Devil tortures us and more that we torture ourselves. Those in Hell have no longer the ability to choose good. They know that if they'd tried, they could have made it to Heaven, but they didn't try hard enough. They're literally incapable of happiness, since happiness comes from God.

What is up with the Old Testament using "Pharaoh" like a proper noun? Everywhere else, if someone has a title they also get a name to identify them, but in the Egyptian stories they keep saying "Pharaoh" like that is his given name.

No clue, sorry.

Realitycrash:

Is homosexuality wrong, and if so, why?
I never honestly got why this would be, other than 'God created Adam and Eve' and 'thou shalt not lie with a man as one does with a woman'. God created Adam and Eve, sure, but so what? Does that mean that Adam and Steve can't have sex? B (No Adam and Steve) does not follow from A (God created Adam and Eve).
'Thou shalt not blah blah' wasn't even Jesus, as far as I know, so basically there's a fallible man preaching, and not the word of God.

Brief primer on Catholic views on sexuality: Marriage is a sacrament with two purposes: first, the couple should try to help each other grow spiritually and morally, and second, to bring up and raise a family. Sex is an aspect of this- it helps a couple draw closer together and produces children to bring up in the Faith. Gay marriage is not permissible (at least morally, legally is another issue) because it fails the second aspect of the purpose of marriage. Sex is restricted to married couples, so homosexual sex is never permissible.

@StashAugustine
I would be careful about phrases like "Catholics believe...". I know plenty of Catholics who view Genesis as purely metaphorical (especially colleagues from university or work and even quite prominent Catholics I don't know personally like Ken Miller, an evolutionary biologist).
Now, you might want to make an argument about Church dogma, as that is actually much better defined and uniform, whereas Catholics' views differ vastly (including on issues like homosexuality, by the way), but even then... I don't think you're right.
The Catholic Church more or less accepts the theory of evolution these days and that clearly contradicts any "Adam and Eve"-story, any "descent from two people"-idea.

StashAugustine:

Realitycrash:

Is homosexuality wrong, and if so, why?
I never honestly got why this would be, other than 'God created Adam and Eve' and 'thou shalt not lie with a man as one does with a woman'. God created Adam and Eve, sure, but so what? Does that mean that Adam and Steve can't have sex? B (No Adam and Steve) does not follow from A (God created Adam and Eve).
'Thou shalt not blah blah' wasn't even Jesus, as far as I know, so basically there's a fallible man preaching, and not the word of God.

Brief primer on Catholic views on sexuality: Marriage is a sacrament with two purposes: first, the couple should try to help each other grow spiritually and morally, and second, to bring up and raise a family. Sex is an aspect of this- it helps a couple draw closer together and produces children to bring up in the Faith. Gay marriage is not permissible (at least morally, legally is another issue) because it fails the second aspect of the purpose of marriage. Sex is restricted to married couples, so homosexual sex is never permissible.

Where do you get the second premise from, or specifically, how can you say that it does not include homosexuals? Homosexuals can raise a family (adoption), and there will always be children to adopt, and always have been (okey, not logically true, but within all probability there always will be and always have been). Thus, even if we accept that 'sex is an aspect of marriage' (and why should we?), homosexual sex is acceptable, because homosexuals can marry, love and raise a family. The only thing they can not do is produce children. Thus, one wonders why barren women or males (those that can not produce children) are not to shunned and be considered immoral. They clearly fail the second aspect of the purpose of marriage, just as homosexuals do.

StashAugustine:

The same book of the Old Testament (Leviticus) that forbids homosexuality also forbids eating aquatic creatures that are not fish (such as shrimp, lobsters, and crabs), wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, wearing jewelry, braiding your hair, and a host of other things. Why is it that these are okay now, but homosexuality is still bad?

See below for why Catholics consider homosexuality immoral. To why it still applies when the dietary and similar restrictions don't, the difference is that some laws were simply designed to help the Jews preserve their cultural identity. Others were intrinsic moral laws. Homosexuality, as I'll talk about below, was under the heading of "this is intrinsically wrong."

So where does it say that it is more detestable to be homosexual? Because Leviticus 20:13 says they shall be put to death? Well, number 20:9 says the same about cursing your parents and 20:18 wants you to abandon a couple from society because they had sex while on her period.
And the way I read it these rules are all worth the same.

Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
- Leviticus 20:22-23

Might I also point out that in Leviticus 19 right after "do not steal/lie/rob/fraud/injustice/revenge" (11,13,15,18) it says in the same breath (19) "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." and (26) "Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it."?
So logically mules, steaks and sportswear are as immoral as stealing and injustice?

StashAugustine:

Sorry, but the only answer to this question is "free will." "God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him." If we couldn't choose evil, then we couldn't choose good, and we would be no more than puppets.

Everyone else is going to justifiably jump down your throat about the marriage and homosexuality thing, so I'll go ahead and take issue with something different, the statement I have quoted above.

1. Is it really free will if you're commanded to have it by an omnipresent and omnipotent deity? Is it really "free will" if the slave is told he can do what he likes, but if he doesn't do that the slavemaster likes, horrible punishment will be dealt? This is merely one of the reasons religion is so terrible; the cognitive dissonance for being created sick, commanded to be will, ordered to possess free will and in the same breath forbidden from certain actions under pain of eternal torture.

2. What is the point of prayer if we have free will? Does god only interfere a little bit? Will he help you get a good mortgage on your house? Will he help you do well on a test? 9 million children under the age of five die every year the world over. God presumably ignores the prayers of the parents of these children, the sweeping majority of whom are statistically likely to be god-worshipping folk. Is it only 'free will' when it pertains to when bad things happen? God helps football players win games, but can't seem to be bothered to stop babies from being born HIV-positive.

3. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He cannot be outsmarted or surprised, because if there was something he didn't know, then he wouldn't be omniscient. Presumably he can see the future. The thing is, if he can see the future, has it not already happened? Are we doomed to our actions, unable to change them? Is that, in fact, free will?

Or are you, I suspect, making this all up as you go, much like the charlatans who wrote, propagated, studied and proselytized the bronze-aged text you're drawing from? You have admitted earlier that "god of the gaps" was acceptable to you. You do know that term is meant to convey contempt for a closed mind dedicated to bad science, right? God of the gaps refers to meaningless, valueless utterances 'explaining' natural phenomenon in a way that will eventually be replaced with a better, scientific explanation.

StashAugustine:

If we assume that God created the world, that means that he created all of the rules that govern it, correct? So what is the point of the Ten Commandments? Why allow such things at all? I don't need a carving on a rock that says "Though shalt not fly". The way the world works actively forbids me from flying. Why, then, didn't God just make the world in such a way that humans cannot break the laws against killing? Usually they say "free will", but God didn't give me the free will to walk through walls or ignore gravity. If "Though shalt not kill" was so important to him, why not just disallow it in the first place?

Sorry, but the only answer to this question is "free will." "God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him." If we couldn't choose evil, then we couldn't choose good, and we would be no more than puppets.

But that is rather my point. I don't have the free will to ignore God's rule about staying on the ground. He simply made it a demand that the Earth puts on me. Or am I to understand that not killing people is less important to God than not flying?

On that note, aren't we all basically puppets anyway? God is omnipotent, right? All knowing? And he specifically created each of us, right? Which means that he put me together to be a lesbian. That was God's design for me. Free will is an interesting concept, but if God already knows what is going to happen, then aren't we just acting out the script he already approved?

itsthesheppy:

Shadowstar38:
-snip-

I have to say, based on your answers here, it sounds to me like you consider a lot of this stuff to be nonsense. Your attitude seems to be "My church says this and that, but I dunno, whatever".

Do you actually believe in the factual truth of the biblical flood, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, all that other kooky stuff?

Actually, no I don't. It's just that I was a Christian until recently and I asked people a lot of these things myself before leaving.

Shadowstar38:

itsthesheppy:

Shadowstar38:
-snip-

I have to say, based on your answers here, it sounds to me like you consider a lot of this stuff to be nonsense. Your attitude seems to be "My church says this and that, but I dunno, whatever".

Do you actually believe in the factual truth of the biblical flood, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, all that other kooky stuff?

Actually, no I don't. It's just that I was a Christian until recently and I asked people a lot of these things myself before leaving.

Asked and answered, thanks!

As long as I've got your attention, how did you transition, and what did you transition to? Was it difficult?

When the Pope himself accepts something as fact that contradicts the very foundations of theism(Evolution), it's pretty safe to say people who continue to conform with the modern institution of religion are beyond naive and justifiably open to ridicule.

If something as fundamental as creation in religion is challenged and overturned, why should the rest of the scripture be taken at all seriously? It lacks foundation.

We mock stupidity every day in all shapes and forms. Religion shouldn't be and isn't exempt from mockery and ridicule.

RJ 17:

Blablahb:

RJ 17:
When you boil it down, isn't that simply mocking and insulting someone for being different than you?

Uh, no. Religions all claim to know the truth and can be damn harassing, intrusive and even threatening and dangerous about it. While they're all wrong.

So you've found the definitive proof that there isn't a higher power to believe in? If you did, I'd imagine you'd be the most famous person in the world. Also, it seems you didn't read my entire post:

Some might bring up religious zealots and people that are very eager to try and spread "The Word" as examples of the private religious lives of some intruding on the lives of others, but just as not every homosexual is a pedophile, nor is every person of faith a religious fanatic.

Yes, there are some psychos out there, but not all religious people are nutjobs. Again, just like not all hommosexuals are pedophiles.

No, we don't have definitive proof, but we don't need it. Religion is the one making the claim which requires burden of proof, therefore THEY need to prove their claim.

Meanwhile, religious zealots and organizations continue to cause suffering across the world in the name of gods.

I will continue to mock them, regardless of whether or not their claims are true. They are not immune to criticism.

To quote the late Christopher Hitchens,

"Religion now comes to use with this smiling face. But you've no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."

RJ 17:

UPDATE:
Seems the genreal concensus of responses that I've been getting is that it's perfectly fine to make fun of these people because they chose their religion where as things such as sexuality and race are things that aren't chosen. This means that it's apparently ok to make fun of people who are different, so long as they're different for reasons they choose themselves. And evidently I'm the only one that sees that as hypocritical.

Thank you, my fellow escapists, for this little social survey. The results have been most enlightening. I didn't realize that the way someone differs from you is the key point to consider when determining whether or not it's alright to openly mock someone. Different by sexuality, race, etc: off limits. Different by beliefs: lol they're fucking morons lol!

You really don't get it. It isn't because they're different. That they're different doesn't matter. To take an extreme example, just because a Nazi is different from me does not mean that he's immune to ridicule. And that is what you're doing, grabbing "We're different" and using it as a shield to act like people aren't allowed to mock anyone who is different from them. Sorry, but difference isn't why gay people shouldn't be mocked, and it doesn't protect the religious either.

The fact of the matter is, you're asking for religious beliefs to be treated specially over other beliefs. All that's happening is they're getting the same treatment other beliefs get. If the dude said he flipped a lucky coin and quit his job for that reason I'd mock him too. It's not 'Because they're religious'. It's because we evaluate ideas and determine their worth all the time.

itsthesheppy:

Asked and answered, thanks!

As long as I've got your attention, how did you transition, and what did you transition to? Was it difficult?

I transitioned by debating atheists. I wanted to understand the mindset of someone who didn't believe. Though every debate proved to only show how faulty my logic was. Though seeing this is what finally brought me to end it.

This video sums up much of the secular arguments against Christianity pretty well. I couldn't help but feel everything present were valid questions to ask myself about my beliefs. So I took my concerns to a Reverend who studied theology. After talking with him for a couple of hours, it basically came down to having enough faith to believe in spite of the evidence against it. I thought that if this were true, God was asking too much.

Was it difficult? Extremely. Long story short, I'm on anti-depressants at the moment.

I'm not sure what I am now. I still believe in the existence of something beyond the physical world, but any religion that claims to know of the exact nature of God will sound false to me.

RJ 17:

UPDATE:
Seems the genreal concensus of responses that I've been getting is that it's perfectly fine to make fun of these people because they chose their religion where as things such as sexuality and race are things that aren't chosen. This means that it's apparently ok to make fun of people who are different, so long as they're different for reasons they choose themselves. And evidently I'm the only one that sees that as hypocritical.

Thank you, my fellow escapists, for this little social survey. The results have been most enlightening. I didn't realize that the way someone differs from you is the key point to consider when determining whether or not it's alright to openly mock someone. Different by sexuality, race, etc: off limits. Different by beliefs: lol they're fucking morons lol!

Mocking someone for doing something stupid =/= Mocking their faith.

To give you an example, I was hanging out in the parking lot of a church with the radio on after service. An old lady comes by and tells me I shouldn't be listening to rap music because it's nothing but secular filth.

This is an obvious wrong statement. She clearly never sat down and listen to the majority of the genre. Her bullshit needed to be called out.

Basically, I was of the same faith she was, reading the same holy book she did. But I still thought she was an idiot.

Denholm Reynholm:
When the Pope himself accepts something as fact that contradicts the very foundations of theism(Evolution), it's pretty safe to say people who continue to conform with the modern institution of religion are beyond naive and justifiably open to ridicule.

If something as fundamental as creation in religion is challenged and overturned, why should the rest of the scripture be taken at all seriously? It lacks foundation.

We mock stupidity every day in all shapes and forms. Religion shouldn't be and isn't exempt from mockery and ridicule.

Creation is not fundamental to theism. Evolution does not contradict theism.

evilneko:

Creation is not fundamental to theism. Evolution does not contradict theism.

True, but it makes a deity a little more unnecessary. A deity is usually invoked to explain either the origin of the universe, or the origin of life. Almost every religion has explanations for one (or both), and claiming knowledge of the answers is fundamental to those religions.

Christianity, as with other religions, owes its existence to difficult questions. When one of those questions is answered (where did life as know it come from), it may not directly contradict theism, but it damages the basis on which it rests.

Well, I think that's just silly.

A god that invented the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and all the natural processes to do her work for her is far more awesome than one that simply wished everything into being. I mean, come on, who's the better hacker--Kevin Mitnick or the script kiddie down the street? ;)

So, mocking someone's religious beliefs is ok, while mocking sexuality is not. Sounds reasonable.

However, how come so many people here get to say, "It's just my opinion!!! RAWR!" if I mock their taste in music, movies, games, etc.? If you're going to mock religion, be prepared to have every choice you make mocked by someone who thinks differently and quit trying to justify your prejudices. Yeesh.

ITT: Religion plays the hurt feelings card for being called out as total bullshit.

Now I'm going to go back to worshipping Horus, and if you think that's silly, you're a hypocrit.

Nigh Invulnerable:
So, mocking someone's religious beliefs is ok, while mocking sexuality is not. Sounds reasonable.

However, how come so many people here get to say, "It's just my opinion!!! RAWR!" if I mock their taste in music, movies, games, etc.? If you're going to mock religion, be prepared to have every choice you make mocked by someone who thinks differently and quit trying to justify your prejudices. Yeesh.

The thing is, nobody (well, very few people) are saying the guy is stupid BECAUSE he's Christian. They're saying he's a stupid person who happens to be Christian. That's an important distinction.

People shouldn't be mocked for their religious beliefs, but then again, they can't claim immunity from reasonable scrutiny just for being religious.

RJ 17:

UPDATE:
Seems the genreal concensus of responses that I've been getting is that it's perfectly fine to make fun of these people because they chose their religion where as things such as sexuality and race are things that aren't chosen. This means that it's apparently ok to make fun of people who are different, so long as they're different for reasons they choose themselves. And evidently I'm the only one that sees that as hypocritical.

Thank you, my fellow escapists, for this little social survey. The results have been most enlightening. I didn't realize that the way someone differs from you is the key point to consider when determining whether or not it's alright to openly mock someone. Different by sexuality, race, etc: off limits. Different by beliefs: lol they're fucking morons lol!

Yeah, you didn't really get it. Maybe you should re-read the thread or something, because you're way off.

The religious majority are not allowed to play the victim card. I'm sorry. They represent the sweeping global majority and even in this day and age of GPS and electric cars and wifi and so on, bronze-age superstitions still rule the day and dominate our national conversations about social issues. In some areas of the world, they are very much a life-and-death conversation, where the religious majority enjoys the privileged position of having its boot on the neck of all who do not subscribe.

You are grown adults who believe in imaginary things. There is little daylight separating Jesus and the Holy Ghost from, say, unicorns and faeries. And if people were introducing legislation to prevent people from marrying each other because the Great Unicorn decreed that homosexuals were immoral, I have a hard time thinking you would rally to their defense if we started mocking them for believing in a magical mystical horse, as a means of sapping from their position the awe and respect that is the cornerstone of their power.

The primary reason these terrible bronze-aged ideas never seem to so away is because we have convinced ourselves as a species that religious faith and beliefs are above scrutiny. This is incorrect, and steadily more and more people are realizing this. You're not above criticism just because you call your bad ideas "faith". If you can defend your ideas, do so. If you cannot, stop crying, or keep them to yourself. And by that we mean, live a lie, hide who you are, and feel ashamed for what you hold dear. You know, the thing religious people ask of homosexuals.

Nigh Invulnerable:
So, mocking someone's religious beliefs is ok, while mocking sexuality is not. Sounds reasonable.

However, how come so many people here get to say, "It's just my opinion!!! RAWR!" if I mock their taste in music, movies, games, etc.? If you're going to mock religion, be prepared to have every choice you make mocked by someone who thinks differently and quit trying to justify your prejudices. Yeesh.

Someone liking Avenged Sevenfold or not does not really have much of an effect on the world at large. But someone believing that Jesus thinks that homosexuals are sinners, that condoms are evil, that stem cell research is murder, etc, does have an effect on the rest of us.

Mocking someone for enjoying a particular band or video game is petty nonsense. But people's religious beliefs do have real impact.

Nigh Invulnerable:
So, mocking someone's religious beliefs is ok, while mocking sexuality is not. Sounds reasonable.

However, how come so many people here get to say, "It's just my opinion!!! RAWR!" if I mock their taste in music, movies, games, etc.? If you're going to mock religion, be prepared to have every choice you make mocked by someone who thinks differently and quit trying to justify your prejudices. Yeesh.

Feel free to mock people's taste in such things, but the difference between those opinions and religious ones is that one is utterly subjective, while the other need not be. Like a belief in a deity. Either it is true or false. Or if 666 is a bad number that will do things to you. Either true or false. Whether someone likes a game or not... well it's kind of stupid to mock that as its personal taste and not a baseless belief about the state of the world.

Batou667:

Nigh Invulnerable:
So, mocking someone's religious beliefs is ok, while mocking sexuality is not. Sounds reasonable.

However, how come so many people here get to say, "It's just my opinion!!! RAWR!" if I mock their taste in music, movies, games, etc.? If you're going to mock religion, be prepared to have every choice you make mocked by someone who thinks differently and quit trying to justify your prejudices. Yeesh.

The thing is, nobody (well, very few people) are saying the guy is stupid BECAUSE he's Christian. They're saying he's a stupid person who happens to be Christian. That's an important distinction.

People shouldn't be mocked for their religious beliefs, but then again, they can't claim immunity from reasonable scrutiny just for being religious.

You're the only one who seems to get my point. Sure, religious beliefs can impact others, but as long as someone isn't outright discriminating or encouraging violence I figure let them believe whatever kooky things they want. Calling someone stupid because of said beliefs is just rude, but it doesn't mean a stupid person can't hold the same beliefs.

 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