NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I hope this will be the last thread on religion. I just can't understand why aetheists are so pissed at religion. They're dumping all the flaws of humans on it. Not that I myself am religious, but I just want to get the argument straight: what's so wrong about religion? I have nothing against both aetheists and religious people, keep that in mind :D

So far from what I can gather, aetheists think religion is bad because...

1. Unfortunately produces many religious fanatics that can go extreme. (You know, the ones with C4s strapped around their bodies that scream Allah is great before they're up in the sky 20 feet later.)
2. Provokes countries go into war, (Like Palestine and Israel.)
3. Makes people short-sighted. (Religion=ignorance.)
4. Its horrible actions in the past. (Like the murder of Galileo Galilei and the Crusades.)
5. Believe its followers use religion simply as an excuse. (Like hitting someone in the eye and claiming God ordered you to do so.)

Aetheists! Open your EYES! You guys can be cool, but just stop stabbing religion and using it as your garbage bin! If you don't believe in any religion, fine! You don't have to insult religions and blab on about how horrible they are. You guys are only looking at its BAD side. The example I put up about how it provokes people to act in violence is not religion's fault! In fact, it is CONTRARY to what religions want. It is ironic that politicians simply use religion as an excuse to go to war, like Israel. Religion simply wants peace. Did Buddha or Jesus ever say to go to war? Never! They only strived for a harmonious world. So all of you people who think its religion's fault that there are wars, watch out for me... :sniper: And all its past actions? Did God ever say to go on the Crusade? No! It was just a corrupt and foolish pope who said it was "ok" to massacre innocent people whose only sins were not being Christians! It is the individuals who give their religions bad reputation. Religion never forced anyone to kill anyone who didn't believe in the religion! Peopl did! A great example is the queen Bloody Mary of England. She used religion as an excuse to burn "heretics"... but religions never required that people killed other people of another or no religion. It is us humans that make it bad, not the religion itself! And the example about how religion makes us ignorant is also wrong in my opinion. Humans are ignorant whether they are religious or not. Even the smartest people like Einstein never knew where we came from. Therefore, science is just as ignorant as religion! As people, we do not know WHERE we came from and why. Religion and science are just two pairs of ideas that explain the way Mother Nature works! So religion doesn't make you as ignorant as being a scientist. Aetheists, I invite you all to write other issues about religion. Comon, give it a shot! Remember, I have nothing against aethesists. Some of my best friends are aetheists. I just want to clarify the argument between religion and aethesists because to me it just seems like a disorganized and insensible conglomerate of insults, that's all. :D

I doubt this will be the last thread on religion, like you said.

But I do agree - you can have both bad religious people and atheists

True, atheists use religion as a garbage bin for everything that's wrong in society.

But look at it from a different perspective: religion tells people to do this and abstain from that. All we say is: Open your eyes, they are just telling you fairy tales! Don't let your actions be guided by fairy tales, but by reason!

I can't speak for other Atheists, but what I find so atrocious about religions is the audacity and conviction with which people talk about them.
Religion has a substantial amount more of flaws than science has, and science is based on enough dogma already. It seems with every step science takes toward "figuring things out", it takes a step to the more abstract and dogmatic, while religion, as well, goes to the more abstract and dogmatic, to the down right insane and blatant fairy tale ripoff.
I loathe people who can't think outside of the box, though I acknowledge it's genetic (at least, that's the current scientific dogma regarding faith), and simply see nothing as acceptable to really truly believe in besides empirical and inductive reasoning... and even that rests on certain frameworks regarding what is real and what is illusion. Simply put, all knowledge is mutable, and religion (unlike science) is inconsistent with that truth.
I also am jealous of the happiness religion brings, in all of its ignorance and cowardice, and I furthermore and disgusted by the cult like manifestations it produces. Besides seeing children have their minds raped by their parents (while being raped by their priests), it is my stalwart use of common sense that causes my disgust with organized religion and the sheep like stupor it induces.
While I acknowledge religion is necessary for the lower classes and the masses, I see no reason why people in high regard should have to cling to such things, or at least so tenaciously.

In particular, I feel anger toward one particular individual who not only blatantly ripped off several types of mythologies, but actually had the audacity to deify himself --- and no, I'm not talking about the Moonies.

I loathe people who can't think outside of the box, though I acknowledge it's genetic

Faith, genetic? Now that I don't believe. It leads the way for some heavy-duty racism (Arabians inherently fundamentalist, etc.)

Faith, genetic? Now that I don't believe. It leads the way for some heavy-duty racism (Arabians inherently fundamentalist, etc.)

You're the one drawing conclusions. I am only speculating on the scientific dogma I am given.

Faith, genetic? Now that I don't believe. It leads the way for some heavy-duty racism (Arabians inherently fundamentalist, etc.)
Yeah - that's the most absurd thing I've heard in a long time.

If it was true then it would have meant that sometime around middle school, I had a "mutation" and I became less religious thusly

Learn to spell A-T-H-E-I-S-M correctly and I'll consider it.

If it was true then it would have meant that sometime around middle school, I had a "mutation" and I became less religious thusly

My thoughts exactly.

I can't speak for other Atheists, but what I find so atrocious about religions is the audacity and conviction with which people talk about them.
Religion has a substantial amount more of flaws than science has, and science is based on enough dogma already. It seems with every step science takes toward "figuring things out", it takes a step to the more abstract and dogmatic, while religion, as well, goes to the more abstract and dogmatic, to the down right insane and blatant fairy tale ripoff.
I loathe people who can't think outside of the box, though I acknowledge it's genetic (at least, that's the current scientific dogma regarding faith), and simply see nothing as acceptable to really truly believe in besides empirical and inductive reasoning... and even that rests on certain frameworks regarding what is real and what is illusion. Simply put, all knowledge is mutable, and religion (unlike science) is inconsistent with that truth.
I also am jealous of the happiness religion brings, in all of its ignorance and cowardice, and I furthermore and disgusted by the cult like manifestations it produces. Besides seeing children have their minds raped by their parents (while being raped by their priests), it is my stalwart use of common sense that causes my disgust with organized religion and the sheep like stupor it induces.
While I acknowledge religion is necessary for the lower classes and the masses, I see no reason why people in high regard should have to cling to such things, or at least so tenaciously.

.

You know, its elitists like yourself that spout such tripe that make some religious people wary of atheists in general. Way to be a stereotype and doing your part to keeping the insane cycle of insults going. Great work.

I am an agnostic, and I acknowledge that religion does indeed have its positive points. But in my opinion, the cons far outweigh the pros. The biggest problem with religion I have is faith. It discourages thinking. It says that "this is how things are and there is no possible exception". Skepticism is so important, not to an extreme, but questioning many things will do a whole lot of people good. Blind faith is a terrible sin against the human brain as far as I'm concerned.

I am an agnostic, and I acknowledge that religion does indeed have its positive points. But in my opinion, the cons far outweigh the pros. The biggest problem with religion I have is faith. It discourages thinking. It says that "this is how things are and there is no possible exception". Skepticism is so important, not to an extreme, but questioning many things will do a whole lot of people good. Blind faith is a terrible sin against the human brain as far as I'm concerned.

It isn't a linear proces such as Faith=lack of thinking. I thought for a long time, looking over many, many, different religions, philosophies, and science. I probably took something from each one. But I found I ultimately ended up with a Christian faith. I still ponder questions. The Bible can be pretty vague on the matters it addresses sometimes. Not to mention the Bible doesn't mention the internet, or some of the other changes we've had in our world since the Bible was written, or how the physical world that God created works. But I still have faith in God. Meaning my search for knowledge led me to my faith, which seems to counter your argument that faith leads to a lack of thinking.

It isn't a linear proces such as Faith=lack of thinking. I thought for a long time, looking over many, many, religions, philosophies, and science. I probably took something from each one. But I found I ultimately ended up with a Christian faith. I still ponder questions. The Bible can be pretty vague on the matters it addresses sometimes. Not to mention the Bible doesn't mention the internet, or some of the other changes we've had in our world since the Bible was written. But I still have faith in God. Meaning my search for knowledge led me to my faith, which seems to counter your argument that faith leads to a lack of thinking.
Well, it's true that not all religion is completely based on faith. The Kabbala is a quite thinking-intense religion. Faith, by definition, means that you believe something without knowing. So if you believe something without proof, how can you say you thought it out? What led you to believe in a Christian god? Do you believe that God has flesh, since he made man in his own image? Do you believe in the Bible at all literally? Do you believe that all life and matter was created in 6 days? Do you believe in the miracles? Do you think Moses really split water like that? Do you really believe that there could have been a flood as per Noah? Do you really believe that all species that are and ever have been are alive today? There are so many fallacies in Christianity it's appalling. How many of these have you questioned. Many religious types say they're looking for knowledge, but they're really just looking for something to make them feel better.

I am neither athiest, nor religious -- but I think what people dislike most about religion essentially boils down to its followers. Nobody likes a "pushy" religious person (any more than they like a pushy atheist, for that matter). Religion does seem to attract some wackos with beady, lunatic, Chosen One from God eyes... but I agree that this is not religion's fault, per se. The problem is, non-religious folks don't realize how many truly good and decent religious people there are, because the good religious people don't advertise their religion. So the bad ones get all the attention.

I think athiests who haven't studied the world's great religions would be surprised at the practical advice found therein... once you get past the "hocus-pocus" by understanding that things had to be taught in terms which could be understood by the masses at the time. If you boil-down the teachings of the world's greatest spiritual leaders (Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc.), you find that the advice they give is (by and large) very sound and practical. Taken apart from religion, many of the principles taught are extremely powerful if understood in modern psychological terms. For example, the great spiritual leaders understood how important self-respect and esteem were to human happiness long before the terms even existed. Buddha and Jesus both tried to show how our reactions to life, not life itself, are what cause suffering. Confucius taught how morals and ethics are crucial to interpersonal relationships, and essential for leadership positions. This stuff has value no matter what you believe about God.

In the bigger picture, you find that people are people, regardless of where they fall in terms of beliefs. Ever witness a rally where two opposite views are represented? You could take the people from one side, brainwash them, then stick them on the complete opposite side of the issue and THEY'D STILL ACT EXACTLY THE SAME in their approach to arguing their "new" views. I always laugh when I see two people like this in a heated debate, because in many respects, they're the same person. Siamese twins, seperated at birth -- one raised to be (for example) pro-abortion, one raised to be anti-abortion. They approach the issue with the same fanaticism and closed-mindedness, and neither ever really reaches the other.

The point being: Certain personalities are simply fanatical no matter what they believe. And for that, you can't fault religion.

Learn to spell A-T-H-E-I-S-M correctly and I'll consider it.
leave him alone, i misspell things all the time, im sure you do to

Yeah - that's the most absurd thing I've heard in a long time.

If it was true then it would have meant that sometime around middle school, I had a "mutation" and I became less religious thusly
There is a difference between nurture and predisposition. Just because you weren't religious when you were young, doesn't mean the gene doesn't sway your influence in later life. Look at Huntingdon's chorea (not relating religion to a debilitating disease). It only presents in the person's thirties. Why couldn't this gene present in the person's teens? Or show itself, only for the person to supress it, much like some homosexuals

Well, it's true that not all religion is completely based on faith. The Kabbala is a quite thinking-intense religion. Faith, by definition, means that you believe something without knowing. So if you believe something without proof, how can you say you thought it out? What led you to believe in a Christian god? Do you believe that God has flesh, since he made man in his own image? Do you believe in the Bible at all literally? Do you believe that all life and matter was created in 6 days? Do you believe in the miracles? Do you think Moses really split water like that? Do you really believe that there could have been a flood as per Noah? Do you really believe that all species that are and ever have been are alive today? There are so many fallacies in Christianity it's appalling. How many of these have you questioned. Many religious types say they're looking for knowledge, but they're really just looking for something to make them feel better.

I'll forgive the last sentence. I also had a much more thorough response but jolt gave me this "Invalid thread" crap, and I don't feel like writing it all again so I'll make it shorter. Starting with the question, how can something be created from nothing? Something beyond the universe must have started it. For those of the Christian faith, it is God. God, being all powerful, could have created it all, word for word, in Genesis and then created evidence for evolution as a test or a joke or whatever. I don't know, I'm not God. Seems a bit too complicated though so I go by the consensus of most people in my church that becasue the Bible was written by imperfect humans, it is going to have contradictions, exaggerations, etc. So what parts do we believe as literal? Answers can come from literary analysis of the Bible, comparisons with scientific evidence, and of course faith. Faith and prayer (which includes believing and being open to Jesus) puts one in touch with their Holy Ghost, or the personal experience of the Lord's grace. So, I take contradictions and apparent fallacies in the Bible with a grain of salt, since it was written by humans. However, I think it's reasonable to think that the authors did their best to keep the Lord's overall message(s) intact. It does get frustrating trying to figure it all out though. Though noone did say that those with faith were simply looking to make themselves feel better.

as a non-cognitivist, subjectivist, prescriptivist who believe in relativism and consequentialism... who follows no religion and sees no reason for it's existance in modern society... As far as science goes, it's relatively new, so give it a few more years to figure out the truth about the universe and I'll give you a proper answer. Only within the last hundred years have we even had the chance to probe possibilitily.

I feel no reason to believe in a God. And if he did exist, what if he told you lying was good? In a religious society, it would be accepted that lying was the pious thing to do. There's no logic to it. I would consider myself a humanist... because I believe morals can be reached without religion. Even though most religions teach a sound foundation.

My family is religious and some members are incredibly ignorant... simply because of what their religion teaches. My grandmother wouldn't let my father marry my mother because she wasn't a Catholic. How does that make sense? Religion only works when society is made up on one religion. There's always some snobbery, which is why I don't like the idea of religion. And even if no religion taught a person that it was right to kill another for being a heretic... It happens. And without religion, it wouldn't happen.

Without religion, religious fundamentalists could not possibly exist. Sounds logical, non? And these are one group of people, no matter what their beliefs are, who scare me. Christian, Muslim, Hindi... It doesn't matter. The matter of the fact is that they are fundamentalist and dangerous because of their religion.

I have yet to meet an atheist on such a scale who could scare me to the same degree.

I have yet to meet an atheist on such a scale who could scare me to the same degree.

You clearly havn't been hanging around here very long. Some of the people (including atheists) you talk to...get really scary.

You clearly havn't been hanging around here very long. Some of the people (including atheists) you talk to...get really scary.

Perhaps I have seen them... And maybe I'm just completely mad and actually agree with what they have to say. LoL! Or much more likely, I haven't... and I'll remain to continue being confused until one side (science or religion) can prove it's worth putting faith into it.

Kind of goes against the point of having 'Faith' though, doesn't it? :P

Though noone did say that those with faith were simply looking to make themselves feel better.
Well, that isn't always true, but a large part of believing in heaven and hell is that people are afraid of oblivion when they die. They'd rather burn in hell for all of eternity than "cease to exist". That and the fact that it, and this isn't necessarily bad, that people think that if they do good, they will be rewarded after they die as badly as they are treated while they're alive. I think this is a good philosophy, but I also think it's nonsense. But that's not the only part of faith, you are right.

Starting with the question, how can something be created from nothing? Something beyond the universe must have started it. For those of the Christian faith, it is God. God, being all powerful, could have created it all, word for word, in Genesis and then created evidence for evolution as a test or a joke or whatever. I don't know, I'm not God. Seems a bit too complicated though so I go by the consensus of most people in my church that becasue the Bible was written by imperfect humans, it is going to have contradictions, exaggerations, etc. So what parts do we believe as literal? Answers can come from literary analysis of the Bible, comparisons with scientific evidence, and of course faith. Faith and prayer (which includes believing and being open to Jesus) puts one in touch with their Holy Ghost, or the personal experience of the Lord's grace. So, I take contradictions and apparent fallacies in the Bible with a grain of salt, since it was written by humans. However, I think it's reasonable to think that the authors did their best to keep the Lord's overall message(s) intact. It does get frustrating trying to figure it all out though.
Do you not realise the contradictions in what you say? If the Bible was written by mortals, than who wrote Genesis? Only God was around then. And why the hell would God put fossils out to test fallible humans on faith from a fallible book, as you mentioned earlier! It is so ridiculous and no-one realises it! And where, in the Bible, does it speak of God creating the other planets and moons and solar systems and galaxies? Did he put those there too to test the faith of humans? DOES GOD WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HIM RATHER THAN THEIR MORE-RELIABLE SENSES?!? Is God a f**king pundit? 'Cause if he is, I'm going to become an atheist just to spite him, because I f**king hate pundits.

Considering that virtually every war has boiled down to religion and land, could it not be argued that war would be less likely if the former were abolished?

On organized religion.

" A good tree shall not bear bad fruit."

Regardless of whether or not you say it's simply people committing heinious acts within the church, your god has already stated that you shall know an organization by the effect it has on the world. Simply stated, one mistake disproves any validity the catholic church should have, straight out of the mouth of the god they try to emulate.

I'm sure some people of other sects are thinking, well then, it's simply the catholics. I urge you to find a religion that hasn't committed relatively large violent acts that were sponsored by it's church.

On atheists.

No educated person would blame all of humanities faults on religion. Just like no educated person would say that the war between Israel and Palestine is based on religion. *scoff*

Well, that isn't always true, but a large part of believing in heaven and hell is that people are afraid of oblivion when they die. They'd rather burn in hell for all of eternity than "cease to exist". That and the fact that it, and this isn't necessarily bad, that people think that if they do good, they will be rewarded after they die as badly as they are treated while they're alive. I think this is a good philosophy, but I also think it's nonsense. But that's not the only part of faith, you are right.


Do you not realise the contradictions in what you say? If the Bible was written by mortals, than who wrote Genesis? Only God was around then. And why the hell would God put fossils out to test fallible humans on faith from a fallible book, as you mentioned earlier! It is so ridiculous and no-one realises it! And where, in the Bible, does it speak of God creating the other planets and moons and solar systems and galaxies? Did he put those there too to test the faith of humans? DOES GOD WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HIM RATHER THAN THEIR MORE-RELIABLE SENSES?!? Is God a f**king pundit? 'Cause if he is, I'm going to become an atheist just to spite him, because I f**king hate pundits.

You really wern't listening were you? Or were you only hearing what suited you? It makes sense that what made the universe is beyond the universe, and therefore beyond us right? God is beyond all human thinking. Including what me may think of as human logic. God's motivations, just like God's power and every other aspect are beyond all human comprehension and can't be truly understood by us. I just made that "false evidence of evolution put in place by God" as a point that we can't be absolutely sure since we wern't there. I clearly stated that isn't what I think, and you'd know that if you actually read the whole thing instead of seeing what you wanted to. It was simply to illustrate how we can't truly understand God. The Bible is the best we got on God in our ways of thinking though, as well as what God wants for us. It is definitely imperfect, but we can at least try to figure things out trhough reasoning and faith. As for our senses: two words, The Matrix :D. Our senses (including the human author's of the Bible) are fallible, God is not.

You really wern't listening were you? Or were you only hearing what suited you? It makes sense that what made the universe is beyond the universe, and therefore beyond us right? God is beyond all human thinking. Including what me may think of as logic. God's motivations, just like God's power and every other aspect are beyond all human comprehension and can't be truly understood by us.

That, and:

God gave us free will, yay!

Could easily sum up some atheists views on Christianity. Honestly, tell me you can't look outside the box and think that maybe those two quotes look like cop outs because no one can really explain Christianity otherwise? To me, Christianity is a crap crime novel. Suspense all the way through, and then you get a deus ex machina ending. >.<

You really wern't listening were you? Or were you only hearing what suited you? It makes sense that what made the universe is beyond the universe, and therefore beyond us right? God is beyond all human thinking. Including what me may think of as human logic. God's motivations, just like God's power and every other aspect are beyond all human comprehension and can't be truly understood by us. I just made that "false evidence of evolution put in place by God" as a point that we can't be absolutely sure since we wern't there. I clearly stated that isn't what I think, and you'd know that if you actually read the whole thing instead of seeing what you wanted to. It was simply to illustrate how we can't truly understand God. The Bible is the best we got on God in our ways of thinking though, as well as what God wants for us. It is definitely imperfect, but we can at least try to figure things out trhough reasoning and faith.
If God is beyond all human comprehension, then how is it possible for us mere mortals to fathom him? Why even try to understand? I admit, I did get a little extreme and emotional there, but there is reason in there if you ignore all of the causticity. And why do we care what God thinks if he is beyond all human comprehension, we should just leave him to his mighty devices and go about our daily lives. Another contradiction for ya.

By the by, I still stand by what I said earlier. I f**king hate pundits.

To me, Christianity is a crap crime novel. Suspense all the way through, and then you get a deus ex machina ending. >.<
Yes, I fully agree. I think that Christians should scrap all other hymns and pslams and just say "Heil Jesus!"

That, and:



Could easily sum up some atheists views on Christianity. Honestly, tell me you can't look outside the box and think that maybe those two quotes look like cop outs because no one can really explain Christianity otherwise? To me, Christianity is a crap crime novel. Suspense all the way through, and then you get a deus ex machina ending. >.<

Did I say that second one? If I did I must have been in a goofy mood. I can understand how they look like cop outs to someone that doesn't have faith. When it comes right down to it, you have faith in your own senses that are suspect themselves. Perhaps even more so than any of us realize, since we cannot know that we are missing something if we can't perceive it, yes? So, yeah, in this life we're all in a haze. I have faith in a higher power though, and that being with God in the next life, we will know. But since you have so much faith in your senses I guess you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond them.

If God is beyond all human comprehension, then how is it possible for us mere mortals to fathom him? Why even try to understand? I admit, I did get a little extreme and emotional there, but there is reason in there if you ignore all of the causticity. And why do we care what God thinks if he is beyond all human comprehension, we should just leave him to his mighty devices and go about our daily lives. Another contradiction for ya.

By the by, I still stand by what I said earlier. I f**king hate pundits.

Didn't I tell ya faith was frustrating? I'm not trying to sound like a pundit I'm just trying to explain my faith. If you have a problem with that, well, it is your problem. According to the Christian faith we should care because our mortal sin separates us from the perfect Lord. God did give us a way to bridge the gap though. By having his son (himself; I have a tough time trying to figure that one out too, but again: faith) die for our sins so that we could be cleansed of them. Just because it is impossible to fully fathom God, doesn't mean we can't give our best shot at it.

Did I say that second one? If I did I must have been in a goofy mood. I can understand how they look like cop outs to someone that doesn't have faith. When it comes right down to it, you have faith in your own senses that are suspect themselves. Perhaps even more so than any of us realize, since we cannot know that we are missing something if we can't perceive it, yes? So, yeah, in this life we're all in a haze. I have faith in a higher power though, and that being with God in the next life, we will know. But since you have so much faith in your senses I guess you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond them.

No, you didn't say that, but I thought I might as well put it in a quote because I have heard it so many times before, I'm sure most people have said it before.

Anyhow, I do not refuse to acknowledge anything beyond my own senses. I believe that maybe there are greater powers. Emphasis on maybe. I do doubt, but that's the whole point on my stance in this argument. ;) I just don't agree that religions represent whatever higher power may exist. Religions are not exempt from human error (another cop out Christianity manages to use). And sometimes I wonder if religion is based on human error. For some reason, I just don't believe any existing religions represent God.

When it comes right down to it, you have faith in your own senses that are suspect themselves.

That is your religion talking? If God doesn't exist, then what's to say that they are defying us? Sure, I'm a little deaf... But I think this whole 'Matrix' thing has been blown way out of proportion. ;)

Didn't I tell ya faith was frustrating? I'm not trying to sound like a pundit I'm just trying to explain my faith. If you have a problem with that, well, it is your problem. According to the Christian faith we should care because our mortal sin separates us from the perfect Lord. God did give us a way to bridge the gap though. By having his son (himself; I have a tough time trying to figure that one out too, but again: faith) die for our sins so that we could be cleansed of them. Just because it is impossible to fully fathom God, doesn't mean we can't give our best shot at it.
Now that is something I'm willing to accept. I was accusing God of being a pundit, not you, by the by. But if most Christians think like that, and not like what some of the extremists that I see, then I have very little against Christianity. That is all very rational and logical. It relies on faith, but it tries to figure things out. Theology can be just as confusing as Krebs cycle (to me, at the moment) at times.

No, you didn't say that, but I thought I might as well put it in a quote because I have heard it so many times before, I'm sure most people have said it before.

Anyhow, I do not refuse to acknowledge anything beyond my own senses. I believe that maybe there are greater powers. Emphasis on maybe. I do doubt, but that's the whole point on my stance in this argument. ;) I just don't agree that religions represent whatever higher power may exist. Religions are not exempt from human error (another cop out Christianity manages to use). And sometimes I wonder if religion is based on human error. For some reason, I just don't believe any existing religions represent God.



That is your religion talking? If God doesn't exist, then what's to say that they are defying us? Sure, I'm a little deaf... But I think this whole 'Matrix' thing has been blown way out of proportion. ;)

Why can't you include any established religions as possibly having the right idea on God? Sounds a bit arrogant to me. Gotta agree with you on the Matrix being blown out of proportion. You did admit you only accept what your flawed senses tell you though! :p Anyway, I'd love to talk about this more but I gotta eat something. Just don't expect any replies right away.

Why can't you include any established religions as possibly having the right idea on God? Sounds a bit arrogant to me. Gotta agree with you on the Matrix being blown out of proportion. You did admit you only accept what your flawed senses tell you though! :p Anyway, I'd love to talk about this more but I gotta eat something. Just don't expect any replies right away.

Yeah, I'll get back to you tomorrow, lol... I really should have gone to bed a while back. I'm exhausted. Sorry for the off-topic post, so don't expect anything from me for a few hours. :p

1. Unfortunately produces many religious fanatics that can go extreme. (You know, the ones with C4s strapped around their bodies that scream Allah is great before they're up in the sky 20 feet later.)
2. Provokes countries go into war, (Like Palestine and Israel.)
3. Makes people short-sighted. (Religion=ignorance.)
4. Its horrible actions in the past. (Like the murder of Galileo Galilei and the Crusades.)
5. Believe its followers use religion simply as an excuse. (Like hitting someone in the eye and claiming God ordered you to do so.)
I agree; and it's not like all the above haven't been achieved through secular means.

Khaz-Mordan, Jesus was a war monger and made many declarations of going to war and violence, he frequently lost his temper. Christianity is violent and intolerant in it's doctrines, just look at the Old Testament. God is evil in almost every aspect, again turning to the Old Testament. The New Testament is anti-life and is stolen from other earlier religions. Islam is violent as well, saying that you may not perpetrate violence unless to defend Islam and the word of Allah. Study a religion before making the assumption that we are assuming that it is bad. Buddhism I have no qualm with. All religions are not instantly bad, I only dislike the Xian trio: Islam, Judaism and Christianity; many other religions are quite interesting, especially ancient ones as well as Eastern religions.

I agree; and it's not like all the above haven't been achieved through secular means.

Exactly. We humans are very creative. Those that would can justify violence through any means. Should we abolish all public gatherings because violence can be incited at them?

Aetheists! Open your EYES! You guys can be cool, but just stop stabbing religion and using it as your garbage bin! If you don't believe in any religion, fine! You don't have to insult religions and blab on about how horrible they are. You guys are only looking at its BAD side.

you need to understand that, to many of us, that's like somebody asking us to see the positive side of racism, or the positive side of the Flat Earth theory, or the positive side of heroine addiction.


And the example about how religion makes us ignorant is also wrong in my opinion. Humans are ignorant whether they are religious or not. Even the smartest people like Einstein never knew where we came from. Therefore, science is just as ignorant as religion!

i would say that people who dedicate their lives to learning and understanding are a sight less ignorant than people who content themselves with making up or retelling fables and fairy tails. i would humbly submit that Einsteins inability to explain absolutely everything does not mean that he is equal in ignorance with, say, you or me. i am a lot more ignorant than Einstein, and he was ignorant compared to some of the great minds of today. we may never be able to understand everything in our reality, but that should not lead us to conclude that our efforts to improve our knowledge are futile, or that anybody with incomplete knowledge is as ignorant as those with no knowledge at all.


As people, we do not know WHERE we came from and why. Religion and science are just two pairs of ideas that explain the way Mother Nature works! So religion doesn't make you as ignorant as being a scientist.

religion makes up stories, science formulates testable hypotheses. in my opinion, those who are content with untestable stories are being willfully ignorant, while those who explore and test available hypotheses (and hopefully someday present hypotheses of their own) are at least making an effort to alleviate the natural limitations of human knowledge.


Aetheists, I invite you all to write other issues about religion. Comon, give it a shot! Remember, I have nothing against aethesists. Some of my best friends are aetheists.

out of respect for those good friends, then, i would suggest you learn the correct spelling of "atheist." it is best not to post an entire essay condemning a system of belief that you are unable to spell.


I just want to clarify the argument between religion and aethesists because to me it just seems like a disorganized and insensible conglomerate of insults, that's all. :D
you apparently have virtually no concept of the fundamental argument over religious superstition. i would encourage you to read more of the debates around here, and to consult with the many atheists you say you know, and perhaps you can return to these discussions with a fresh perspective.

Khaz-Mordan, Jesus was a war monger and made many declarations of going to war and violence, he frequently lost his temper. Christianity is violent and intolerant in it's doctrines, just look at the Old Testament. God is evil in almost every aspect, again turning to the Old Testament. The New Testament is anti-life and is stolen from other earlier religions. Islam is violent as well, saying that you may not perpetrate violence unless to defend Islam and the word of Allah. Study a religion before making the assumption that we are assuming that it is bad. Buddhism I have no qualm with. All religions are not instantly bad, I only dislike the Xian trio: Islam, Judaism and Christianity; many other religions are quite interesting, especially ancient ones as well as Eastern religions.

Wow....I really don't know where to start with this one. The misconceptions and flat-out lies (about all religions he/she? made)...TREMENDOUS. I could take the time trying to convince you with reason but I think I'll spare myself a headache from the futility of it and simply write you off as a moron.

How many people, in history, have willingingly blown themselves up for the sake of atheism, and no other reason?

How many people, in history, have willingingly blown themselves up for the sake of atheism, and no other reason?

Your asking if anyone has blown themselves up for no god and no other reason? No, I don't think anyone has done that, because it doesn't allow for other reasons. That is why it is a loaded and BS question. But I'm pretty sure people have done very horrible things for secular reasons, including atheists.

Khaz-Mordan, Jesus was a war monger and made many declarations of going to war and violence
BS - Read the following

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"
-Jesus Christ

You call somebody who called the merciful and peacemakers blessed a warmonger?!

The New Testament is anti-life and is stolen from other earlier religions.
Then how come Jesus is PRO-LIFE!

And having studied religion myself, there are very few religions which are original; they have all "borrowed" aspects of past religions

Islam is violent as well, saying that you may not perpetrate violence unless to defend Islam and the word of Allah
And what is Allah's true word? That Peace!

Study a religion before making the assumption that we are assuming that it is bad.
You need to re-study religion


I'm not very religious myself (I'm agnostic as a matter of fact) but come on, don't be a fool; all religions have their inherent advantages and flaws

BS - Read the following

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"
-Jesus Christ

You call somebody who called the merciful and peacemakers a warmonger?!


Then how come Jesus is PRO-LIFE!

And having studied religion myself, there are very few religions which are original; they have all "borrowed" aspects of past religions


And what is Allah's true word? That Peace!


You need to re-study religion

Nooooooo! Encouraging it to educate itself is futile. It may in fact cause his gasueous head to explode. If it's hydrogen instead of helium in there the explosion would kill us all!

Nooooooo! Encouraging it to educate itself is futile. It may in fact cause his gasueous head to explode. If it's hydrogen instead of helium in there the explosion would kill us all!
But if we all flee the thread in time, the explosion might in some Mod-esque way be able to nuke this absurd thread.

The New Testament is anti-life and is stolen from other earlier religions.
I partially agree with your other comments, I think they're a little extreme, but I see the verity in them. But this I definitely agree with, and is very true. Every wonder why Christians choose Sunday as the day of rest? It was originally on Saturday, like it is in Judaism, but changed it. This is because there were sun-worship pagan religions. It was done because some of the first converts to Chrstianity were still at least a little pagan at heart. Not to mention the origin of Saturday. Day of Saturn, or Cronus / Kronos for those of you more familiar with Grecian mythology. The titan father of Jupiter / Zeus. There are other examples of how Christianity stole things from other religions of the time, but, unfortunately, this is the only one I can recall at the moment.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

Well, I skimmed over the thread and I didn't notice anyone making this point, so as a student of religious studies, I feel obligated to point this out. If someone already covered this, my apologies.

The Greek "theos" means god, the prefix "a" means without, hence an atheist is someone who does not have a belief in God. This does not mean that atheists do not believe in or are against religion, so please stop making that assumption. It is quite eurocentric and shows your disregard to religions outside the Judeo-Christian sphere In fact, the majority of Buddhism and traditional Taoism is atheistic.

In short: You can be a religious atheist. That is neither a contradiction nor an oxymoron.

Crayvia, you are correct. And I know TONS of atheists who just want to do good in the world and are some of the most religiously tolerant people around.

But let's not waste time trying to educate the fanatics *sits back as this thread goes down in flames*

its people who make the mistakes
look at religion like a gun
both have immense destructive potential....

I'd like to make heavy notations that this thread is not including the belief in following satan, i.e. Satanism. This thread is significantly discussing the top 4-5 areas of religion that seems to cause the MOST controversy. I'd like to hear some 'tramplings' on these 'religions' as well. Just for the sake of fairness. Please?

Also, Faith can also be placed in things other than religiously based. You could claim it's known more as 'hope.' With which I have to wonder, what do atheists do when they take a test in school or have a job interview. They are either 100% optimistic or 100% pessimistic? They're human, they hope for the best, and work to have some faith in their choices prior to said test or interview.

I'd also like to add that as far as I've seen, Christianity is a free-will religion. Fire and Brimstone ideologies aside. Are the other religions that way? I'm figuring they are, subtracting the more occult types.

Finally, if you, as an atheist, state such beliefs, you still have a belief in something. EVEN if it's belief in nothing of religious tones.

Thank you and may your choices always be wise.

Well, I skimmed over the thread and I didn't notice anyone making this point, so as a student of religious studies, I feel obligated to point this out. If someone already covered this, my apologies.

The Greek "theos" means god, the prefix "a" means without, hence an atheist is someone who does not have a belief in God. This does not mean that atheists do not believe in or are against religion, so please stop making that assumption. It is quite eurocentric and shows your disregard to religions outside the Judeo-Christian sphere In fact, the majority of Buddhism and traditional Taoism is atheistic.

In short: You can be a religious atheist. That is neither a contradiction nor an oxymoron.
Thank you. I had meant to make this point, but "atheism" is so commonly used as a colloquialism meaning "believing in no religion" that I had forgotten. What you forget is that pretty much all religions are arrogant, and claim to be the only true religion. Thus, if most people here are either Christian or atheists, then all atheists must be against all religion, since they do not conform to the monotheistic view from Judeo-Christian religions. And, just as an addendum, Buddhism is usually regarded as more of a philosophy than a religion. There are some that treat it as a religion, but it is not fundemental part of it.

http://www.gospels.net

there are about 20 gospels there that focus on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. so when anyone says that the bible is the ultimate source of information regarding Jesus, they've only read 1/5 of the gospels as far as i'm concerned. the four that were chosen by the catholic church to be included were chosen by far less perfect humans than the ones who supposedly were inhabited by the holy spirit during the writings. correct me if i'm wrong, but i've learned that God didn't write the bible, but certain people "wrote under the influence" of the holy spirit.

religion is something i've been interested in for awhile. there are many good things to be learned from religion over the years, and many bad things to avoid. for the most part, i am not religious at all.

this argument is a simpler question than anyone realizes. when speaking of atheism versus religion, any religion pretty much, the fact is, they're equal in terms of faith.

religious people have faith that god exists. it doesn't matter where they get their view of god or stories of god at this point, it's just about the faith. they believe in something that they can't prove. they believe god exists in one form or another.

but at the same time, atheists must have faith as well, for their conclusion is just as hard to prove as theists. it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist just the same as it's impossible to prove that god does exist.

that being said, i will say that the difference between religion and nonreligion is that religion seems a little useless to me. "Thou shalt not murder." me? not murder? what a new concept! i can't believe that god doesn't want me to kill! and me, killing everyone i've met! i've been so wrong.

atheism, on the other hand, is very subjective and i'm sure someone out there hasn't learned killing being wrong, and that ruins that. i'm going to stick with agnosticism for the time being. i can find out otherwise after i'm dead. because, you see, if god is all-forgiving, then won't he forgive me for my sins after i'm dead? i mean, what kind of god won't forgive someone after their death?

Edit: To clarify, religion and atheism both seem too reliant on faith for me. i don't think either one has an advantage in that respect.

I partially agree with your other comments, I think they're a little extreme, but I see the verity in them. But this I definitely agree with, and is very true. Every wonder why Christians choose Sunday as the day of rest? It was originally on Saturday, like it is in Judaism, but changed it. This is because there were sun-worship pagan religions. It was done because some of the first converts to Chrstianity were still at least a little pagan at heart. Not to mention the origin of Saturday. Day of Saturn, or Cronus / Kronos for those of you more familiar with Grecian mythology. The titan father of Jupiter / Zeus. There are other examples of how Christianity stole things from other religions of the time, but, unfortunately, this is the only one I can recall at the moment.

That is a huge leap between changing something to accomadate pagans (which I disagree with, stick to your principles I say) and the New Testament being "stolen" (which is crap by the way). How can you partially agree with such hateful speech of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?

BS - Read the following

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"
-Jesus Christ

You call somebody who called the merciful and peacemakers blessed a warmonger?!

Then how come Jesus is PRO-LIFE!

And having studied religion myself, there are very few religions which are original; they have all "borrowed" aspects of past religions

And what is Allah's true word? That Peace!

You need to re-study religion

I'm not very religious myself (I'm agnostic as a matter of fact) but come on, don't be a fool; all religions have their inherent advantages and flaws

Just one or two little things...

I don't recall Jesus ever claiming to be pro-life.

Islam is peace... that is what 'islam' means. Just because all Muslims do not follow that code, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Or are you arguing that the Muslim religion is evil, and the christian religion is good? Not quite sure where you were going with that.

Regarding Jesus: he did lose his temper in the temple, so, no matter what is said, he is recorded as having violent outburst.

Also - prophetic scripture promises a return with 'fire and the sword'... rather than with hugs and kittens.

That is a huge leap between changing something to accomadate pagans (which I disagree with, stick to your principles I say) and the New Testament being "stolen" (which is crap by the way).
That is true, buth the thing is that some of the stories were taken from ealier religions. The Old Testament wasn't "stolen" per se, however. I didn't notice that it was the New Testament in discussion, though, as I think that is probably crap. Just the Old one.

How can you partially agree with such hateful speech of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?
The thing is that, as you said, the Bible is up for interpretation. There are some Christians and many Muslims that are quite violent. Jews don't do that too much though, but the other two have their extremists. And plus, anything that encourages creationism I dislike for that reason if no other. But there are also good points to all of these religions. All religions have their good and bad points.

Thank you. I had meant to make this point, but "atheism" is so commonly used as a colloquialism meaning "believing in no religion" that I had forgotten. What you forget is that pretty much all religions are arrogant, and claim to be the only true religion. Thus, if most people here are either Christian or atheists, then all atheists must be against all religion, since they do not conform to the monotheistic view from Judeo-Christian religions. And, just as an addendum, Buddhism is usually regarded as more of a philosophy than a religion. There are some that treat it as a religion, but it is not fundemental part of it.

hinduism is more of a religion for the indian culture. they don't really consider
others on the outside
for buddhists there are no outsiders but they don't really care what other people think either

That is a huge leap between changing something to accomadate pagans (which I disagree with, stick to your principles I say) and the New Testament being "stolen" (which is crap by the way). How can you partially agree with such hateful speech of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?

The New Testament was largely stolen, I'm afraid.. in much the same manner as the Old Testament.

The Hebrews thought that the Christians were stealing their scripture, and twisting it to satisfy their own agenda - which is why they opposed Jesus - and why so few follow Jesus to this day.

But, let me advise you to do a little reading... much of the Old Testament can be found in it's unedited format in the native Mesopotamian religions - let me advise you to look up Hammurabi's Code of Laws, or the Babylonian Creation epic - and then compare them to the Pentatauch.

Regarding New Testament text - let me advise you to research pre-christian Buddhism - circa 600BC, for an interesting insight into one possible root for most of the content attributed to Jesus.

Also - let me suggest the book of Hanukh for material which Jesus is scripturally recorded to be quoting.

I might also lead you in the direction of Mithraic revelation - for the roots of the 'Revelation' at the end of the New Testament.

You make a baseless argument, my friend. If you want to argue against ancient texts, do so, by all means... but you should equip yourself to do so, by actually looking at those texts first.

That is a huge leap between changing something to accomadate pagans (which I disagree with, stick to your principles I say) and the New Testament being "stolen" (which is crap by the way). How can you partially agree with such hateful speech of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?

all religions have grown over time. When the hebrews where in the middle of the babylonian exile they were exposed to zoroastrianism which,i believe, is where they got the idea for the devil and thus heavan and hell

The New Testament was largely stolen, I'm afraid.. in much the same manner as the Old Testament.

The Hebrews thought that the Christians were stealing their scripture, and twisting it to satisfy their own agenda - which is why they opposed Jesus - and why so few follow Jesus to this day.

But, let me advise you to do a little reading... much of the Old Testament can be found in it's unedited format in the native Mesopotamian religions - let me advise you to look up Hammurabi's Code of Laws, or the Babylonian Creation epic - and then compare them to the Pentatauch.

Regarding New Testament text - let me advise you to research pre-christian Buddhism - circa 600BC, for an interesting insight into one possible root for most of the content attributed to Jesus.

Also - let me suggest the book of Hanukh for material which Jesus is scripturally recorded to be quoting.

I might also lead you in the direction of Mithraic revelation - for the roots of the 'Revelation' at the end of the New Testament.

You make a baseless argument, my friend. If you want to argue against ancient texts, do so, by all means... but you should equip yourself to do so, by actually looking at those texts first.

you're good

The New Testament was largely stolen, I'm afraid.. in much the same manner as the Old Testament.
Oh, really? I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was only the Old Testament, but your other arguments made me see what I had overlooked.

The Hebrews thought that the Christians were stealing their scripture, and twisting it to satisfy their own agenda - which is why they opposed Jesus - and why so few follow Jesus to this day.
Well, to be fair, no Jews follow Jesus. That is the big difference between Christians and Jews--the fact that Jews do not believe in the divinity of Christ.

i would like to say that around the time of the crusades the only people who were "right" ,per say, were the people who were heritics(atheast) because they weren't blinded by any faith to go kill innocents. Even now we have people killing countless innocents

That is true, buth the thing is that some of the stories were taken from ealier religions. The Old Testament wasn't "stolen" per se, however. I didn't notice that it was the New Testament in discussion, though, as I think that is probably crap. Just the Old one.


The thing is that, as you said, the Bible is up for interpretation. There are some Christians and many Muslims that are quite violent. Jews don't do that too much though, but the other two have their extremists. And plus, anything that encourages creationism I dislike for that reason if no other. But there are also good points to all of these religions. All religions have their good and bad points.

But look at the equivalent life-cycle of each of the religions:

Hebrew religion, oral tradition, starts unrecorded thousand(s) of years before the birth of christ - expands through violent and bloody conquest, spawning a new 'religion' and slowly fades back to a smaller faction.

Christian religion, starts approximately two thousand years ago, expands through violent and bloody conquest (The Crusades, Manifest Destiny) and spawns a new 'religion'.

Islam, starts about 1400 years ago, and expands through violent and bloody conquest - and that period has yet to end... but look where christianity was 600 years ago.

The New Testament is anti-life and is stolen from other earlier religions.

Um, earlier religions arn't anti-life. That's a lie written in the Old Testment.
See, the Old Testament was writen by the Hebrews (I'm sure you knew that), who spent nearly 500 years attacking their Sumerian/Assyrian. Hittite, Egyptian,and Nubian neighbors, trying to steal land, get slaves, and desroy these civilizations who would not obey them as a superior race.
Then of course the attacked gang up and fight back in cooperation, Egypt enslaves the Hebrews, and from there the story of Moses takes over.
The old Testament is alot of anti-"those who beat us" tripe. To keep their faith they turned to the idea that god destroyed these civilizations or cities because they were "wrong", and tried to destroy the Hebrews, when in fact it's the Hebrews who tried to destroy them, and enslave them.
Of course since it evolved into Judaism, the religion has become alot nicer, and I actually respect the current evolution (So I'm not anti-jew (Side note, Anti-Semite is someone who is against anyone from the Middle East, bet you didn'tknow that>)).

Anyway, my point is, using the OT to explain pre-christian religions is the same as using Nazi-propaghanda to explain the Jews, what sense does it make?

I'm aware that your comment refered to the NT, but your reasoning was taken directly from the OT.


Also, for the Atheists, what good is it to judge a religion based on what others, other religions, or even the extreemists say? If you want to judge it, you should just look at it's beliefs. If you want to judge the people, judge them, but don't relate them to beliefs you know nothing of.
Same thing goes when judging atheists, judge them as humans, not their lack of a belief in any diety.
Of course, human nature is to judge eachother, so to expect peoplenot to is absurd.

Matt.10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

:eek: :sniper:

Oh, really? I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was only the Old Testament, but your other arguments made me see what I had overlooked.


Well, to be fair, no Jews follow Jesus. That is the big difference between Christians and Jews--the fact that Jews do not believe in the divinity of Christ.

I believe they call themselves 'jews for jesus'.

It isn't a major movement, to my knowledge - but they certainly do exist - although outside of mainstream Judaism.

The New Testament was largely stolen, I'm afraid.. in much the same manner as the Old Testament.

The Hebrews thought that the Christians were stealing their scripture, and twisting it to satisfy their own agenda - which is why they opposed Jesus - and why so few follow Jesus to this day.

But, let me advise you to do a little reading... much of the Old Testament can be found in it's unedited format in the native Mesopotamian religions - let me advise you to look up Hammurabi's Code of Laws, or the Babylonian Creation epic - and then compare them to the Pentatauch.

Regarding New Testament text - let me advise you to research pre-christian Buddhism - circa 600BC, for an interesting insight into one possible root for most of the content attributed to Jesus.

Also - let me suggest the book of Hanukh for material which Jesus is scripturally recorded to be quoting.

I might also lead you in the direction of Mithraic revelation - for the roots of the 'Revelation' at the end of the New Testament.

You make a baseless argument, my friend. If you want to argue against ancient texts, do so, by all means... but you should equip yourself to do so, by actually looking at those texts first.

You're assuming like an ass (ass out of you and me) that I havn't read these texts. It wasn't very likely that Buddhism or its ideas ever reached Palestine. Because similiar ideas or events had been thought of or described earlier does not invalidate the Old Testament or the Gospel. But you go right on assuming.

when i used to go to hebrew school, i once asked my rabbi who jews for jesus were.

ME: Rabbi, I heard about these people calling themselves "Jews for Jesus".
RABBI: Hahahahahahahahahaha.. etc.

Eventually he told me that since most of the differences between Jews and Christians were Jesus, "Jews for Jesus" was a futile attempt at combining the two religions. But since Jews believe the messiah has not come to earth yet, and that is an unchanging part of their religion, Jews for Jesus would be more likely a radical sect of Christians than an offshoot of the Jewish faith.

Matt.10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

:eek: :sniper:

I really hate it when people quote scripture completely out of context and try to pass it off as having a different meaning. It means that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you will end up with punishment in the next life. (check verse 38-39). In verses 36-37 Jesus is telling his followers that their beliefs will set them in conflict with the beliefs of their family, and if they value their family more than him, then they will lose their second life in paradies. The sword isn't physical violence, it's about family conflict. But thanks for trying to lie to people about my faith /sarcasm.

You're assuming like an ass (ass out of you and me) that I havn't read these texts. It wasn't very likely that Buddhism or its ideas ever reached Palestine. Because similiar ideas or events had been thought of or described earlier does not invalidate the Old Testament or the Gospel. But you go right on assuming.


Actually, the Assyro-Babylonains had trade going with people as far east as China, and also with Palestine, Egypt, and everywhere else, all before the New Testament was written.
Sumer itself had trade with India by something like 2700BCE, before their war with the Elamites (Ancestors to the Persians).

when i used to go to hebrew school, i once asked my rabbi who jews for jesus were.

ME: Rabbi, I heard about these people calling themselves "Jews for Jesus".
RABBI: Hahahahahahahahahaha.. etc.

Eventually he told me that since most of the differences between Jews and Christians were Jesus, "Jews for Jesus" was a futile attempt at combining the two religions. But since Jews believe the messiah has not come to earth yet, and that is an unchanging part of their religion, Jews for Jesus would be more likely a radical sect of Christians than an offshoot of the Jewish faith.

They are an offshoot of the Jewish faith, in that they 'start' from Judaism, and make a partial conversion to 'christianity' - but, are no longer truly members of either - perhaps ending closer to modern christianity.

There is an internationally broadcast radio programme (I believe it is called "A Message to Israel") which is specifically aimed to preach a convergence of the two faiths - to convert Jews to a form of Christianity, by identifying common characteristics between the two.

These 'converts' are heretical, by true Judaistic standards, perhaps - but they are, arguably, still Jews.

I don't really see why you would argue this point?

I really hate it when people quote scripture completely out of context and try to pass it off as having a different meaning. It means that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you will end up with punishment in the next life. (check verse 38-39). In verses 36-37 Jesus is telling his followers that their beliefs will set them in conflict with the beliefs of their family, and if they value their family more than him, then they will lose their second life in paradies. The sword isn't physical violence, it's about family conflict. But thanks for trying to lie to people about my faith /sarcasm.
So Jesus was anti-family? What kind of religion is Christianity!?! Sounds pretty punk to me. ;)

i would like to say that around the time of the crusades the only people who were "right" ,per say, were the people who were heritics(atheast) because they weren't blinded by any faith to go kill innocents. Even now we have people killing countless innocents

if the crusades weren't motivated by religion it would have been something else
besides religion, in and of itself, is altruistic and does not promote violence 99% of the time

Actually, the Assyro-Babylonains had trade going with people as far east as China, and also with Palestine, Egypt, and everywhere else, all before the New Testament was written.
Sumer itself had trade with India by something like 2700BCE, before their war with the Elamites (Ancestors to the Persians).

That wasn't really my main point...but okay.

You're assuming like an ass (ass out of you and me) that I havn't read these texts. It wasn't very likely that Buddhism or its ideas ever reached Palestine. Because similiar ideas or events had been thought of or described earlier does not invalidate the Old Testament or the Gospel. But you go right on assuming.

What am I assuming?

You said that the scriptures were not 'stolen' - so you have CLEARLY not read any of the texts I listed, otherwise you would have admitted upfront that many bible scriptures bear an uncanny resemblance to much earlier, 'foreign' texts.

Do not call me an ass, for failings in your own education.

While we are on the subject - there are clear records of Oriental trade and association in the Middle East two thousand years ago (especially around Syria, but throughout that part of the world) - and of Middle East trade and association throughout other 'foreign' areas - for example, the 'proto-christian' temples in India that are nearly two thousand years old.

Buddhism is well known to have been 'encountered' in the biblical area by the time of Daniel, at the latest.

It is not my fault if you are, once again, arguing from the vantage of ignorance.

I would advise you to research your claims before you make them.

What am I assuming?

You said that the scriptures were not 'stolen' - so you have CLEARLY not read any of the texts I listed, otherwise you would have admitted upfront that many bible scriptures bear an uncanny resemblance to much earlier, 'foreign' texts.

Do not call me an ass, for failings in your own education.

While we are on the subject - there are clear records of Oriental trade and association in the Middle East two thousand years ago (especially around Syria, but throughout that part of the world) - and of Middle East trade and association throughout other 'foreign' areas - for example, the 'proto-christian' temples in India that are nearly two thousand years old.

Buddhism is well known to have been 'encountered' in the biblical area by the time of Daniel, at the latest.

It is not my fault if you are, once again, arguing from the vantage of ignorance.

I would advise you to research your claims before you make them.

i agree. I have heard many of the same thing you are saying during my time in school. It is just silly to think that the judeo-christian bible emerged from...
wherever without any ifluence from the rest of the world. If you compare the teachings of both jesus and buddha it becomes hard to ignore

i agree. I have heard many of the same thing you are saying during my time in school. It is just silly to think that the judeo-christian bible emerged from...
wherever without any ifluence from the rest of the world. If you compare the teachings of both jesus and buddha it becomes hard to ignore

Especially when you look at documents that clearly pre-date Jesus by, say, 600 years - and they detail similarities, not only in speech (the Beatitudes is almost stolen word-for-word), but also in the context... i.e. the number of 'apostles', the fact that some were chosen from among the 'fishermen', etc.

You would have to have your head buried pretty firmly in the sand NOT to see that there is a supsicious similarity between the alleged characteristics of the Buddhist story, and the alleged characteristics of the Jesus story... which followed by more than half a millenium.

What am I assuming?

You said that the scriptures were not 'stolen' - so you have CLEARLY not read any of the texts I listed, otherwise you would have admitted upfront that many bible scriptures bear an uncanny resemblance to much earlier, 'foreign' texts.

Do not call me an ass, for failings in your own education.

While we are on the subject - there are clear records of Oriental trade and association in the Middle East two thousand years ago (especially around Syria, but throughout that part of the world) - and of Middle East trade and association throughout other 'foreign' areas - for example, the 'proto-christian' temples in India that are nearly two thousand years old.

Buddhism is well known to have been 'encountered' in the biblical area by the time of Daniel, at the latest.

It is not my fault if you are, once again, arguing from the vantage of ignorance.

I would advise you to research your claims before you make them.


First of all. I didn't call you an ass. I said you were assuming and referenced that little saying. Secondly, don't tell me what I havn't read. It makes you sound ignorant when you're judging someone you don't know. As a matter of fact I have read many of the ancient Sumerian and Buddhist texts. Perhaps I was wrong on the "encounter" with Buddhism but that's what I'm studying now so give me time (emphasis on spread further east...). Anyway, ya I do realize the aspect of Moses' story of being found in the reeds was likely borrowed from a Sumerian tale (:p, I did read it) for example. I sort of made a blanket statement there about the "stolen" line being crap. Looking back, I would have said some influences from other cultures. But dismissing me as undeducated when you clearly don't know me except for a few sentences after some moron (not you, the one making the statement about jesus=war monger) says some very hateful things about my faith, makes you seem petty. So I made one blanket statement that I later wished to revise, but was too late before people started to judge me and one inacurrate point. Sue me.

You would have to have your head buried pretty firmly in the sand NOT to see that there is a supsicious similarity between the alleged characteristics of the Buddhist story, and the alleged characteristics of the Jesus story... which followed by more than half a millenium.
You also have to have your head buried pretty firmly in the sand NOT to see that creationism is nonsense. Does that stop Christians? No. So why would it be any different for this than that?

Anyway, ya I do realize the aspect of Moses' story of being found in the reeds was likely borrowed from a Sumerian tale (:p, I did read it) for example.

Um, Ziusudra was not found in the reeds, and was not abandoned. In fact, when the great deluge happened, he was a king of the city of Shuruppak.
And after the great deluge, the gods made him immortal, and he moved to an island in the Waters of Death.

Are you sure you read the story?
Not even the story of Uta-Napishti is simmilar to that of Noah's ark. The only simmilarities are those of the flood.

Um, Ziusudra was not found in the reeds, and was not abandoned. In fact, when the great deluge happened, he was a king of the city of Shuruppak.
And after the great deluge, the gods made him immortal, and he moved to an island in the Waters of Death.

Are you sure you read the story?
Not even the story of Uta-Napishti is simmilar to that of Noah's ark. The only simmilarities are those of the flood.

Perhaps I was thinking of a different story...anyway the part about the flood I remember from reading Gilgamesh my freshman year.

edit: You know what, I think I remember that moses/reeds/sumeria link from some history channel thing on moses. Funny how you can mix memories up.

Perhaps I was thinking of a different story...anyway the part about the flood I remember from reading Gilgamesh my freshman year.

edit: You know what, I think I remember that moses/reeds/sumeria link from some history channel thing on moses. Funny how you can mix memories up.

Yea, I saw that one on Discovery, all rubbish.
But yea, Uta-Napishti/Ziusudra is proclaimed as the origonal "Noah". But the story's much different.
Um... and if I remember Gilgamesh correctly (I prefer the Bilgamese version which was first, and isn't much different), Uta-Napishti's only role in the story is to remind Gilgamesh of his Kingly duties, and tell him to quit his eternal life quest because he has responisbilities back in Uruk.

Amazing what you learn when you study the subject, lol.
And, oddly related to the topic, I used to be Ahteist, and converted because I learned more about a religion that I ended up liking, perhaps that's why alot of Atheists bash religion? Just because they might want to be a part of it?

Maybe....doesn't seem very likely though. What pissed me off was grave calling me ignorant and uneducated because I was incorrect on a couple points. I am still in school but the way he said it just made my blood boil.

And, oddly related to the topic, I used to be Ahteist, and converted because I learned more about a religion that I ended up liking, perhaps that's why alot of Atheists bash religion? Just because they might want to be a part of it?
Did you seriously choose Christianity? I've studied some religions, and my top choices were some of the Celtic pagan religions, the Kabbala, and Buddhism. I briefly thought about Shinto, because I have an obsession with Japan (I happen to be wearing an oh-so-comfortable yukata as I type), but I really wasn't too partial to it. I later decided that I was too lazy to have any of those religions, and that it may be amoral for me to have any religion, but I am very surprised you chose Christianity.

I am intending on doing some research on the Stoics when I get around to it (I'm doing chemistry right now), as I heard that they had a religious view that there is and energy that everything is made of, and that it is recycled. Kind of like the makō energy of FFVII, for Final Fantasy fans. Perhaps I'll acquire a religion then, if whatever they believed was palatable enough to myself.

But, I mean really...why would you choose Christianity?

Did you seriously choose Christianity? I've studied some religions, and my top choices were some of the Celtic pagan religions, the Kabbala, and Buddhism. I briefly thought about Shinto, because I have an obsession with Japan (I happen to be wearing an oh-so-comfortable yukata as I type), but I really wasn't too partial to it. I later decided that I was too lazy to have any of those religions, and that it may be amoral for me to have any religion, but I am very surprised you chose Christianity.

I am intending on doing some research on the Stoics when I get around to it (I'm doing chemistry right now), as I heard that they had a religious view that there is and energy that everything is made of, and that it is recycled. Kind of like the makō energy of FFVII, for Final Fantasy fans. Perhaps I'll acquire a religion then, if whatever they believed was palatable enough to myself.

But, I mean really...why would you choose Christianity?


Eh, I didn't choose Christianity, I hate Christianity (Not the people, the organisation).
So, for the official reccord, I am Keingir (Sumerian religion).
I probably should have pointed that out, how else would I know so much of Ziusudra's story?
Kinda odd how people jump to conclusions, everyone assumes I'm either Christian (Because I'm white and say I have a religion), or Atheist (Because of my beliefs and the fact that I generally dislike Humanity).

This whole thread is prejudece. The first post itself - Not all Athiests insult other religions.

In fact I'm one of those people who can truly call themselves indepedent. However you don't see me insulting your religions do you? In fact...I love Buddhism. I wish I could belive in Buddhism and I do follow many of its rules and Code of Conduct but it would be impossible for someone who grew up so far from Buddhism and indian life to ever really *belive* in all the spiritual matters around buddhism.

I don't understand why religion is the source for so much chaos and tension. Your religion is often based on your background including parents, location and people you know. Unless somthing changes in life you most often keep the religion your born into, which we cannot change.

Why should either religion or lack there of make fun of one other and try to discredit one another? Its not like somones gonna change faith just beacuse they read somthing on a forum.

But I have a question: When you refer to "Athiest" do you just mean people who live in a very religious place that belives in god and yet that person does not or any person whos religion does not include a god? Beacuse if you insult everyone who doesn't belive that there is one supreme being your insulting more people than their are Jews.

-Leo

This whole thread is prejudece. The first post itself - Not all Athiests insult other religions.

Um, did you read all the posts? I think that point is made even in the first post.

In fact I'm one of those people who can truly call themselves indepedent. However you don't see me insulting your religions do you? In fact...I love Buddhism. I wish I could belive in Buddhism and I do follow many of its rules and Code of Conduct but it would be impossible for someone who grew up so far from Buddhism and indian life to ever really *belive* in all the spiritual matters around buddhism.

Never tried have you? All you have to do is be willing to do it, trust me, it works.

I don't understand why religion is the source for so much chaos and tension. Your religion is often based on your background including parents, location and people you know. Unless somthing changes in life you most often keep the religion your born into, which we cannot change.

Simple, many religions teach that they are the only correct one, and all others are false. So, people fight over that.
And I believe your idea of religion, is actually culture. Perhaps you should rethink your idea? I was born into a community that was 90% Protestant and Anglican, from a Catholic Family, with a Witch for a mother. Now, what I believe is so completely different from all of these, that there is no way you can say it's a product of my culture.
Of course you can call it a product of my background because I've got a facination with science, and I based my descion and beliefs off of science.

Second, you can change the religion you're born into, you can even change your gender, culture, language, or appearance. What you can;t change is your skin color. The problem, which you may think of as "Can not", is that it's harder to change then say, your pants, it takes effort. Don't mistake lack of motivation, or sheer lazyness for impossibility.

Perhaps you're just too lazy to become a Buddhist?

Did I say that second one? If I did I must have been in a goofy mood. I can understand how they look like cop outs to someone that doesn't have faith. When it comes right down to it, you have faith in your own senses that are suspect themselves. Perhaps even more so than any of us realize, since we cannot know that we are missing something if we can't perceive it, yes? So, yeah, in this life we're all in a haze. I have faith in a higher power though, and that being with God in the next life, we will know. But since you have so much faith in your senses I guess you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond them.

You ask for people to keep on open mind, but yet you do not keep an open mind. You admit that you cannot know the truth, yet you already seem certain about the next life.

I will agree that senses are fallible and that humans can only draw conclusions based upon what they are able to see and comprehend. Furthermore, as no two people have the same exact set of experiences, the exact manner in which each person interprets the data that they come into contact with will be different. As such, I think it is impossible to tell determine that any religious or non-religious views a person may hold are in any sense absolutely right or absolutely wrong up until the point that a religion or idealogy starts insisting that it is the one and only true way. Even then I will concede the possibiltiy that those individuals who adhere to the idealogies that hold they are the one true way may have seen more of the truth than the rest of us (which implies the equal belief that these same individuals may not have seen more of the truth than the rest of us).
My problem the followers of belief systems which claim to be "the one truth" are that they are not able to accord the rest of the world this same respect. No matter how tolerant a member of a one true way belief system may act, they still at heart only accept the possiblity that their belief is the only correct one.

There are some Christians and many Muslims that are quite violent. Jews don't do that too much though, but the other two have their extremists. And plus, anything that encourages creationism I dislike for that reason if no other. But there are also good points to all of these religions. All religions have their good and bad points.

There is a very logical explanation for that. While the Jews believe the God of the OT is the only true god, they also hold that his revelations were meant only for the Jewish people. As such, they are the only people that they expect to believe in God and keep his laws. Because of this, the idea of converting or forcefully converting (ie, a Crusade or Jihad) is inimical with Jewish belief. Therefore they only have secular rather than scriptural ways to justify wars and other violent behaviors.

Eh, I didn't choose Christianity, I hate Christianity (Not the people, the organisation).
So, for the official reccord, I am Keingir (Sumerian religion).
I probably should have pointed that out, how else would I know so much of Ziusudra's story?
Kinda odd how people jump to conclusions, everyone assumes I'm either Christian (Because I'm white and say I have a religion), or Atheist (Because of my beliefs and the fact that I generally dislike Humanity).
Oh...I though I had read that someone had converted to Christianity in this thread. Must've been someone else (or I just remember wrong). If I hadn't supposedly read that earlier, I would've asked before jumping to conclusions like that, I apologise for presuming.

There is a very logical explanation for that. While the Jews believe the God of the OT is the only true god, they also hold that his revelations were meant only for the Jewish people. As such, they are the only people that they expect to believe in God and keep his laws. Because of this, the idea of converting or forcefully converting (ie, a Crusade or Jihad) is inimical with Jewish belief. Therefore they only have secular rather than scriptural ways to justify wars and other violent behaviors.
As arrogant as that is, I wish that more religions were like that. That might have been one reason I liked the esoteric Kabbala when I researched it. But if one has no Kabalistic connexions, it become rather difficult to further knowledge on it. That's probably why I have less qualms with Jew in general, because although they're holier-than-thou in some ways, at least they don't bug everyone else.

There is a very logical explanation for that. While the Jews believe the God of the OT is the only true god, they also hold that his revelations were meant only for the Jewish people. As such, they are the only people that they expect to believe in God and keep his laws. Because of this, the idea of converting or forcefully converting (ie, a Crusade or Jihad) is inimical with Jewish belief. Therefore they only have secular rather than scriptural ways to justify wars and other violent behaviors.

That and the fact that before Christianity (Most notably before the famous Exodus from Egypt) the Hebrews (Early Jews, for those who don't know) were among the most viloent peoples of the area. And fought with everyone for many stupid reasons.
Then the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews as a form of pay back, and they changed their ways slightly (For the better).

That and the fact that before Christianity (Most notably before the famous Exodus from Egypt) the Hebrews (Early Jews, for those who don't know) were among the most viloent peoples of the area. And fought with everyone for many stupid reasons.
Then the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews as a form of pay back, and they changed their ways slightly (For the better).
Well, you're only counting humans. What about driver ants? Those b*tches are nasty... Pretty cool though--they make nests out of their own bodies and are probably one of the scariest macro-organsims in existence. They spare nothing and no-one. Yeah, so I think the driver ants trump the Hebrews, and have been around for much longer.

Well, you're only counting humans. What about driver ants? Those b*tches are nasty... Pretty cool though--they make nests out of their own bodies and are probably one of the scariest macro-organsims in existence. They spare nothing and no-one. Yeah, so I think the driver ants trump the Hebrews, and have been around for much longer.

Yep, I said "Peoples". Lol, not species.

Yep, I said "Peoples". Lol, not species.
Ants are people too! Kinda...

But, seriously, ants could really be considered a people by the loosest standards. They are even more organised than humans are, and have different species, which would be the equivalent of cultures/states/religions in humans.

See I was agreeing with most of what you were saying but then you said

Therefore, science is just as ignorant as religion
you just lost me.

Science is not ignorant. That is an insult to the people that are in that profession now and the ones that came before them. If it wasn't for science we would be dead. The idea of science was most likely the first thing to be created by humanity. The first humans that created wheels and fire were scientists. If science is ignorant then you can be damn sure you wouldn't be on that computer you wrote that sentence on or even be alive!!! Plus you can bet that religion is the most rediculous idea there is. There is a god controling everything and has powers. Ha!!! Science is everywhere around you and you can see it, touch, feel it, smell it, and most of all do it. You defnitley can't see a god or do any of those things that I have stated. So please next time don't say science is ignorant and use that thing called a brain.

P.S. Science has proven that all people have brains even though some people don't use them.

Maybe....doesn't seem very likely though. What pissed me off was grave calling me ignorant and uneducated because I was incorrect on a couple points. I am still in school but the way he said it just made my blood boil.

I didn't say you were uneducated - I said there was failing in your education - which I still hold to be true... if you actively believed the things you stated. That is because - to actively believe that there were NO similarities between biblical scripture and earlier Mesopotamian scriptures, WOULD be a serious educational 'gap'.

I notice you have changed tack on the 'scripture being stolen is crap' angle, and have admitted it was a blanket statement - and I think that is a good thing, since your claims were insupportable.

I didn't say you were ignorant, either... I said you were arguing from a position of ignorance. I still hold this to be true, also... you argued that there was no possibility that Buddhism had reached Palestine before the advent of Christianity - but you argued this without researching first - since there is a great deal of evidence to oppose your claim.

If I said that Australian Aborigines eat Koalas, I would be arguing from ignorance - I have no knowledge about whether it even MIGHT be true, and have done no research.


In toto, it is not intended to offend (even though you do throw around potentially insulting comments yourself (your little 'ass'ume commentary). But you aren't arguing in school debates here, you are arguing with 'real world' people with 'real world' experience.

Try looking over some of the other threads - you'll find that you were handled with kid-gloves in my posts - in comparison to how SOME of the posters might have responded to you.

You know, its elitists like yourself that spout such tripe that make some religious people wary of atheists in general. Way to be a stereotype and doing your part to keeping the insane cycle of insults going. Great work.


I think many of you are in denial, and/or lack perception of the extent of the elitism and dogma in your beliefs.

The worst of the worst is someone who claims "I don't think that there is one correct religion...", or, "We all believe in the same 'God' [note the elitist monotheistic presumption], so why can't we get along..."

What crap. What total crap.

You demean and supress your own ideas, your beliefs, your philosophies, your dogma. I respect a venomous Southern Baptist or a twisted social darwinist Hindu more than a waffling middle school child claiming to be "half-and-half".

I'm not saying I'm right. I know nothing. And I'm not saying any of the aforementioned groups are right, because they certainly know nothing.

All I'm saying is, shout your beliefs, don't sap them of your energy and meaning simply because they might offend, or because you, like everyone else, think YOU are right, while everyone ELSE is wrong.

I learn more from talking to bigots and racists than talking to a reserved and "polite" person who would rather just talk about sports and weather.

I think many of you are in denial, and/or lack perception of the extent of the elitism and dogma in your beliefs.

The worst of the worst is someone who claims "I don't think that there is one correct religion...", or, "We all believe in the same 'God' [note the elitist monotheistic presumption], so why can't we get along..."

What crap. What total crap.

You demean and supress your own ideas, your beliefs, your philosophies, your dogma. I respect a venomous Southern Baptist or a twisted social darwinist Hindu more than a waffling middle school child claiming to be "half-and-half".

I'm not saying I'm right. I know nothing. And I'm not saying any of the aforementioned groups are right, because they certainly know nothing.

All I'm saying is, shout your beliefs, don't sap them of your energy and meaning simply because they might offend, or because you, like everyone else, think YOU are right, while everyone ELSE is wrong.

I learn more from talking to bigots and racists than talking to a reserved and "polite" person who would rather just talk about sports and weather.

Interesting view - let's promote the hate, yes?

See, the way I figure it, it all comes down to that old saying:

"If you can keep your head, while all those around you are losing theirs........ they can see something you can't."

If one group believes that they have the 'one true god', and so does another group, and another group - how can they all be right?

Perhaps you do feel you learn more from bigots and racists than from a reserved and polite person - but, maybe you're just talking to the wrong people?

The Empire of Presidency has $20 on Religon.

I think many of you are in denial, and/or lack perception of the extent of the elitism and dogma in your beliefs.

The worst of the worst is someone who claims "I don't think that there is one correct religion...", or, "We all believe in the same 'God' [note the elitist monotheistic presumption], so why can't we get along..."

What crap. What total crap.

You demean and supress your own ideas, your beliefs, your philosophies, your dogma. I respect a venomous Southern Baptist or a twisted social darwinist Hindu more than a waffling middle school child claiming to be "half-and-half".

I'm not saying I'm right. I know nothing. And I'm not saying any of the aforementioned groups are right, because they certainly know nothing.

All I'm saying is, shout your beliefs, don't sap them of your energy and meaning simply because they might offend, or because you, like everyone else, think YOU are right, while everyone ELSE is wrong.

I learn more from talking to bigots and racists than talking to a reserved and "polite" person who would rather just talk about sports and weather.

Not everyone who says that they don't believe that there is one correct religion are being PC, or demeaning their beliefs. Some of us are just refusing to be myopic. There is infinite diverstiy in the world. It seems completely unreasonable to suggest that there may be one finite truth when it comes to matters of perception and thus belief. No two humans experience the world exactly the same way, for to do so would mean having the exact same experiences in the exact same atmosphere, in the exact same order. This is truth. Belief and perceptions are based on experience. Thus there are infinite beliefs. To say that there is only one correct way to believe is to insist that one's own brain is the the definer of all creation.

Great Agnostica, I don't want to start a fight with you but I have to stick up with my mind. Sorry, science is just as ignorant as religion. Science is just a web of theories, not real, hard-proof facts. We can't even be sure if we even exist! May I give you an example? Remember, I'm pacifist, so let's not get offensive over this. I appreciate your contribution to this thread and give you my respect. :D
Agnostica, first of all, tell me where this brain even came from. Science doesn't create it. It just says there is an organ called a brain that does all your thinking and stores memory. If we track down to the very first step of existence, science claims it is the big bang. However, we don't know how it even ocurred. How can nothing come out of nothing? How and why are we here? Were we even supposed to create all these marvelous buildings and develop a technology that is so complex that we have actually made a whole new world called internet? There is no purpose to our existence. We just screw up a little planet called Earth. So tell me, Agnostica, where DO we come from? Does science know the answer to it? Is it Panspermia? No one knows.

Science is so infinite that we can't even be sure we exist. Science's most ultimate weapon is what is called proof. Unlike religion, science DOES have proof. Religion is way too vague and has little proof that these things even happened except from books and handscripts handed down from ancient times. However, we do not have proof of anything. Ok, I'll give you an example.

You see a table. You know it is there and exists because you can feel it, smell it, taste it (I've never tried), hear it (when it bumps to another thing or falls down and makes a big noise) and most importantly, you can SEE it. You trust your basic senses. Ok, everything's perfectly normal, right? But now, take this to oxygen. This element is one of the most important in science. Prove to me its existence. (To all you scientists, I may sound stupid, but please be patient and get on.) You can't see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it, can we? In science, it is simply a molecule that all organisms use. So, prove its existence to me. Is there such a thing as oxygen? Please don't criticize this and answer it. I won't be mean to you. ;)

Oxygen is easily provable. You burn carbon in air, and it forms a molecule called Carbon Dioxide, with something it reacts with in the air. We call that 'something' Oxygen. Using a tunneling electron microscope, you can actually see the molecular 'denstities' of the reacting atoms - so you can easily determine that one 'Carbon' atom is combining with two 'Oxygen' atoms.

We call it Oxygen, and to that name, we connect a whole series of repeatable properties and observations.

You see a table. You know it is there and exists because you can feel it, smell it, taste it (I've never tried), hear it (when it bumps to another thing or falls down and makes a big noise) and most importantly, you can SEE it. You trust your basic senses. Ok, everything's perfectly normal, right? But now, take this to oxygen. This element is one of the most important in science. Prove to me its existence. (To all you scientists, I may sound stupid, but please be patient and get on.) You can't see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it, can we? In science, it is simply a molecule that all organisms use. So, prove its existence to me. Is there such a thing as oxygen? Please don't criticize this and answer it. I won't be mean to you. ;)

The thing we call oxygen can be isolated from all the other non-oxygen invisble things around us and 1) seen with machines and 2) put into tanks and apparati that allow us to do things like breathe underwater. If we put invisible things other than what we call oxygen into the tanks -and leave out this invisible thing called oxygen and attempt to go SCUBA diving we will die from asphyxiation. We know that there are other invisible things with other properties that we can put in tanks. One of them is called helium. Putting it into balloons makes them float. We can put the invisible stuff in an "oxygen" tank into a balloon and it will not float. We can try to breathe stuff from a tank full of the invisible stuff called "helium" but unless we breathe other invisible stuff we will die. The stuff in the "helium" tanks also have voice and mind affecting properties that the stuff in the "oxygen" tanks do not.

Now this could all be a dream and I could be in the matrix and even typing this could all be in my own mind. In which case there may be neither oxygen or helium or anyone to read this
;)

You guys are smart! Jeez... I feel like an idiot in your presence! ;)

I have another evidence. Ok, the earth. Science has proved that the earth is round instead of flat. Therefore our sight can be deceived. Can a table be an exception? Could we be seeing a different thing? Sure. We can't trust our senses entirely. So the table can be an exception too, can't it?

I have another evidence. Ok, the earth. Science has proved that the earth is round instead of flat. Therefore our sight can be deceived. Can a table be an exception? Could we be seeing a different thing? Sure. We can't trust our senses entirely. So the table can be an exception too, can't it?

Eh, actually, if you know anything about the actual curve of the Earth, and the biological workings of the eye you'd know that it takes more then 24 miles (The extreme limit of the unaided eye) for the curve to be noticed.
Nice try though.

The thing we call oxygen can be isolated from all the other non-oxygen invisble things around us and 1) seen with machines and 2) put into tanks and apparati that allow us to do things like breathe underwater.
I agree with your point, Violets and Kitties, but the Latin plural of "apparatus" is "apparatūs", with a long "u". Apparatus is 4th declension, not 2nd, though you can not tell from the nominative case, which is the one used in English, without memorisation.

I agree with your point, Violets and Kitties, but the Latin plural of "apparatus" is "apparatūs", with a long "u". Apparatus is 4th declension, not 2nd, though you can not tell from the nominative case, which is the one used in English, without memorisation.

I stopped caring after the third declension...

Though I like fifth declension neuter.