NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you an athiest? Whats your feelings on atheistism? Whats your feelings on Christianity, Islam, and Others? (please don't make fun of them), If you feel your way of thinking is better please show us but don't troll or flame just state your point of view in an intelligent manor..... Is athiestism the future or is it the singnal of the degradations of society? These Questions and More WILL Be answered(its the 11th commandment)....


(Athiest posting here and these questions I see a lot and I would like to just see what NS-ers think about it....)


(I know I know bad post)

I am an athiest, and I don't look down on any religion, but I think the idea of a god, let alone worshiping one is purely absurd.

What would be good or bad about atheism?

Iregard atheism the way I regard any other religion or belief, with simple respect. Everybody is entitled to believe what they want.
They will lose my respect, however, the moment they try to convince others that they are right about believing/not believing in god, or start insulting and abusing others in regard to their faith.

Oh, and I'm roman catholic by the way.

I am an athiest, and I don't look down on any religion.
What he said :)

Well many people tend to look upon athiest rather crossly, People have tried to convert me on many occasions.... I personally think its wrong to try to change someones religon... but If I ever get into a debate on the subject I try to open their mind to science and thats it.... Conversion is wrong let people make up their own minds....

I'm an atheist. I presume that's what you meant by "athiest", rather than someone who is the most "athi".

I have a low opinion on religion, particularly because of its effects on people. However, I do believe in freedom of religion (not counting cults/scams).

I don't care what you believe. Respect is automatically granted to all until they give a reason to lose that respect, so far as I am concerned. When you start telling me how great your beliefs are, however, and how you really think I should consider 'joining' your cult, you'll lose any respect I had for you instantly with no chance of getting it back. Out the door, bye bye, hope I never see you again. If I have any interest in joining your cult or learning anything about how jesus saved me, I'll go to church thank you. I don't, though, so I don't.

Unfortunately it is usually Christians who do this to me. Most atheists I know won't even mention their beliefs unless specifically asked about them -- it is only since I came to the internet that I encountered 'evangelising atheists'.

Is athiestism the future or is it the singnal of the degradations of society?

-> "Is atheism the future or is it the signal of the degradation of society?"

I don't know if most people will be atheist in the future, but it is on the increase.
I think it can improve society overall.

I'm an agnostic with some leanings towards "Jamesian" Christianity (the beliefs as outlined by St. James with emphasis on good works as primary for salvation, as opposed to faith-dominant Pauline Christianity).

Religion is a means to an end....was first "invented" as a kind of philosophy to explain the ultimate questions "why are we here?" and "How do we come to be here?"...then science was invented...to answer the second question at least...for the first we still have religion, but we also have philosophy...God Bless Socrates.....I'm an agnostic...i believe it's good to have a balance of religious, atheist and agnostic philosophers simply because....erm......I do. ;)

Most athiest that evanglise are doing it for a joke or aren't really athiest... or some odd atheist... Most atheist experience evangelism everyday and hate it to the point of where they don't do it themselves, most view it as a flaw in society . the few who actually go out and evangelise it are somewhat an oddity...

Well many people tend to look upon athiest rather crossly, People have tried to convert me on many occasions.... I personally think its wrong to try to change someones religon... but If I ever get into a debate on the subject I try to open their mind to science and thats it.... Conversion is wrong let people make up their own minds....
But if you're to let them make up their own mind, doesn't it put you on their level to try to "open their mind" to science?

Roman Catholic (cradle to grave) by the way, but I was just wondering. That seemed, to me, to be contradictory, but I'm all for whatever people want to believe. The reason I roll my eyes at the "there's no proof of God!" argument is because of my FAITH in God.....if there were proof, well, that really ruins the point of religious faith, now doesn't it? ;)

Edit: And I didn't vote on the poll, btw, because I think there's far more to it than just the black and white - the positive or negative aspects are, in my mind, more related to the INDIVIDUAL atheist and their treatment of others in that regard, rather than atheists as a whole. I know some on both sides of the spectrum.

Simonist']But if you're to let them make up their own mind, doesn't it put you on their level to try to "open their mind" to science?

Roman Catholic (cradle to grave) by the way, but I was just wondering. That seemed, to me, to be contradictory, but I'm all for whatever people want to believe. The reason I roll my eyes at the "there's no proof of God!" argument is because of my FAITH in God.....if there were proof, well, that really ruins the point of religious faith, now doesn't it? ;)
Sorry I said that wrong, what I mean to say was: I don't ever try to convert anyone, but when they try to convert me I merely state me postition and then I quiz them on their religon(I like studing it), Sorry I havn't slept in like 2 days and my posts are bad. I should just stop until I get some sleep but..... I just reread and I saw the problem with it, it didn't convey my thoughts too well...

I chose "good" because deliberately conscribing to any -ism is good, it is throwing your beliefs behind the thing.

I'm an Athiest, Why ... because as of yet not a single deity has proved to be worthy of my worship.

However Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want regardless of what it is But as soon as they start to negatively impact on other people thats when it becomes wrong.

Christians nearly ruined my life. Pushing their religion on me and making me feel that ever single day I was doing nothing but plodding my way deeper into hell. Until I realise that well ... they can all go fuck themselves, and now everything is much better.

Your faith is just that .. yours ... don't push it on other people.
Religion is not for sale.

This poll asks the wrong question. It should be:

Atheism:

Warranted by the evidence?
Not warranted by the evidence?

As the only thing "atheism" pertains to is the possession or lack thereof of a belief in the existence of a deity the question of whether such a thing is "good" or "bad" is not a question that makes much sense. It's rather like asking "Belief that there is a car in my driveway... good or bad?"

My answer: Warranted, as there is no evidence to even semi-convincingly indicate the existence of any deity.

I'm an Athiest, Why ... because as of yet not a single deity has proved to be worthy of my worship.
But what about the ones who have proved unworthy of your worship? (Your statement still implies you believe in them.)

I'm an atheist and there is no complicated or long explanation of this. I just don't believe in any god and probably never will.

Atheism is a good thing. Organized religion as a whole is a very bad thing, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated with respect... As long as it treats others with respect (It doesn't have a good track record with me.).

If you feel your way of thinking is better please show us but don't troll or flame just state your point of view in an intelligent manor.....

Well...
1. Give me a reason to assume God/Allah/JHWH/etc exists ;) I for instance believe in the existence of chairs because I am sitting in one. Even though I've never been there I am reasonably sure Australia exists, because there are detailed descriptions available from a lot of completely independant people, plus lots of pictures etc. I somewhat believe in the mailman because I get mail and have seen the postoffice. I see however no evidence of God anywhere... just as I see no evidence of little green goblins. Or of invisible pink unicorns ;)

2. Assuming God/JHWH/Allah/etc exists, give me a reason to worship him/her/it. Being the creator of the universe is something to respect him for, but that is not the same as worship. Nor does it necessarily mean that God is good or worthy of following. A child conceived to be used as a toy or slave for instance does not need to be very grateful to its parents. The child of a mad dictator does not need to mindlessly follow him. So show me God=good[tm].

3. Related to 2: Show the religions have the right idea as far as worshipping is concerned. Many of them are based around "do this or get punished" (e.g.: Hell, commandments) instead of "I would advice you to do this". But must we always be treated as children, always obeying, to never grow up and start thinking on our own as adults ? Is that the wish of a good parent - and if not: why would it be the wish of God ?

Is athiestism the future or is it the singnal of the degradations of society

Well.. atheism needs morals that are supported by reasoning instead of by dogma. That means you must actually think about what is right and what is wrong instead of referring to an incomplete old book. In theory that could result in a superior, happier society. In practice I am not sure if everyone is capable of thinking for themselves...

Well.. atheism needs morals that are supported by reasoning instead of by dogma. That means you must actually think about what is right and what is wrong instead of referring to an incomplete old book. In theory that could result in a superior, happier society. In practice I am not sure if everyone is capable of thinking for themselves...
Just out of curiosity more than offense, are you implying that Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc. can't think for themselves in a backhanded sort of way, because they're religious, or do you actually mean that in a matter of its own, unrelated to whether or not they choose to be spiritual?

Im now an agnostic and athiests just piss me off so much. Though they are often left-wing they are just so narrow minded, intolerant and pretentious (sp?). It just pisses me off that they look down on people for believing in there being something supernatural or divine in the universe

Well.. atheism needs morals that are supported by reasoning instead of by dogma. That means you must actually think about what is right and what is wrong instead of referring to an incomplete old book. In theory that could result in a superior, happier society. In practice I am not sure if everyone is capable of thinking for themselves...
Have you ever tried reading the book? It does make a lot of sense, you know...

Have you ever tried reading the book? It does make a lot of sense, you know...

If you can't think straight, maybe.

If you can't think straight, maybe.

Try reading Matthew 5 - 7. Those are simple, practical teachings of Christian morals, like, don't get too pissed off, or don't swear. Just moral teaching. No supernatural deeds or other spiritual encounters. Those are practical Christian philosophy. Whoever thinks Christianity as just a belief are just wrong. It's a way of living; a valid philosophy; a moral code.

Hardcore atheist. I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't believe in God either.
As for converting people to atheism: I believe that religion is an irrational and potentially problematic institution. While some religions cause a lot less trouble than others, I believe that the eventual extermination of religion would ultimately improve the lot of humanity.

Try reading Matthew 5 - 7. Those are simple, practical teachings of Christian morals, like, don't get too pissed off, or don't swear. Just moral teaching. No supernatural deeds or other spiritual encounters. Those are practical Christian philosophy. Whoever thinks Christianity as just a belief are just wrong. It's a way of living; a valid philosophy; a moral code.

Well, I didn't know you meant it like that. Of course I knew about those things already --- I have to read that shit in my school books. Why my dad made me go to a christian correspondence school, I will never know.

Here's how I see it: Getting pissed off is a natural emotion. If you hold back, you'll just bottle that energy up, and one day, you'll explode (hopefully when nobody's around). And what's this about cursing/swearing/cussing? They're just words!

Well, I didn't know you meant it like that. Of course I knew about those things already --- I have to read that shit in my school books. Why my dad made me go to a christian correspondence school, I will never know.

Here's how I see it: Getting pissed off is a natural emotion. If you hold back, you'll just bottle that energy up, and one day, you'll explode (hopefully when nobody's around). And what's this about cursing/swearing/cussing? They're just words!

Getting pissed is alright. Just don't get pissed TOO MUCH - so you engage in other undesirable activities such as revenge or murder. Swearing actually can hurt a lot. Patching up a wound is far more effort-taking than biting your lip to stop that word from coming out.

Swearing in the sense of Matthew 5-7 means the more serious form of promise. e.g. "I swear that what I said was true..." If the answer is yes, say yes. If the answer is no, say no. Anything else would be useless and possibly harmful.

Getting pissed is alright. Just don't get pissed TOO MUCH - so you engage in other undesirable activities such as revenge or murder. Swearing actually can hurt a lot. Patching up a wound is far more effort-taking than biting your lip to stop that word from coming out.

True.

Christianity is not just only about this invisible, omnipotent God. It is also a philosophy that promotes peace and love and justice and fairness in the world. It doesn't have to be scary, or inimical. Depends how you take it.

Christianity is not just only about this invisible, omnipotent God. It is also a philosophy that promotes peace and love and justice and fairness in the world. It doesn't have to be scary, or inimical. Depends how you take it.

Yeah, seems to me that you're one of the reasonable, *real* Christians. Those are very difficult to find, especially in America... Ugh.

Still, I don't believe a word of it... Or any religion, really. I'm just not that way.

Yeah, seems to me that you're one of the reasonable, *real* Christians. Those are very difficult to find, especially in America... Ugh.

Still, I don't believe a word of it... Or any religion, really. I'm just not that way.

Thank you. *blushes*

That's fair enough. But I did want to at least relieve some hatred. Religion does not have to be a bad thing. Zealism is, but religion isn't.

I don't like the choices, good makes it seem like you are sure that you are right, but the bad makes it seem that you are questioning it. Maybe there should be four options:
Good!
Good?
Bad!
Bad?

or two:
Good
Bad

I am a Roman Catholic, I don't convert people, and I dont like atheists who look down on religion but I do respect their choice. I also don't like people who try to convert other people, just because it is annoying, and will never work. I put bad, because most atheists I have seen, look down on religion.

Thank you. *blushes*

That's fair enough. But I did want to at least relieve some hatred. Religion does not have to be a bad thing. Zealism is, but religion isn't. Zeal can be a bad thing… it depends what you mean by it. It can mean different things. Generally, zealotry is unhealthy, leading to hatred and loathing… which is not very Christian at all.

I like to think of myself as a reasonable Christian… I hope I am…

I am an athiest, and I don't look down on any religion, but I think the idea of a god, let alone worshiping one is purely absurd.


Athiesm sucks. It's the most empty, drab, meaningless "Religion" there is. You choose religion because you have no scientific proof that god exists. The point of there being a god is FAITH. Faith is the key to worshipping a god, NO ONE has found scientific proof that god exists and no one ever will.

Zeal can be a bad thing… it depends what you mean by it. It can mean different things. Generally, zealotry is unhealthy, leading to hatred and loathing… which is not very Christian at all.

I like to think of myself as a reasonable Christian… I hope I am…
I hope we all are!!! :P

Everything is best at equilibrium - always (one of the theoretical/philosophical reasons why I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution - don't start it here, though).

Well,

I wouldn’t try to convert an atheist if they didn’t want to be converted but I strongly support any religion for governing purposes. If people choose to believe in a god and that what they do during their life will affect them in the afterlife, they don’t commit as many crimes. It is my believe, that the less religious people become, the more crimes people commit without fear of consequence.

Today, criminals don’t have the proper respect or fear of our legal system. At least, a hundred years ago, they were also scared of what god would do if they sinned. Now that has all gone downhill. Now I am not going to lie to the people and brainwash them to believe some stupid religion made by the government but I encourage religion.

We need religion to build more wholesome and law-abiding societies.

Well,

I wouldn’t try to convert an atheist if they didn’t want to be converted but I strongly support any religion for governing purposes. If people choose to believe in a god and that what they do during their life will affect them in the afterlife, they don’t commit as many crimes. It is my believe, that the less religious people become, the more crimes people commit without fear of consequence.

Today, criminals don’t have the proper respect or fear of our legal system. At least, a hundred years ago, they were also scared of what god would do if they sinned. Now that has all gone downhill. Now I am not going to lie to the people and brainwash them to believe some stupid religion made by the government but I encourage religion.

We need religion to build more wholesome and law-abiding societies.

The risk involved is manipulation of religion - which of course - have already happened countless times in history.

The risk involved is manipulation of religion - which of course - have already happened countless times in history. That's what happens when you have a Church with too much temporal power.
No society has truly found a balance of power. Maybe one day we will, and ride to work on flying pigs.

Well,
I wouldn’t try to convert an atheist if they didn’t want to be converted but I strongly support any religion for governing purposes. If people choose to believe in a god and that what they do during their life will affect them in the afterlife, they don’t commit as many crimes. It is my believe, that the less religious people become, the more crimes people commit without fear of consequence.

Statistics consistently show that agnostics and atheists are underrepresented in prison populations. In other words, the percentage of atheists and agnostics who are in jail is lower than the percentage of believers who are in jail.

Just FYI.

Statistics consistently show that agnostics and atheists are underrepresented in prison populations. In other words, the percentage of atheists and agnostics who are in jail is lower than the percentage of believers who are in jail.

Just FYI.

Possibly because they convert after being imprisoned?

I'm an atheist it seems like a reasonable choice. I tend to dislike religion, since almost all religions have a lot of hate weaved in with the usual love and understanding. The inly "innocent" religion seems to be buddhism, and you can't convert to it. So I stick with science, since it at least gives me a chance to understand why things work and how we came to be, instead of just saying "God made it" or "Because God says so". And all religions have a very bloody history behind them, which is another reason. (Science has caused a lot of bloodshed too, but it has been used totally wrong, sometimes by religous people.)

Try reading Matthew 5 - 7. Those are simple, practical teachings of Christian morals, like, don't get too pissed off, or don't swear. Just moral teaching. No supernatural deeds or other spiritual encounters. Those are practical Christian philosophy. Whoever thinks Christianity as just a belief are just wrong. It's a way of living; a valid philosophy; a moral code.

I prefer the morals your god displays in 2 Kings:

And (Elijah) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Well a good christian probably would not belong in a prison. So it is most likely that those prisoners say they are christians but forget about the fact that part of being religious is being moral. Honestly, I support religion because it provides a good moral foundation, I do not support zombie-like dogmatism however. A morality is too important to not understand, to accept rules without considering if they have meaning is rather stupid and really if you do not understand the meanings behind your beliefs you have weakened yourself as a person and denied yourself some enlightenment and stuff.

Well a good christian probably would not belong in a prison. So it is most likely that those prisoners say they are christians but forget about the fact that part of being religious is being moral. Honestly, I support religion because it provides a good moral foundation, I do not support zombie-like dogmatism however. A morality is too important to not understand, to accept rules without considering if they have meaning is rather stupid and really if you do not understand the meanings behind your beliefs you have weakened yourself as a person and denied yourself some enlightenment and stuff.Ah yes. Although I must say, it really annoys me when people assume I'm "blindly dogmatic" and never consider that I might actually have considered the morals and agreed with them…

Possibly because they convert after being imprisoned?

Or possibly because they believe that they can get away with anything on this planet, so long as they believe in Jesus when they die? The promise of an afterlife with faith as it's only requirement allows people to be less moral in this one. Whereas to an atheist, this life is eternity and the only legacy you leave will be your actions.

NO ONE has found scientific proof that god exists and no one ever will.

I couldn't agree more. Now can you get those ID-ers in Kansas to stay out of our science classes?

Or possibly because they believe that they can get away with anything on this planet, so long as they believe in Jesus when they die? The promise of an afterlife with faith as it's only requirement allows people to be less moral in this one. Whereas to an atheist, this life is eternity and the only legacy you leave will be your actions. Eh, I think not. Granted, Luther believed in "justification by faith alone" (correct me if I'm horribly misinterpreting him). But you're totally confused about this, Christianity does not excuse immorality. In fact, it's bloody strict. Just the way I like it. ;)

Agreed, ID should not be taught as such in science classes. The closest any science books in Britain come to mentioning ID is mentioning that sudden evolutions like double-circulatory systems cannot be easily explained.
The whole creationism/evolution debate sounds so weird and outlandish from this side of the pond…

Or possibly because they believe that they can get away with anything on this planet, so long as they believe in Jesus when they die? The promise of an afterlife with faith as it's only requirement allows people to be less moral in this one. Whereas to an atheist, this life is eternity and the only legacy you leave will be your actions.


Here Here!

It seems to me that when your belief system is structured around a deity, it promotes the idea that YOUR ideals are always superior, because God has told you that that's the way things are!

Therefore, to a strict Christian, loving your neighbour is important, but being gay is an abomination because God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah because the people there were gay.

This isn't the only case where the Bible promotes violence... the prophet Elijah killed 500 priests of Baal simply because they worshipped Baal... God slaughtered all the first-born children of Egypt in order to free his people from slavery... even Jesus once says 'I come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword!'.

Almost every religion is like this, and most sane people ignore these violent preachings in their holy books in exchange for the nice bits where lepers are healed, dreams are interpreted and the messiah gets friendly with a woman of bad repute.

There are however some people who take some, or even all of the more questionable aspects of their dogmatic texts to heart, and call 'Heretic!', 'Infedel!' or 'Blasphemer!' against whatever racial or political group their God happened to disagree with for one day two thousand years ago when he had a really nagging headache and just wanted them to shut the hell up for a while so he could get some sleep!

Atheistic texts / philosophies on the other hand, do not tend to contain these better-left-forgotten idiosyncratic deitic moments, and thus Atheists don't have quite the same tendancy towards extremism and self-richousness, at least in my humble opinion.

The deciding factor is that for the most part Atheists, having dismissed the dogma they were raised under, retain a healthy sceptism towards ideas that seem to be at odds with their newly-found equality / merit based interpretation of existance...

Are gay people causing any harm to anyone other than possibly themselves? No they are not, reasons the atheist, therefore they should be allowed to be gay... the line that 'God said gayness should be punished with sulphur and brimstone, and anyone who watches their destruction shall be turned to a pillar of salt!' simply doesn't have any merit to the Atheist.

Anyway I'm getting rather OT there.

Also important is that religious texts tend to be edited by whoever holds the power in order to further their own ends, such as the diminishing of Mary Magdelene from 'Most beloved disciple' in early texts of the Bible (Which also included a Gospel purported to have been actually written by her), until in later generations (After the male-dominated Church had had their way) she was reduced to simply a follower of Jesus and not even a disciple.

If fragments of these early examples of Biblical texts had not survived their Church sanctioned removal from the 'official' Bible and been rediscovered over the last century and a half, we'd never have known that Jesus often called Mary Magdelene 'Most beloved' and 'Often kissed her'. :fluffle:

Can you tell who my favourite NT character is yet? :rolleyes:


One last thought, if you made it this far and didn't just skip to the end (Please read it all, it's interesting and will make your life better!):

Maybe atheists are less likely to be imprisoned (Behave immorally) is because they don't happen to believe in the giant wizard in the sky, and thus unlike theists they are not clinnically insane! :)

God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah because the people there were gay. So, all gay people rape travellers and are "immoral" generally? Seems to me you don't know your facts.

So, all gay people rape travellers and are "immoral" generally? Seems to me you don't know your facts.

I was intentionally generalising in order to keep the length of my post down... yes they also committed rape etc, but the fact that they practiced 'Sodomy' amongst themselves also angered God enough to be worthy of mention in the Bible as blasphemy... no?

PS: I hope you're not accusing me of believing that for gay people to exist is a great evil, did you even read all the way to the bottom?

There's no evidence to support the existence of gods. Basing one's entire life on the supposed teachings of an imaginary being is just not good. So, I say atheism is good, although being an atheist is irrelevant as to whether one is hurtful to others or not .
A lack of belief in the supernatural is only a small part of what defines an atheist's life. Most people don't pay a whole lot of attention and govern their lives by the thousands of things they don't believe in.

There's no evidence to support the existence of gods. Basing one's entire life on the supposed teachings of an imaginary being is just not good. So, I say atheism is good, although being an atheist is irrelevant as to whether one is hurtful to others or not .
A lack of belief in the supernatural is only a small part of what defines an atheist's life. Most people don't pay a whole lot of attention and govern their lives by the thousands of things they don't believe in.


There are two main types of Atheism I'd say...

1. The Humanist Atheist.
This Atheist does not believe in God(s), but has a strong sense of community, honour, dignity and understands why you should choose to do good, rather than evil.

2. The Solipsist Atheist.
This Atheist does not believe in God(s), and also does not believe in the existance of or doesn't care about the existance of sentient minds other than his own. He has no sense of community, honour or dignity and understands them only as abstracts with no tangible meaning. He does not comprehend the nature of good or evil except where it specifically relates to his own desires. He is understandably corrupt.

I tend to consider type 2 the 'failed Atheist' and he gives the rest of Atheists (Type 1's and variants thereof).

So Atheism can be good or bad, depending on the form of Atheism!

From a logical, scientific perspective, there is no way to prove the existance of other minds than your own... so why not be a Solipsist? C'mon, I dare ya!

NB: I am not a Solipsist, I'm something much worse!

I respect peoples personal choices.







Secretly, I think all religious people are crazy. Believing in some fantasy creature in the sky is pretty fucked up. But I pretend not to mean this ;)

Have you ever tried reading the book? It does make a lot of sense, you know...


No it doesn't.... there are too many instances to go into details but it really doesnt and shame on you for thinking it

I was intentionally generalising in order to keep the length of my post down... yes they also committed rape etc, but the fact that they practiced 'Sodomy' amongst themselves also angered God enough to be worthy of mention in the Bible as blasphemy... no?

PS: I hope you're not accusing me of believing that for gay people to exist is a great evil, did you even read all the way to the bottom? No, no, I'm not, I read the whole thing. But you shouldn't have generalised - the sentence implied that you thought the ONLY sin they committed was sodomy.

I like this thread.

I myself, am a Christian but I would like to consider myself "Open Minded"

I do have several Questions for the Atheists here... and Agnostics. (I don't want to Hijack the thread so simple answers will do.)

1) Do you believe that humans have souls?

2) Should, In your Opinion, Science be governed by a "Can We" attitude or an "Should We" attitude.

Secretly, I think all religious people are crazy. Believing in some fantasy creature in the sky is pretty fucked up. But I pretend not to mean this ;)So you also believe he lives in everyones belly button...




Thank you... I thought I was alone there for a moment... ;)

Simonist']Just out of curiosity more than offense, are you implying that Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc. can't think for themselves in a backhanded sort of way, because they're religious, or do you actually mean that in a matter of its own, unrelated to whether or not they choose to be spiritual?

Both. Someone who does things without question because his God commands him to is not making moral choices of his own - except for the choice to actually obey the commands. He will however in general not have thought about the reasons and the justifications behind those actions: they are just dogma. Do note that I was talking about dogmatic religions ;)

But in a general sense that seems to be the trend amongst people: they want guidance. They want someone who tells them what to do - and seem to expect a hierarchy.

I like this thread.

I myself, am a Christian but I would like to consider myself "Open Minded"

I do have several Questions for the Atheists here... and Agnostics. (I don't want to Hijack the thread so simple answers will do.)

1) Do you believe that humans have souls?

2) Should, In your Opinion, Science be governed by a "Can We" attitude or an "Should We" attitude.
1) no not in the traditional sence ... we have a compleatly unique "US" but not a soul in the tradtional religous meaning

2) (not compleatly sure what you mean here ) but descovery should ALWAYS be a "Can we" make it work attitude

Application of technology and information should be concidered in both a can and should

I personally am a humanist and I agree with athiesm. However if you like your religion then as long as it doesn't infringe upon my life, away you go and have fun worshiping. I have respect for what other people think and what their religion is and if that religion isn't hurting anyone then I won't do anything to influence it in anyway. I take part in religious things (I don't pray) because I like the people and I try to show the upmost respect for these things and the religion.

No, no, I'm not, I read the whole thing. But you shouldn't have generalised - the sentence implied that you thought the ONLY sin they committed was sodomy.

Meh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anyway, do you believe that Sodomy is a sin? ;)

Meh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anyway, do you believe that Sodomy is a sin? ;) Well, for the record, yes. But I equate it along with sex outside marriage and all that… ie, not very high on the list.
But I'm one of nature's fanatics, I'm sad to say. In atheism, in religion. I do my best to cut back, though. :p

Meh, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anyway, do you believe that Sodomy is a sin? ;)
Traditional or traditional law

Traditional is only anal ... traditional law is ANYTHING (in a historical perspective) but vaginal sex (and in some cases anything but vaginal sex in the missionary possition)

Traditional or traditional law

Traditional is only anal ... traditional law is ANYTHING (in a historical perspective) but vaginal sex (and in some cases anything but vaginal sex in the missionary possition) It's odd, though, some Jewish rabbis permit anal sex.

And I thought Jews were really conservative… another assumption popped…

It's odd, though, some Jewish rabbis permit anal sex.

And I thought Jews were really conservative… another assumption popped…
Intresting ... something I did not know myself lol :p

Intresting ... something I did not know myself lol :p It's something I read in the Independent… an American high-up Rabbi said that married couples may do whatever they want… it's really odd, 'cos I thought Jewish law was much more strict than the "liberated from Mosaic" Christian law

It's something I read in the Independent… an American high-up Rabbi said that married couples may do whatever they want… it's really odd, 'cos I thought Jewish law was much more strict than the "liberated from Mosaic" Christian law
In a lot of ways they are ... or at least they seem that way with all the food and other laws restricting lifestyles (at least for the orthadox)

It's something I read in the Independent… an American high-up Rabbi said that married couples may do whatever they want… it's really odd, 'cos I thought Jewish law was much more strict than the "liberated from Mosaic" Christian law

As with Christians, there are different sects of Judaism, some of whom hold to many of the old laws, some of whom do not. Some strict Jews will not touch their wives when they have their period in accordance with a verse in the Bible, whereas some Jews have even been known to sit next to their wives when in Synagogue!

Well, for the record, yes. But I equate it along with sex outside marriage and all that… ie, not very high on the list.
But I'm one of nature's fanatics, I'm sad to say. In atheism, in religion. I do my best to cut back, though. :p

You have the enlightened view that is taken by the Catholic church that all non-martial sex is equally evil. i hope you also share the church's view that we should accept all people(including gay, atheists, etc.) while condemning the actions (like homosexual activity, atheism, etc.)
P.S. there is proofs of god everyehwere, organized religion is good most of the time, and atheism ignors many important facts

Eh, I think not. Granted, Luther believed in "justification by faith alone" (correct me if I'm horribly misinterpreting him). But you're totally confused about this, Christianity does not excuse immorality. In fact, it's bloody strict. Just the way I like it. ;)


Perhaps it's a regional difference, but just about every Christian I converse with on this side of the pond makes it clear that the ultimate judge of one's "soul" is faith and faith alone. Now granted, some will say that once Christ is accepted the works will follow from faith. However, they make it clear that any misdeed can be forgiven (from Hitler to Dahmer) so long as Christ is accepted before your day of judgement. So immorality is very much excused under this belief system so long as one repents before kicking the bucket.

It does depend on what sect you are (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.) but from what I've seen in my experiences (I'm Jewish) most Jews (basing this on Reform and some Conservative Jews) don't really follow the strict laws (keeping Kosher, etc). Most don't really attend religious services too much except on important holidays, and I know many who don't believe in a deity (including myself). You may say what is the point, but celebrating your heritage and following the holidays in a community atmosphere I think takes more precedence over the belief of a deity (contrary to the Christians I know who have said things such as "Jesus saved you" or "I will pray for you" and who attend church every Sunday). My synogogue is reform, women and men sit together, you don't have to wear yarmulkes (skull cap), and the rabbi is a women (I have speculations that she may be a lesbian but I am not sure). Since there has been proof that most Jews trace back to those mentioned in biblical texts and we have survived so long through so much (mostly the manipulation of religion by Christian leaders) we have a sense of unity whether you believe in a deity or not...

Perhaps it's a regional difference, but just about every Christian I converse with on this side of the pond makes it clear that the ultimate judge of one's "soul" is faith and faith alone. Now granted, some will say that once Christ is accepted the works will follow from faith. However, they make it clear that any misdeed can be forgiven (from Hitler to Dahmer) so long as Christ is accepted before your day of judgement. So immorality is very much excused under this belief system so long as one repents before kicking the bucket.

immorality is not excused, at least by catholics, it is forgiven. we continually damn the action even if the person is saved. Protestants (especially Calvinists) believe in faith alone, but catholics believe in word AND deed

Perhaps it's a regional difference, but just about every Christian I converse with on this side of the pond makes it clear that the ultimate judge of one's "soul" is faith and faith alone. Now granted, some will say that once Christ is accepted the works will follow from faith. However, they make it clear that any misdeed can be forgiven (from Hitler to Dahmer) so long as Christ is accepted before your day of judgement. So immorality is very much excused under this belief system so long as one repents before kicking the bucket.

True and... not true. Should a Christian sin, or, say, make a blunder. A husband says a white lie to his wife, a wife says some casual gossip to her ladyfriends, etc. Should something happen to make a Christian fall into sin, and that sin isn't habitual--i.e. doing it over and over and over--, should s/he be truly repentant (and if s/he really is honoring the Lord, they should be) then it's washed off not to be troubled by that sin again.

But.

If a Christian, oh say, kills someone in cold blood and isn't repentant? I sincerely doubt they even are Christian at heart. If Christ is living inside someone, it would be very difficult to keep room for darkened thoughts and deeds. If someone does the initiation into Christianity for a "liscense" to sin, it's a safe bet it isnt a valid liscense and expired before they even touched it. But God is forgiving. Christians are no more special than any other person and are just as capable to screw up. But we also know that we can't hold onto sin and expect God to bless us as He normally would. "You cannot serve two masters," He says, and that includes sin and applies to Christians just as much as anyone else. So if we're right with the Lord, we'd have a desire to rid ourselves of any trespasses we commit.

immorality is not excused, at least by catholics, it is forgiven. we continually damn the action even if the person is saved. Protestants (especially Calvinists) believe in faith alone, but catholics believe in word AND deed
But with a hevy emphasis on faith (being that deeds can be forgiven)

immorality is not excused, at least by catholics, it is forgiven. we continually damn the action even if the person is saved. Protestants (especially Calvinists) believe in faith alone, but catholics believe in word AND deed

What good is it, my brothers, is a man claims to have faith but has no deeds ? Can such faith save him ? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it ? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good ! Even the demons believe that - and shudder. You foolish man. do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless. Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar ? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,' and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction ? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James 2:14-26

So whom amongst you Christians believes that the sins of those Catholic priests who were involved in the child molesting scandals will prevent them from entering the kingdom of heaven?

Again, so long as they are truly repentent for their deeds, they will spend eternity in bliss - according to your holy book. Meanwhile, if one of the children they abused is turned away from your god by their unfortunate experiences, they will be punished by him. Now, whether you define that punishment as fire and brimstone or simply the absence of god, it is astonishing that some continue to claim Christianity as a morally superior position.

People can believe whatever they want just as long as they dont try to force it on anyone else.

What is the purpose of punishment? Is it just assigned to actions? Is it meant to teach people what they are expected to do and make them do so? Honestly I think that punishment is meant to teach, if the priest has truly learned what was wrong with his actions and repented then he has no need to be punished for that crime. The priest is only responsible for his own actions not how others react to those actions and God can see who truly repents and learns from their mistakes as well as who is afraid of punishment, no crime is so great that it can deny you salvation as heaven is beyond earth and judges the soul not the past.

...no crime is so great that it can deny you salvation as heaven is beyond earth and judges the soul not the past.

Except for the crime of questioning god.

People can believe whatever they want just as long as they dont try to force it on anyone else.

If you had the power, would you enforce that opinion?

I would try.

Well I mean if one repents. A crime that one has repented for is to a certain extent a crime that no longer exists, that includes a brush with atheism.

Well I mean if one repents. A crime that one has repented for is to a certain extent a crime that no longer exists, that includes a brush with atheism.

So atheism is a crime now?

I'm an atheist. Hardcore. Proud. Happy. But that doesn't mean that I belive religion doesn't weork for some people. Religon can inspire greatness and pure evil. If religion is inspiring greatness, or even just plain goodness and consideration, than great, I happy if anyone has found that sort of faith.

As a Christian I find it good to have my faith rather than believing in nothing. Mind you, an athiest has more faith than any religion because they believe that everything was made from nothing. It doesn't hurt to have hope in a higher being.

I am not trying to suggest that. It is simply that I am responding to what someone else said earlier on this page. Atheism is only a crime if you are religious and because there is no authority to enforce religion and because atheists do not care about religion it does not matter. The simple fact is that it is impossible to be a good christian and an atheist due to the conflict. I am not trying to insult anyone, I will admit that I do not like the fact that people are atheists but I dislike many other things much more to the point where atheism alone is only a minor character flaw, similar to being a little lazy at times or something of that nature, I mean it is better to be an atheist than a bad christian.

As a Christian I find it good to have my faith rather than believing in nothing. Mind you, an athiest has more faith than any religion because they believe that everything was made from nothing. It doesn't hurt to have hope in a higher being.


As oposed to christians who beleive that everything was made from nothing... By an invisible man in the sky...


Course you're all wrong, everything was made by the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh)

I'm not going to say I'm athiest or agnostic or anything, it's really more like I can't be bothered to follow a religion, so I just don't follow anything.

Eh, its faith. Religion simply provides a cause for existence. No matter what you either have to believe in something or ignore the entire thing. I prefer religion simply because it provides purpose and because in the end a person must believe in something otherwise we would not even bother with life.

Are you an athiest? Whats your feelings on atheistism? Whats your feelings on Christianity, Islam, and Others? (please don't make fun of them), If you feel your way of thinking is better please show us but don't troll or flame just state your point of view in an intelligent manor..... Is athiestism the future or is it the singnal of the degradations of society? These Questions and More WILL Be answered(its the 11th commandment)....


(Athiest posting here and these questions I see a lot and I would like to just see what NS-ers think about it....)


(I know I know bad post)

I'm not going to vote in the poll because the options are too simplistic.

I'm an Agnostic. I have no problem with Atheists in general, though I don't like the ones who hassle anyone who's not an Atheist.

I know Christians are actually supposed to prosletise, so I don't hold that against them as long as they leave me alone if I say I'm not interested. Ditto for people of any other religion.

I have no firm belief in any religion myself, but I am not an Atheist because I do not believe that there is no God. I simply don't know, and most of the time I don't bother about it.

No, I don't think Atheism will lead to the degredation of society. I can't see any reason why it would. You don't need a religion to have morals, or to understand that following a few basic rules is to your own benefit.

As a Christian I find it good to have my faith rather than believing in nothing. Mind you, an athiest has more faith than any religion because they believe that everything was made from nothing. It doesn't hurt to have hope in a higher being.

I would agree it probably takes *as much* faith to be an Atheist as it does to be a theist, but why would it take *more* faith?

I prefer religion simply because it provides purpose and because in the end a person must believe in something otherwise we would not even bother with life.
Um, I don't believe in any myths or superstitions, and I find myself very eager to "bother" with life.

Also, do remember that many people find purpose in things like racism and terrorism...just because something gives you purpose doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing.

As a Christian I find it good to have my faith rather than believing in nothing. Mind you, an athiest has more faith than any religion because they believe that everything was made from nothing.
It takes no more faith to be an atheist than it does to be an aSantaClausist or an aInvisiblePinkUnicornist. Do you feel that one who disbelieves in Santa has more faith than a child who believes in him?

I'm an atheist. Hardcore. Proud. Happy. But that doesn't mean that I belive religion doesn't weork for some people. Religon can inspire greatness and pure evil. If religion is inspiring greatness, or even just plain goodness and consideration, than great, I happy if anyone has found that sort of faith.

Hear Hear. I consider myself an atheist but I still like to help out at the neighbourhood church. It's not the religon that brings me there, but the good things they do for our community. They're a bunch of good people that base their friendship and community on faith in God. I don't share that faith but I do believe in "plain goodness and consideration" no matter what you base it on. :)

just to stand up for my catholicism here, christians aren't being mean when we try to convert you. That is why we're here-to let everyone see the light of God. Its sorta like how Muslims kill people that don't believe what they do...except less violent. So next timea Christian is talking to you about their faith, think about this reply. Listen to what they have to say-maybe you'll find out you would like to convert. And if not? Thats ok, just don't complain about us "forcing our religion on you". Thats what we believe our purpose is, so thats what we do. At least we are non-violent about it.

Athiesm is bad because it's spelled wrong. Atheism is a good thing.

Its sorta like how Muslims kill people that don't believe what they do...except less violent.

*Snip*

At least we are non-violent about it.

You are either 5 years old or extremely ignorant. *Time for a schooling*

Islam is based on peace and love, not violence like you think it is. It's just the fact that some modern Muslim leaders have twisted the religion to get radicals on their side. This does not mean that all Muslims kill people that disagree with their beliefs. It doesn't even mean that many Muslims do this. It just means that a few of them do.

What if I said all Christians hated Muslims because some Christians supported the Crusades?

I'm athiest, and I don't mind most religions. However, though I wouldn't mind Christianity either, it's become the policy of plenty of modern countries. I believe that the fault lay with the general low intelligence public, and with the government, that Christianity is basically ruling America in some ways. Homosexuality is seen as bad, as disgusting, and almost all of America won't even let homosexual couples get married and enjoy the financial and legal benifits of being married, which is plain common sense wrong, since they are the same as the rest of the public, yet somehow the government and general public have all followed the religion instead of their common sense.

Um....I think I went somewhat off topic there.....but as long as other religions don't affect my life, I don't mind them.

Christianity is the true word and the light!!!


Oops, sorry....that's not me, lol.

Atheism is the only way, for me anyway. I try not to push it on anyone but I will defend my stance and "evangelize" when pushed by fundies. I became an Atheist when I finally grew up and realized that I was praying to something that had never shown it's face to me and when I started to look at history more in depth(i.e. the crusades, Trail of Tears, witch hunts, etc.)The blatant murder and torture of innocent people by religious zealots who "found" them "guilty" of "devil worship" because they were "different", pushed me over the edge and I lost almost all respect for all who follow in these "evil" and corrupt peoples footsteps. Although, every now and again some religious people surprise me and to you.... I thank you for showing that there is still hope for our species.

Well everyone believes something otherwise we would not bother with life. The fact that we still live means we think that living is important enough to continue whatever efforts are needed to sustain that life. Everyone believes something. Really it could be a myth that life is important because it is boring, stupid and pointless in so many ways. However, for some reason we all chose to live and must therefore believe that life is worth the sacrifice of getting up and eating food. Everyone believes in something and the idea that life is important is not necessarily logical it is only an idea we cling to due to primitive self-preservation instincts(the choice for those who never really thought about life's meaning anyway) or greater beliefs (your pick)

Atheism rules, the idea of a "god" becomes more preposterous as one becomes more intelligent. After all, what is "god" but an invisible man who lives in the sky, and controls people's lives. And furthermore, some people believe this invisible man talks to them, and that they can talk back. The Religious believe that the "god" figure has a plan for them, and this plan is perfect, but why then do they pray, or talk to the invisible man rather? We know that evolution is accurate, we know that many of the biblical "truths" are fallacies, The Quoran, is more credible than the bible of christianity, because it says this book is the word of the invisible man, untranslated, but it is still pointless for being centered on the invisible man idea. What these religious people miss is also how these are works of fiction. What happens when you die? You die, your brain dies, when that happens you lose oxygen, and you see the mythical white light, this is identical to alien abduction stories, if one wants to see heaven, hold your nose and close your mouth, hold your breath for about 4 minutes or so, and whambo you're in heaven.

Conversion is wrong let people make up their own minds....

Ok, it's time to drudge up an old quote...

*Erhem* how can you say "let people make up their own minds" and that "conversion is wrong"?

People should be allowed to chose the way they want to worship (and whether they want to worship at all) but they shouldn't change faiths?

and, for any one interested, here are some much older quotes

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

from Thomas Aquinas.

As entertaining as the idea is, I don't need anyone to prove or disprove the possibility of a deity existing. Even if I thought there was one I wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Most deities have bad manners, lousy ethics, megolomania, nasty tempers, and are immoral to the point of total creepiness. They play favorites, their minds without rational reason and refuse to change when it would be rational. If most of them were people today, they'd be locked up in either a loony bin or a prison.

As entertaining as the idea is, I don't need anyone to prove or disprove the possibility of a deity existing. Even if I thought there was one I wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Most deities have bad manners, lousy ethics, megolomania, nasty tempers, and are immoral to the point of total creepiness. They play favorites, their minds without rational reason and refuse to change when it would be rational. If most of them were people today, they'd be locked up in either a loony bin or a prison.
Which goes along with my feeling that most deitys as described conventionaly would be of the sort that I would never wish to worship. I dont find a lot of them moral by my standards , and I can hardly worship something that does not fit with my morals

Anyway, do you believe that Sodomy is a sin? ;)

Sodom was destroyed because of the cruelty and inhospitability of it's inhabitants towards guests and those less fortunate than them.

Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

Sodom was destroyed because of the cruelty and inhospitability of it's inhabitants towards guests and those less fortunate than them.

Actually, recent scientific evidence has proven, due to the sandstone/sand makeup of the land that Sodom was on, that Sodom, and possibly Gomorrah, slid into the Dead Sea via an earthquake.

just to stand up for my catholicism here, christians aren't being mean when we try to convert you. That is why we're here-to let everyone see the light of God. Its sorta like how Muslims kill people that don't believe what they do...except less violent.

I daresay there's a lot of Muslims out there who might take offense at that statement.

And if you're going to compare the two, Catholicism is far from innocent when it comes to killing people in the name of spiritual good. Perhaps you've heard of a fellow named Torquemada?

Actually, recent scientific evidence has proven, due to the sandstone/sand makeup of the land that Sodom was on, that Sodom, and possibly Gomorrah, slid into the Dead Sea via an earthquake.

Could a volcanoe eruption possibly be linked to that event? It would explain the "rain of fire&brimstone" bit

just to stand up for my catholicism here, christians aren't being mean when we try to convert you. That is why we're here-to let everyone see the light of God. Its sorta like how Muslims kill people that don't believe what they do...except less violent. So next timea Christian is talking to you about their faith, think about this reply. Listen to what they have to say-maybe you'll find out you would like to convert. And if not? Thats ok, just don't complain about us "forcing our religion on you". Thats what we believe our purpose is, so thats what we do. At least we are non-violent about it.

Don't start giving us Catholics a bad name, please.
I will answer all questions about my faith if somebody asks me about it. But I will not start talking to anybody about it unasked, as this is just inexcusably rude behaviour.
I live according to my faith and I will give all information on it to people who are curious about it. But I will not try to tell them that it's the right faith, I will not get on their nerves by trying to convert them. I don't see that as part of the Christian faith at all.

As entertaining as the idea is, I don't need anyone to prove or disprove the possibility of a deity existing. Even if I thought there was one I wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Most deities have bad manners, lousy ethics, megolomania, nasty tempers, and are immoral to the point of total creepiness. They play favorites, their minds without rational reason and refuse to change when it would be rational. If most of them were people today, they'd be locked up in either a loony bin or a prison.
Read the Everworld series by K. A. Applegate. Basically, 4 kids (high schoolers) get sucked into a universe created by the old gods when humans stopped believing in them. They almost got eaten by Huitzilopochtli (sp?), they had to rescue 2 norse gods from another norse god, they got caught in a feud between Neptune and Poseiden, and barely survived meeting the greek gods. Basically, of the whole bunch, Athena was the only one with the sense to realize that they were all nuts.

Don't start giving us Catholics a bad name, please.
I will answer all questions about my faith if somebody asks me about it. But I will not start talking to anybody about it unasked, as this is just inexcusably rude behaviour.
I live according to my faith and I will give all information on it to people who are curious about it. But I will not try to tell them that it's the right faith, I will not get on their nerves by trying to convert them. I don't see that as part of the Christian faith at all. Yah, you're right there. But I tend to be forced to talk about my religion a lot, given the inane and insane idiotic claims I get thrown my way.

Sodom was destroyed because of the cruelty and inhospitability of it's inhabitants towards guests and those less fortunate than them.

Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

Uh huh, but do you believe that Sodomy is a sin?

just to stand up for my Humanist Atheism here, Atheists aren't being mean when we try to convert you. That is why we're here-to let everyone see the light of sanity. Its sorta like how Christians kill people that don't believe what they do...except less violent. So next time an Atheist is talking to you about their sanity, think about this reply. Listen to what they have to say-maybe you'll find out you would like to convert. And if not? Thats ok, just don't complain about us "forcing our sanity on you". Thats what we believe our purpose is, so thats what we do. At least we are non-violent about it.

Ahh, that's better.

Ahh, that's better.
:cool: A lot.

just to stand up for my catholicism here, christians aren't being mean when we try to convert you. That is why we're here-to let everyone see the light of God. Its sorta like how Muslims kill people that don't believe what they do...except less violent. So next timea Christian is talking to you about their faith, think about this reply. Listen to what they have to say-maybe you'll find out you would like to convert. And if not? Thats ok, just don't complain about us "forcing our religion on you". Thats what we believe our purpose is, so thats what we do. At least we are non-violent about it.

Could you possibly refrain from generalising about muslims? Only small minority of Muslim extremists are violent, please don't tar all muslims with the same brush. Most of them are peaceful.

Well everyone believes something otherwise we would not bother with life. The fact that we still live means we think that living is important enough to continue whatever efforts are needed to sustain that life. Everyone believes something. Really it could be a myth that life is important because it is boring, stupid and pointless in so many ways. However, for some reason we all chose to live and must therefore believe that life is worth the sacrifice of getting up and eating food. Everyone believes in something and the idea that life is important is not necessarily logical it is only an idea we cling to due to primitive self-preservation instincts(the choice for those who never really thought about life's meaning anyway) or greater beliefs (your pick)

Rubbish. I'm inclined to think that life probably has no meaning or purpose, but I'm still pretty happy to 'bother with life'. Why? Because I find many things in life enjoyable. That doesn't ammount to any kind of deep spiritual belief, but it's enough for me. Don't assume everyone needs some sort of meaning just because you do.

I'm an Atheist and I believe that atheism is inherently good.
Some one who is actively atheist has actually had to THINK about the origins of life and the Universe, rather than accept the ancient dogma from man-made religions.
An atheist has had to make a stand in a society that thinks religious upbringing is the norm, and atheism is cynical.
An atheist believes there is only one life, and it should be lived to the fullest. Therefore there is nothing more sacred than life itself, there is no heaven for religious martyrs.
An atheist believes that you effect your own future, you cannot blame things on a god. Saying 'it was the will of god' is an excuse for inaction.
An atheist cannot have his sins absolved through confession, but has to live with guilt. Therefore an atheist is more likely to live to higher morals.
An atheist believes that life and nature is the result of delicate natural physical properties of the universe, rather than the will of god, and hence will be more likely to respect nature rather than rely on god to mop up the mess we make.

Ah yes. Although I must say, it really annoys me when people assume I'm "blindly dogmatic" and never consider that I might actually have considered the morals and agreed with them…

Then you are a rare breed :) Perhaps I've finally found someone who can explain the moral reasoning behind the 10 commandments to me ? I still fail to see why not worshipping god would make me a bad person for instance - and the most intelligent answer I sofar have is "because God says so" :( Or why it is ok to defy Gods will to prolong someones life with medication, but not to end it when the person is in everlasting pain ?

Then you are a rare breed :) Perhaps I've finally found someone who can explain the moral reasoning behind the 10 commandments to me ? I still fail to see why not worshipping god would make me a bad person for instance - and the most intelligent answer I sofar have is "because God says so" :( I think you'll find it actually mentions idols. Worshipping idols is a bad thing because then people project their own values and call them gods.

I think you'll find it actually mentions idols. Worshipping idols is a bad thing because then people project their own values and call them gods.

Why would that be bad ?

And for clarity: what I would like to see is something like this:

Statement: Making a promise you do not intend to keep is bad.
Explanation: If everyone would make promises they did not inted to keep all the time there would be no point in making promises at all.

That is using a maxim, but there are other ways to show validity of moral statements through logic. Leviticus will probably be impossible to do; but since the commandments are fundamental they should have a strong base.

Why would that be bad ?

Your father loves you a lot. You're supposed to call him and treat him as your father. But instead you create a different father for yourself call him your father, and makes him do as you want. How is your real father going to feel about that?

Perhaps our real father shouldn't have been such a deadbeat dad and instead sat down and talked to his kids once in a while!

Your father loves you a lot. You're supposed to call him and treat him as your father. But instead you create a different father for yourself call him your father, and makes him do as you want. How is your real father going to feel about that?

Probably pretty bad - but that doesn't make the action immoral. If my father would happen to be Jack the madeyed murderer for instance and I denounce him and his morals - would I be a bad person ?

Perhaps our real father shouldn't have been such a deadbeat dad and instead sat down and talked to his kids once in a while!

It's sitting on the bookshelf. Open it up and read the Bible.

Probably pretty bad - but that doesn't make the action immoral. If my father would happen to be Jack the madeyed murderer for instance and I denounce him and his morals - would I be a bad person ?
You'd be hailed a hero.

But in this case your father is God.

You don't have to believe or agree with it. But that's the reasoning behind the commandmant, I think.

Your father loves you a lot. You're supposed to call him and treat him as your father. But instead you create a different father for yourself call him your father, and makes him do as you want. How is your real father going to feel about that?

I know mine doesn't give a f***. Your point?

I know mine doesn't give a f***. Your point? Well, this is presuming your father has cared for you and even sacrificed himself to bring you back to the straight and narrow… I'm of course talking about God…

I know mine doesn't give a f***. Your point?

IT'S AN ANALOGY! ANALOGIES ARE NOT PERFECT!!! Try SUPPOSING!!

Actually, recent scientific evidence has proven, due to the sandstone/sand makeup of the land that Sodom was on, that Sodom, and possibly Gomorrah, slid into the Dead Sea via an earthquake.

Hey, destroyed is destroyed. :)

I'm rather cartesian, so I won't deny the existence of a god/bunch of deities until I have scientifical proof of it. That's why I'm agnostic, it's the way of reason. Deism and Atheism are wrong in some way, for they don't show any scientifical proof of what they support.

Just my 2 cents.

Uh huh, but do you believe that Sodomy is a sin?

Well no, I'm not religious. I just like to say stuff like that.
'sides, Anubis has a nicer butt.

I'm rather cartesian, so I won't deny the existence of a god/bunch of deities until I have scientifical proof of it. That's why I'm agnostic, it's the way of reason. Deism and Atheism are wrong in some way, for they don't show any scientifical proof of what they support.

Just my 2 cents.

Is there scientific proof of love? Of trust? Scientific proof according to who? Science is not supreme, you know? Science is pretty inadequate in completing human life. Science is still very limited in explaining the phenomena of the natural world - say, exactly why tornadoes occur - so why are you allowing it to govern your spiritual life?

It's sitting on the bookshelf. Open it up and read the Bible.

I've read the bible... you know my favourite quote? It's from Jesus:

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword!"

I've also read the gnostic texts, which the early christian church censored mostly due to the increased visability of women in the story of Jesus, such as Mary Magdelene.

Ever wondered who the 'blessed disciple' referenced in the New Testamant is? The Gnostic texts make clear that this was Mary Magdelene herself, that she even wrote a gospel text herself (Which was deleted from the early NT again by the male church leaders). It is even said that Jesus often kissed her.

Now, I am supposed to believe in the validity of a book that has been proven to have been selectively edited by early church leaders in order to ensure that Men only would hold the power in the Church?

Even as late as the 1960's the Catholic Church was stating as fact that Mary Magdelene was the 'prostitute' who Jesus speaks to... despite the fact that in the NT the prostitute is unnamed, and meets Jesus long after Mary Magdelene does!

So if the Church is willing to edit their book in order to ensure that their desires are met on earth, how much else has been edited from its original form?

Only around 20% of the early forms of the NT have been recovered... who knows what is lost to us, and what has been distorted beyond all recognition.

Now, be a good little baby and go and sit on the naughty stool or you'll go to hell and burn for all eternity!

Is there scientific proof of love? Of trust? Scientific proof according to who? Science is not supreme, you know? Science is pretty inadequate in completing human life. Science is still very limited in explaining the phenomena of the natural world - say, exactly why tornadoes occur - so why are you allowing it to govern your spiritual life?

Emotions such as Love and Trust have been found to have specific patterns of chemical release in the brain, so yes, there is scientific proof for them.

I've read the bible... you know my favourite quote? It's from Jesus:

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword!"

I've also read the gnostic texts, which the early christian church censored mostly due to the increased visability of women in the story of Jesus, such as Mary Magdelene.

Ever wondered who the 'blessed disciple' referenced in the New Testamant is? The Gnostic texts make clear that this was Mary Magdelene herself, that she even wrote a gospel text herself (Which was deleted from the early NT again by the male church leaders). It is even said that Jesus often kissed her.

Now, I am supposed to believe in the validity of a book that has been proven to have been selectively edited by early church leaders in order to ensure that Men only would hold the power in the Church?

Even as late as the 1960's the Catholic Church was stating as fact that Mary Magdelene was the 'prostitute' who Jesus speaks to... despite the fact that in the NT the prostitute is unnamed, and meets Jesus long after Mary Magdelene does!

So if the Church is willing to edit their book in order to ensure that their desires are met on earth, how much else has been edited from its original form?

Only around 20% of the early forms of the NT have been recovered... who knows what is lost to us, and what has been distorted beyond all recognition.

Now, be a good little baby and go and sit on the naughty stool or you'll go to hell and burn for all eternity!

So? You believe what the current newspapers tell you - and those have been carefully edited as well. You believe what the scientists say in their reports - and those have been carefully edited too - too keep the negative effects of the latest discovery toned down. You believe those!

The cornerstone of Christianity is not the threat of burning in hell. It's supposed to love, fairness, kindness, equality and a whole lot more good things.

Read your Bible again.

Emotions such as Love and Trust have been found to have specific patterns of chemical release in the brain, so yes, there is scientific proof for them.

No no. Those are CHEMICALS. Love and trust are emotions. Emotions cannot be solidly governed or detected. If you have to reduce all operations of life as "chemicals", it would be sad. Really sad.

So? You believe what the current newspapers tell you - and those have been carefully edited as well. You believe what the scientists say in their reports - and those have been carefully edited too - too keep the negative effects of the latest discovery toned down. You believe those!

The cornerstone of Christianity is not the threat of burning in hell. It's supposed to love, fairness, kindness, equality and a whole lot more good things.

Read your Bible again.

Actually I don't believe what any one newspaper says, I read about a dozen in order to get a balanced view.

I don't believe what any one scientist says, I wait for other research, and a consensus to be reached.

I don't believe what any one version of the Bible says, I read all I can obtain, especially the surpressed accounts (Which by your metaphor are 'negative effects'... Women's rights are now 'negative effects'?!?!).

Have you read anything other than the KJV translation of the Bible?

How about reading it in Hebrew, where the meanings are closer to its original form? I have, maybe you should try it too.

Have you read religious texts other than Christian ones? How can you be so sure that your particular sect (Catholic?) of your particular interpretation (KJV mutilated version of the Bible) of your particular offshoot child of Judaism is the real and only truth?

Faith?

God teaches not to worship false idols... how do you know that you aren't doing exactly that by following a version of the Bible that excludes some of Jesus' basic teachings, simply because they didn't agree with the needs of the early Christian leading men!

Open your eyes.

No no. Those are CHEMICALS. Love and trust are emotions. Emotions cannot be solidly governed or detected. If you have to reduce all operations of life as "chemicals", it would be sad. Really sad.

Yes they can be solidly governed, that's why anti-depressants work, because they can be controlled even by our crude science.

And yes they can be solidly detected, a scan of the activity in someone's brain can tell the difference between Lust, infatuation Love and Long term relationship Love...

To me, understanding the nature of emotions in no way detracts from the awe I feel at knowing they exist... Whatever their origins (I don't care which theory) emotions are astonishing, mind boggling works of perfection.

Actually I don't believe what any one newspaper says, I read about a dozen in order to get a balanced view.

I don't believe what any one scientist says, I wait for other research, and a consensus to be reached.

I don't believe what any one version of the Bible says, I read all I can obtain, especially the surpressed accounts (Which by your metaphor are 'negative effects'... Women's rights are now 'negative effects'?!?!).

Have you read anything other than the KJV translation of the Bible?

How about reading it in Hebrew, where the meanings are closer to its original form? I have, maybe you should try it too.

Have you read religious texts other than Christian ones? How can you be so sure that your particular sect (Catholic?) of your particular interpretation (KJV mutilated version of the Bible) of your particular offshoot child of Judaism is the real and only truth?

Faith?

God teaches not to worship false idols... how do you know that you aren't doing exactly that by following a version of the Bible that excludes some of Jesus' basic teachings, simply because they didn't agree with the needs of the early Christian leading men!

Open your eyes.

You can read a hundred pieces of rubbish and still don't get anything intelligent out of it. While the Bible may not be completely perfect because it was rendered by humans, it still does not mean that it isn't useful. If the Bible is so bad because it was rendered by humans, so are all newspapers and all scientific reports. Those who manipulate the Bible will be punished at the very end. Look FURTHER.

No metaphor whatsoever linked between negative effects and women's rights.

Perhaps you could try to stop looking at what can be seen and dare to think out of the box. Religion is out of the box. You not believing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, see?

Yes they can be solidly governed, that's why anti-depressants work, because they can be controlled even by our crude science.

And yes they can be solidly detected, a scan of the activity in someone's brain can tell the difference between Lust, infatuation Love and Long term relationship Love...

To me, understanding the nature of emotions in no way detracts from the awe I feel at knowing they exist... Whatever their origins (I don't care which theory) emotions are astonishing, mind boggling works of perfection.

To me, it's just plain disgusting that emotions can be manipulated. It just shows the evilness of Man, and how inadequate we are in promoting love, peace and other good things. So why argue against a god?

You can read a hundred pieces of rubbish and still don't get anything intelligent out of it. While the Bible may not be completely perfect because it was rendered by humans, it still does not mean that it isn't useful. If the Bible is so bad because it was rendered by humans, so are all newspapers and all scientific reports. Those who manipulate the Bible will be punished at the very end. Look FURTHER.

No metaphor whatsoever linked between negative effects and women's rights.

Perhaps you could try to stop looking at what can be seen and dare to think out of the box. Religion is out of the box. You not believing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, see?


You believing it doesn't mean it exists, either.
So, what exaclty makes the bible different from the "hundred pieces of rubbish"?
The fact that it was written thousands of years ago by people who had even less a clue about the world than we do today?

To me, it's just plain disgusting that emotions can be manipulated. It just shows the evilness of Man, and how inadequate we are in promoting love, peace and other good things. So why argue against a god?

Anti-depressants are actively helping people. While they cannot be a substitude for effective psychoanalysis and according treatment, they can provide a short-term relief and are proven to prevent people who are suicidal form harming themselves.
Just how is that bad???

You believing it doesn't mean it exists, either.
So, what exaclty makes the bible different from the "hundred pieces of rubbish"?
The fact that it was written thousands of years ago by people who had even less a clue about the world than we do today?

So don't argue it doesn't exist simply because you don't believe or know it.

Because there is intelligence and power involved.

Goodness. The Chinese culture is 5000 years old and is still relevant today. Aristotle's theories are still taught and discussed and awed over today. What's your point?

You can read a hundred pieces of rubbish and still don't get anything intelligent out of it. While the Bible may not be completely perfect because it was rendered by humans, it still does not mean that it isn't useful. If the Bible is so bad because it was rendered by humans, so are all newspapers and all scientific reports. Those who manipulate the Bible will be punished at the very end. Look FURTHER.

No metaphor whatsoever linked between negative effects and women's rights.

Perhaps you could try to stop looking at what can be seen and dare to think out of the box. Religion is out of the box. You not believing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, see?

Actually, I am religious, and please don't continually insult my intelligence, or the intelligence of those who are Atheist, it demeans you.

For the record, you stated that scientists 'carefully edited too - too keep the negative effects of the latest discovery toned down', in reference to my example that the Bible has been proven to have been edited by the early Church leaders to remove Mary Magdelene as the main leading figure amongst the disciples of Jesus both before and after his death. It was a natural conclusion to compare your comments about the honesty of scientists with my facts about the honesty of the early church leaders.

The Bible is indeed useful, it contains many good life lessons but it is missing large portions of its original content due to political expediancy, what remains is indicative more of what early church leaders wanted the population to believe than what Jesus actually wanted people to believe, or at least that is my conclusion from the recovered 'banned' texts that I have read.

Most of us seem to agree that humans are imperfect. Then why does it make us "perfect enough" to denounce the existence of a god, because a god is likely to be more perfect than us. It's just...inherently contradictary.

Actually, I am religious, and please don't continually insult my intelligence, or the intelligence of those who are Atheist, it demeans you.

For the record, you stated that scientists 'carefully edited too - too keep the negative effects of the latest discovery toned down', in reference to my example that the Bible has been proven to have been edited by the early Church leaders to remove Mary Magdelene as the main leading figure amongst the disciples of Jesus both before and after his death. It was a natural conclusion to compare your comments about the honesty of scientists with my facts about the honesty of the early church leaders.

The Bible is indeed useful, it contains many good life lessons but it is missing large portions of its original content due to political expediancy, what remains is indicative more of what early church leaders wanted the population to believe than what Jesus actually wanted people to believe.
Oh dear! Please forgive me! No insults intended!!! Sorry!!! I guess I'm just a little sleepy, so I'm a little hard!!! Sorry!

As you say, how do you know that the current versions of the Bible were not directly translated from the Hebrew versions? Everything can be manipulated, but however it can be manipulated it will not manipulate the will of God.

Oh dear! Please forgive me! No insults intended!!! Sorry!!! I guess I'm just a little sleepy, so I'm a little hard!!! Sorry!

As you say, how do you know that the current versions of the Bible were not directly translated from the Hebrew versions? Everything can be manipulated, but however it can be manipulated it will not manipulate the will of God.

Because the KJV Bible was translated from Hebrew to Latin and thence to English, that's a well known fact.

So don't argue it doesn't exist simply because you don't believe or know it.

Because there is intelligence and power involved.

Goodness. The Chinese culture is 5000 years old and is still relevant today. Aristotle's theories are still taught and discussed and awed over today. What's your point?

I don't argue that. In fact, I believe god exists. But as this is my belief, and a belief only, I will argue with everybody who treats religion (any religion) as a proven fact.

The Chinese culture changed in 5000 years. Aristotle's theories are discussed, but nor revered as the ultimate truth. In fact, people today are just as likely to contradict them than to agree with them. Further thinking and understanding has added to those theories, that never happened with the bible.
I believe in god, but the bible is in many ways just plain wrong.

Because the KJV Bible was translated from Hebrew to Latin and thence to English, that's a well known fact.

But I don't read the KJV Bible.....

I don't argue that. In fact, I believe god exists. But as this is my belief, and a belief only, I will argue with everybody who treats religion (any religion) as a proven fact.

The Chinese culture changed in 5000 years. Aristotle's theories are discussed, but nor revered as the ultimate truth. In fact, people today are just as likely to contradict them than to agree with them. Further thinking and understanding has added to those theories, that never happened with the bible.
I believe in god, but the bible is in many ways just plain wrong.

Or - your intepretation could be wrong. I don't think the Bible is supreme on its own. You need to actively question it to strengthen your belief of the "right" thing.

Most of us seem to agree that humans are imperfect. Then why does it make us "perfect enough" to denounce the existence of a god, because a god is likely to be more perfect than us. It's just...inherently contradictary.

He is more perfect, and to me that's just one more prove that the bible can't represent his will. It's imperfect, people have interpreted it in almost any possible direction of the last millenia, they fought wars about it and caused endless harm and suffering. If the bible represents god's will, it would be prefect. Therefore, no such evil could come of it.

Because the KJV Bible was translated from Hebrew to Latin and thence to English, that's a well known fact.

Addendum:
One salient example is that in most wordings, the sixth commandment is 'you shall not kill', the actual commandment is 'you shall not murder'.

This mistranslation appears in both the KJV Bible and the Revised Standard Bible.

Why do people want to have the Atheist v. Theist debate a billion gajiliion times?

But I don't read the KJV Bible.....

What do you read, the Revised Standard? That's based on the KGV, in fact almost all variants of the Bible are based on the KGV.

Why do people want to have the Atheist v. Theist debate a billion gajiliion times?

Because one day the Atheists will rightfully win, and the world will have no more war.

Or - your intepretation could be wrong. I don't think the Bible is supreme on its own. You need to actively question it to strengthen your belief of the "right" thing.

I did. And found that the "right" thing is not exclusive to the bible, it can be found elsewhere as well.
Because I didn't start to study the bible with the prejudice that it would be the one and only truth. I studied it with a mind open to everything.

What do you read, the Revised Standard? That's based on the KGV, in fact almost all variants of the Bible are based on the KGV.

No...I read the New Translated Chinese Version of the Bible - which has been directly translated from Armaic and Greek.

No...I read the New Translated Chinese Version of the Bible - which has been directly translated from Armaic and Greek.

Interesting, I'm not aware of how that edition stacks up.

Do me a favour and flip to Deuteronomy and tell me if commandment 6 reads 'kill' or 'murder'.

I did. And found that the "right" thing is not exclusive to the bible, it can be found elsewhere as well.
Because I didn't start to study the bible with the prejudice that it would be the one and only truth. I studied it with a mind open to everything.

Well, nobody said that ONLY the Bible carried the right things...

Interesting, I'm not aware of how that edition stacks up.

Do me a favour and flip to Deuteronomy and tell me if commandment 6 reads 'kill' or 'murder'.

What's Deuteronomy in Chinese???

Can someone PLEASE spell atheist and atheism correctly???

Also, check out the Internet Infidel discussion boards if you're really interested in atheism. It be stylin' :D

Oh. I have it. 不可殺人 directly translates to: "Cannot kill". "Murder" is 謀殺.

What's Deuteronomy in Chinese???


Oh boy, if you don't know what book the commandments are in, you are ONE bible scholar :D ;)

Oh boy, if you don't know what book the commandments are in, you are ONE bible scholar :D ;)

SHHH! I KNOW IT IN CHINESE!! JUST SLIPPED MY MIND, DAMMIT! lol... XD

What's Deuteronomy in Chinese???

That'd be book 5.

You can also find the ten commandments in the book of Exodus (Book 2), but there they're worded differently with subtly different meanings, just for added fun I suppose...

That'd be book 5.

You can also find the ten commandments in the book of Exodus (Book 2), but there they're worded differently with subtly different meanings, just for added fun I suppose...

As are many other things in the bible. 2 different accounts of how god created the world, 4 gospels with slightly different information, etc :D

Anyway, what's your point?

Oh. I have it. 不可殺人 directly translates to: "Cannot kill". "Murder" is 謀殺.

So your translation is flawed, the original reads 'You shall not Murder' as I stated above.

How many other meanings are lost or fudged in your translation, if I can find one on just a hunch, even against claims that the translation comes from the oldest surviving texts?

So, another generation of editors at work, bastardising the text they claim to revere!

So your translation is flawed, the original reads 'You shall not Murder' as I stated above.

How many other meanings are lost or fudged in your translation, if I can find one on just a hunch, even against claims that the translation comes from the oldest surviving texts?

So, another generation of editors at work, bastardising the text they claim to revere!

So what if translation messes minor bits? I don't get it. The key of Christianity is present in each and every translation!

So what if translation messes minor bits? I don't get it. The key of Christianity is present in each and every translation!

To kill and to murder is a lot more than just a minor bit.

To kill means killing anybody, under any circumstances. No wars, no death penalty, no killing in self defense and if you take it very very strictly the way some orthodox Jews do, it means living as a vegetarian.
To murder on the other hand refers exclusively to innocent human beings. If you kill an enemy soldier, it is not considered murder, if somebody is executed he is not murdered.
I would think that this is a major difference in the message of the bible.

Anyway, what's your point?

My point is that the Bible is an unreliable work, even the earliest forms of it we have available show considerable editorial bias, and yet billions of people around the world are fed words that have been mistranslated and deformed many times over but are told they are the authentic and only truth.

It is a fact that the early bible was altered to suit the ends of the clergy (largely in order to conquer Rome, but also to exclude women) and it is a fact that the bible has been further distorted by many generations of mistranslation and erratic copying.

How can the bible be the voice of God talking to me, as you alleged above, when it is in fact just the edited propaganda of those that have run the church for the last few thousand years?

You claimed that you can edit the bible any way you like and it's true light will still shine through, well, perhaps I can refer you to a line I quoted earlier:

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword!"

How on earth does that little quote fit with the rest of the New Testament?

In-context, it demonstrates either Jesus telling his followers/enemies what he thought they needed to hear, or it demonstrates the path Jesus took through fear and anger and incomprehension towards his final pacifism and enlightenment.

Out of context, as I have quoted it, it shows Jesus as a warrior and a killer, nice.

My point is that the entire bible is now out of context, just like my little quote.

And yet you claim it as truth with such assurance.

Being Atheist is great. I got my sundays free, my mind is free from stupid beliefs, and I'm free to make my own decisions on what I feel is right and wrong.

Religion is a horrible outdated tool and should be banned. They are all cults and their stupid rituals fall on deaf ears. The people of these cults should all take a suicide pact and if their cult is against suicide, i'll gladly sacrifice my "soul" to kill them, so they can chill with their "creator", and the easter bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the boogey man and whatever fake ass icons of the stupid they believe in.

To kill and to murder is a lot more than just a minor bit.

To kill means killing anybody, under any circumstances. No wars, no death penalty, no killing in self defense and if you take it very very strictly the way some orthodox Jews do, it means living as a vegetarian.
To murder on the other hand refers exclusively to innocent human beings. If you kill an enemy soldier, it is not considered murder, if somebody is executed he is not murdered.
I would think that this is a major difference in the message of the bible.
Yes yes... Read on. God has already set down some special circumstances in which killing does not result in the death penalty. Any event other than the exceptions will be the death-penalty "killing".

My point is that the Bible is an unreliable work, even the earliest forms of it we have available show considerable editorial bias, and yet billions of people around the world are fed words that have been mistranslated and deformed many times over but are told they are the authentic and only truth.

It is a fact that the early bible was altered to suit the ends of the clergy (largely in order to conquer Rome, but also to exclude women) and it is a fact that the bible has been further distorted by many generations of mistranslation and erratic copying.

How can the bible be the voice of God talking to me, as you alleged above, when it is in fact just the edited propaganda of those that have run the church for the last few thousand years?

You claimed that you can edit the bible any way you like and it's true light will still shine through, well, perhaps I can refer you to a line I quoted earlier:

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword!"

How on earth does that little quote fit with the rest of the New Testament?

In-context, it demonstrates either Jesus telling his followers/enemies what he thought they needed to hear, or it demonstrates the path Jesus took through fear and anger and incomprehension towards his final pacifism and enlightenment.

Out of context, as I have quoted it, it shows Jesus as a warrior and a killer, nice.

My point is that the entire bible is now out of context, just like my little quote.

And yet you claim it as truth with such assurance.
On the other hand, what is reliable then?

Yes yes... Read on. God has already set down some special circumstances in which killing does not result in the death penalty. Any event other than the exceptions will be the death-penalty "killing".

See, that's the next contradiction in my eyes.
It says "Do not kill", then there are exceptions as to when killing is justified, if none of these exceptions are met, then somebody will have to "kill" the perpetrator.... :confused:

On the other hand, what is reliable then?

Try finding the one thing common to all religions, as it is the most likely truth. For the rest, use your own brain.

Yes yes... Read on. God has already set down some special circumstances in which killing does not result in the death penalty. Any event other than the exceptions will be the death-penalty "killing".

I don't think you comprehend the magnitude of the difference between 'kill' and 'murder'.

I don't think you comprehend the magnitude of the difference between 'kill' and 'murder'.

I think the difference between kill and murder is quite obvious through common sense... Murder is a subset of killing.

On the other hand, what is reliable then?

I will not tell you my opinion on that, you must discover it for youself.

See, that's the next contradiction in my eyes.
It says "Do not kill", then there are exceptions as to when killing is justified, if none of these exceptions are met, then somebody will have to "kill" the perpetrator....



Murder = Kill?

Because one day the Atheists will rightfully win, and the world will have no more war.
Yeah right... no more wars... :rolleyes:

Religion has started wars many times, and the only thing that will happen if it is destroyed, is that the wars will be started by reasons that makes a little bit more sence.

BTW I'm atheist.

My point is that the Bible is an unreliable work, even the earliest forms of it we have available show considerable editorial bias, and yet billions of people around the world are fed words that have been mistranslated and deformed many times over but are told they are the authentic and only truth.

It is a fact that the early bible was altered to suit the ends of the clergy (largely in order to conquer Rome, but also to exclude women) and it is a fact that the bible has been further distorted by many generations of mistranslation and erratic copying.

How can the bible be the voice of God talking to me, as you alleged above, when it is in fact just the edited propaganda of those that have run the church for the last few thousand years?

You claimed that you can edit the bible any way you like and it's true light will still shine through, well, perhaps I can refer you to a line I quoted earlier:

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword!"

How on earth does that little quote fit with the rest of the New Testament?

In-context, it demonstrates either Jesus telling his followers/enemies what he thought they needed to hear, or it demonstrates the path Jesus took through fear and anger and incomprehension towards his final pacifism and enlightenment.

Out of context, as I have quoted it, it shows Jesus as a warrior and a killer, nice.

My point is that the entire bible is now out of context, just like my little quote.

And yet you claim it as truth with such assurance.




There are so many fallacies in that post that it's not even funny.

Being Atheist is great. I got my sundays free, my mind is free from stupid beliefs, and I'm free to make my own decisions on what I feel is right and wrong.

Religion is a horrible outdated tool and should be banned. They are all cults and their stupid rituals fall on deaf ears. The people of these cults should all take a suicide pact and if their cult is against suicide, i'll gladly sacrifice my "soul" to kill them, so they can chill with their "creator", and the easter bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the boogey man and whatever fake ass icons of the stupid they believe in.

:eek: Quick, Repent REPENT!!!

Atheism in itself is neither good or bad - it just is. The only belief system I would consider bad is one that dictates that its followers should harm others. I guess that would include all of the "Big 3" - but the others seem to be okay.

There are so many fallacies in that post that it's not even funny.

You may want to point them out...

Are you an athiest? Whats your feelings on atheistism? Whats your feelings on Christianity, Islam, and Others? (please don't make fun of them), If you feel your way of thinking is better please show us but don't troll or flame just state your point of view in an intelligent manor..... Is athiestism the future or is it the singnal of the degradations of society? These Questions and More WILL Be answered(its the 11th commandment)....


(Athiest posting here and these questions I see a lot and I would like to just see what NS-ers think about it....)


(I know I know bad post)

I am an athiest but am far from hostile to those who are not. I was brought up in a religious background, although not downright strict and merely became an athiest out of reason, not to piss anybody off. Many of my best friends however are Christian and they have no problems with me, and I have no problems with them. In fact, some of the people we know who they dislike most are Christians like them, whereas I dislike some athiests like me. This is because I do not generalise, I treat people as individuals and that is how I live my life and I am very happy with it.

Murder = Kill?

I speak neither Hebrew nor Arameic, so I wouldn't know what translation is the correct one, now, would I?

Yeah right... no more wars... :rolleyes:

Religion has started wars many times, and the only thing that will happen if it is destroyed, is that the wars will be started by reasons that makes a little bit more sence.

BTW I'm atheist.

Religion is not the cause of wars, it is an excuse for them. All you would achieve in removing religion is to force people to find another excuse.

I speak neither Hebrew nor Arameic, so I wouldn't know what translation is the correct one, now, would I?

As far as I know the Hebrew is the same for both. Most good translations have a footnote to this effect whenever they use either word.

As far as I know the Hebrew is the same for both. Most good translations have a footnote to this effect whenever they use either word.

So, in effect, we will never know god's exact words (if they are that) in English?
That doesn't really make me take the bible any more seriously...

Murder = Kill?

Only if you're speaking a different language and missing the subtle difference.


Kill - To end a life.

Murder - To end a life with intent to cause harm, with evil intent.


Unfortunatly, everyone who reads the Bible is reading a different language, sometimes several different languages at once, each with their own layers of meaning subtracting from or adding embelishments to the original text.

Ever wondered why Jesus said that it was 'easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle' than for a certain sinner to enter heaven? doesn't this disagree with his teachings that everyone can be saved?

The solution is that this is another mistranslation, the correct wording being 'the eye of the needle'.

The eye of the needle was the name of a certain narrow archway in the walls of Jerusalem, and people used to take camels through it all the time, they just had to squeeze a bit... so under the authentic wording, the sinner can enter heaven, as long as he puts lots of effort into leading a better life.

Under the KJV Bible, and probably Dragons's Chinese Bible, this phrase, devoid of its original meaning, seems to infer that Jesus is saying the sinner is damned to hell with no chance of escape.

There are so many fallacies in that post that it's not even funny.

Point them out.

I am an avowed athiest, im also a trotskyist , socialism and religion cannot be bed fellows.In my opinion religion of any sort is purely another weapon used by the ruling classes to stop ordinary people questioning the status quo.Are the people really expected to believe in some divine being that is all seeing an all powerful, and also in the case of christianity to accept a book whose chapters were written many hundreds of years apart. anyone who has played chinese whispers will understand that a story told by one person will be embellished and utterly different by thee time it reaches the 100th person

I chose to fight and trust in the ordinary working people of the world to bring about social change , not some fairy tale character

I like this thread.

I myself, am a Christian but I would like to consider myself "Open Minded"

I do have several Questions for the Atheists here... and Agnostics. (I don't want to Hijack the thread so simple answers will do.)

1) Do you believe that humans have souls?

2) Should, In your Opinion, Science be governed by a "Can We" attitude or an "Should We" attitude.

1)Sometimes I wonder. Consider my computer, which hangs up every four months or so just for the hell of it. It's pretty complex.

But the human mind is about a billion times more complex and it works pretty damn good for at least fourty years!

But then again, people go insane, and when you're old your hbrain starts to detoriate.

The whole "soul" theory is fun to discuss(does a sperm and an egg have one half of a soul each, does twins share a soul, is the brain a tool to interpret the soul, and so on), but in the end, I'll go for the "computer-brain" theory.

2) "Should we" seems smarter to me. If the Manhattan projecters had thought "should we", the world would ahve been a better place. But on the other hand, we wouldn't have had computers so I'm kinda contradicting myself...

As far as I know the Hebrew is the same for both. Most good translations have a footnote to this effect whenever they use either word.

Hebrew has two very distinct words for Murder and Kill, they are never, ever, used interchangably.

Your 'good translations' are merely reworkings of earlier 'bad translations' with scholars guessing at subtlety without reference to the Hebrew.

I am an avowed athiest, im also a trotskyist , socialism and religion cannot be bed fellows.In my opinion religion of any sort is purely another weapon used by the ruling classes to stop ordinary people questioning the status quo.Are the people really expected to believe in some divine being that is all seeing an all powerful, and also in the case of christianity to accept a book whose chapters were written many hundreds of years apart. anyone who has played chinese whispers will understand that a story told by one person will be embellished and utterly different by thee time it reaches the 100th person

I chose to fight and trust in the ordinary working people of the world to bring about social change .athiesm is the way forward for society but it must bring about with it an enlightenment of what really is messing up our world, alas i dont think it will

Only if you're speaking a different language and missing the subtle difference.


Kill - To end a life.

Murder - To end a life with intent to cause harm, with evil intent.



And in English it means to ILLEGALY take a human life

I am an atheist. But the more I grow up, the more I realize that poking fun at belief systems that many hold as the most important things in their very being is pointless and will not win you any friends. If religion will help some people along a morally high path then it cannot be a bad thing.

But I do notice that it is very often the most religious people that act the least religiously. I.e. it is often the people that fill their cars with Jesus trinkets and tattoo their bodies with crosses that end up being alcholiks, commiting adultery, and being violent. If you are going to be religious, then act religiously, dont just do it because it happens to be fashionable at the moment.

And in English it means to ILLEGALY take a human life

I would actually say it is closer to immoral than illegal, God's word is supposed to be above the laws of man.

You may want to point them out...



*sigh* Ok, but this is going to take a while....

My point is that the Bible is an unreliable work, even the earliest forms of it we have available show considerable editorial bias, and yet billions of people around the world are fed words that have been mistranslated and deformed many times over but are told they are the authentic and only truth.


Then explain how texts such as the dead sea scrolls corroborate with biblical claims? Also, if you have an issue with the translation then learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

It is a fact that the early bible was altered to suit the ends of the clergy (largely in order to conquer Rome, but also to exclude women) and it is a fact that the bible has been further distorted by many generations of mistranslation and erratic copying.


The original texts have been preserved, read them and you will see the consistency. Also, it never "excludes" women, it just places restrictions on us for performing services during church. If the crux of Christianity involves denying one's own will, how does this present a problem? True submission to God is just that: true submission to God. In addition, there are many verses which work contrary to the benefit of a clergy/papacy (Matthew 23:12 and Matthew 23:9 come to mind....)



How can the bible be the voice of God talking to me, as you alleged above, when it is in fact just the edited propaganda of those that have run the church for the last few thousand years?

Because it isn't edited propaganda ;)



You claimed that you can edit the bible any way you like and it's true light will still shine through, well, perhaps I can refer you to a line I quoted earlier:

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring the sword!"

How on earth does that little quote fit with the rest of the New Testament?



It explains how followers of Christ will be shunned by even their own family members, and how it would cause divisions between those who believe and those who don't.



Out of context, as I have quoted it, it shows Jesus as a warrior and a killer, nice.

My point is that the entire bible is now out of context, just like my little quote.

And yet you claim it as truth with such assurance.



When you present one irrefutable example, then you'll have credibility. Until then, don't bash things you know little of.

I am an avowed athiest, im also a trotskyist , socialism and religion cannot be bed fellows.In my opinion religion of any sort is purely another weapon used by the ruling classes to stop ordinary people questioning the status quo.Are the people really expected to believe in some divine being that is all seeing an all powerful, and also in the case of christianity to accept a book whose chapters were written many hundreds of years apart. anyone who has played chinese whispers will understand that a story told by one person will be embellished and utterly different by thee time it reaches the 100th person

I chose to fight and trust in the ordinary working people of the world to bring about social change , not some fairy tale character


You're funny :)

Only if you're speaking a different language and missing the subtle difference.


Kill - To end a life.

Murder - To end a life with intent to cause harm, with evil intent.


Unfortunatly, everyone who reads the Bible is reading a different language, sometimes several different languages at once, each with their own layers of meaning subtracting from or adding embelishments to the original text.

Ever wondered why Jesus said that it was 'easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle' than for a certain sinner to enter heaven? doesn't this disagree with his teachings that everyone can be saved?

The solution is that this is another mistranslation, the correct wording being 'the eye of the needle'.

The eye of the needle was the name of a certain narrow archway in the walls of Jerusalem, and people used to take camels through it all the time, they just had to squeeze a bit... so under the authentic wording, the sinner can enter heaven, as long as he puts lots of effort into leading a better life.

Under the KJV Bible, and probably Dragons's Chinese Bible, this phrase, devoid of its original meaning, seems to infer that Jesus is saying the sinner is damned to hell with no chance of escape.


Well, if the rich man gives all he has to the poor then he will no longer be rich so it will no longer apply to him :p

If religion will help some people along a morally high path then it cannot be a bad thing.

That depends on whether you think that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is also good. At first sight it seems at least a practical solution - but the downside is that those wrong reasons that lead to good decisions in one case can lead to bad decisions in another...

And as I am trying to argue - dogmatic religions often do not motivate their commandments.

You're funny :)
While not dead on religion has played that role before … unquestioning faith can be a powerful weapon. There have been some arguments for religion as an evolutionary trait for this exact same reason

The ability to blindly and zealously unite a group of people for a cause (specially one of a figure like god that is beyond question) would be an immensely valuable trait to have

*sigh* Ok, but this is going to take a while....

Nothing worth having comes easily :)



Then explain how texts such as the dead sea scrolls corroborate with biblical claims? Also, if you have an issue with the translation then learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.


I don't have issue with the dead sea scrolls.
I've studied Hebrew and Latin, and I may study Aramaic one day. Not interested in Greek.



The original texts have been preserved, read them and you will see the consistency. Also, it never "excludes" women, it just places restrictions on us for performing services during church. If the crux of Christianity involves denying one's own will, how does this present a problem? True submission to God is just that: true submission to God. In addition, there are many verses which work contrary to the benefit of a clergy/papacy (Matthew 23:12 and Matthew 23:9 come to mind....)


The original texts have not been preserved, read up on the removal of the so-called Gnostic and Coptic texts from the Bible on the orders of the Church leaders during the early centuries AD.




Because it isn't edited propaganda ;)

It is, and if you read up on some of the occurances I've mentioned you will see how the Bible has been distorted from it's original meaning.






It explains how followers of Christ will be shunned by even their own family members, and how it would cause divisions between those who believe and those who don't.


That's not the English-language based interpretation though is it. I am intentionally dissasembling and I stated as much.



When you present one irrefutable example, then you'll have credibility. Until then, don't bash things you know little of.


I am not bashing, perhaps I am even hoping to be proven wrong.

Well, if the rich man gives all he has to the poor then he will no longer be rich so it will no longer apply to him :p

This happens because Jesus didn't like money changers... if they were allowed then there would be interest floating around and the total ammount of money would go up, thus making everyone better off! ;)

Sigh, I'm crap at jokes :)

1. Are you an Atheist?
Yes I am an atheist.

2. What are your feelings on Atheism?
I believe that it is an alternative to religion, and honestly is the more truthful option as I refuse to believe that there is anything/anyone watching over me and judging me on my life choices.

3. What are your feelings on Christianity, Islam and others? (Please don’t make fun of them)
I don’t mind what others believe; after all it is completely the persons own choice. Just don’t try and cram it down my throat.

4. Is atheism the future or is it the signal of the degradations of society?
I think that religion will always exist unless someone can prove without a doubt that god/goddesses/other worshiped deities don’t exist. Which will more than likely remain as impossible as answering the age old question ‘why are we here’.

Over all I don’t mind what/who someone believes in. I don’t even mind a debate or two, I think it will always remain one of those improvable things.

I don't have issue with the dead sea scrolls.
I've studied Hebrew and Latin, and I may study Aramaic one day. Not interested in Greek.


Wow, really? :eek: Meh, there goes my leg up on the competition :(

Wow, really? :eek: Meh, there goes my leg up on the competition :(

Shrug.

I'm sure there's bias to be found there, but unlike the KJV I can't quote oddities from memory. If I were a little less set in my evil ways I'd probably go hunting for items of interest to discuss, but as I don't feel it is my personal duty to outline every example I can find of the Bible being twisted from its original form, well, I'll leave it up to you...

Here's a quote from memory from the Talmud :

"At this time, Jesus was alive, he practiced black magic and led Israel astray"

(It may have said 'The Nazareen' or something similar, but I think it's a safe bet to say they were talking about the guy with the Mexican name)

Well I'll be damned if Jewish priests aren't being political too!

Well, if the rich man gives all he has to the poor then he will no longer be rich so it will no longer apply to him :p

Thats the whole point isnt it?

I think atheisism is a good thing, but I'm not an Athiest. I'm agnostic. I don't pretend to know that God does or does not exist. I can't prove it either way. No human can...at least not at this point in our development.

I think that since there is no proof that God does exist, that Athiests provide a perfectly valid viewpoint. It's still a belief, it's just one that is different than the thiest beliefs. It's just one of a myriad of possibilities.

Atheism is no better or worse than theism. Both are beliefs. Neither can be proven.

In my personal opinion, i have no problem with any of the 'main' religions, most of the teachings are pretty sound, the moral codes are mostly timeless. Over time however some have become obsolete as social and science bounderies have progressed.
Where i do have a strong, angry opinion and will argue with anyone who disagrees, is when the central institutes of these religions impose their will upon the belivers, desicrating the teachings and soiling their gods/messiahs for monetary gain. It has been repeated throughout history from the crusades to 9/11. It sickens me and that was why i renounced my faith.
I was born into the Greek Othordox church, christened a few months after my birth. As time went by and i grew seeing the world as it was, learning from the past i could not belive that these so called religions were practicing their own teachings. Im an atheist now(in the sense that i follow no 1 religion) but i belive in something that is unique to me, what makes me happy and helps me get through life a mix of spirtuallity and science. As science keeps answering the questions i have i need a little less of the other. Its called progress.
Belive in what you want but make your own judgements based on what you belive to be right or wrong, its ok to disagree even with your 'church', to be led blindly is the choice of a fool.

In my personal opinion, i have no problem with any of the 'main' religions, most of the teachings are pretty sound, the moral codes are mostly timeless. Over time however some have become obsolete as social and science bounderies have progressed.
Where i do have a strong, angry opinion and will argue with anyone who disagrees, is when the central institutes of these religions impose their will upon the belivers, desicrating the teachings and soiling their gods/messiahs for monetary gain. It has been repeated throughout history from the crusades to 9/11. It sickens me and that was why i renounced my faith.
I was born into the Greek Othordox church, christened a few months after my birth. As time went by and i grew seeing the world as it was, learning from the past i could not belive that these so called religions were practicing their own teachings. Im an atheist now(in the sense that i follow no 1 religion) but i belive in something that is unique to me, what makes me happy and helps me get through life a mix of spirtuallity and science. As science keeps answering the questions i have i need a little less of the other. Its called progress.
Belive in what you want but make your own judgements based on what you belive to be right or wrong, its ok to disagree even with your 'church', to be led blindly is the choice of a fool.


You wouldn't by any chance happened to have a German pen-friend a few years back? ;)

In my personal opinion, i have no problem with any of the 'main' religions, most of the teachings are pretty sound, the moral codes are mostly timeless. Over time however some have become obsolete as social and science bounderies have progressed.
Where i do have a strong, angry opinion and will argue with anyone who disagrees, is when the central institutes of these religions impose their will upon the belivers, desicrating the teachings and soiling their gods/messiahs for monetary gain. It has been repeated throughout history from the crusades to 9/11. It sickens me and that was why i renounced my faith.
I was born into the Greek Othordox church, christened a few months after my birth. As time went by and i grew seeing the world as it was, learning from the past i could not belive that these so called religions were practicing their own teachings. Im an atheist now(in the sense that i follow no 1 religion) but i belive in something that is unique to me, what makes me happy and helps me get through life a mix of spirtuallity and science. As science keeps answering the questions i have i need a little less of the other. Its called progress.
Belive in what you want but make your own judgements based on what you belive to be right or wrong, its ok to disagree even with your 'church', to be led blindly is the choice of a fool.

You're not an atheist. Possibly a deist of some sort or maybe a non denominational christian, whatever takes your fancy.

No, and if your implying what i think you are then shame on you. :eek:

No, and if your implying what i think you are then shame on you. :eek:

Not implying anything. Sorry, it was just a thought.

Its all good then.

You're not an atheist. Possibly a deist of some sort or maybe a non denominational christian, whatever takes your fancy.

A scientist probably describes me best. I deal best in logic. but can see the world through the eyes of sprituality. (it helps)

A scientist probably describes me best. I deal best in logic. but can see the world through the eyes of sprituality. (it helps)

The 'spiritualist' is one of the four main types of religious conviction, those being:

1 - Religious
2 - Agnostic
3 - Atheist
4 - Spiritualist

Some would even say that the higher up the list you are (numerically), the greater your insight... of course, some would say that the converse is true, or that the list is in the wrong order etc...

All creeds will tend to fit into one of these four basic catagories.

Where do deists fit ? They're not exactly agnostic, but not exactly religious either and do not need to be spiritualists...

Are you an athiest?
Yes.
Whats your feelings on atheistism?
It's the one sensible religious belief.
Whats your feelings on Christianity, Islam, and Others?
That depends on what you mean by christianity, islam etc. If you mean the beliefs as such, I am pretty much indifferent to them. I don't understand them, but one does not have to understand everything and the right to freedom includes the right to believe and do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt those who disagree.

I do however resent the idea that morals should be based on faith. A good is something that makes people happy. A moral good is something that gives you a good conscience. You don't need to believe in god to have a conscience. If your (generic you, those who base their morals on their faith) god only tells you nice things like "don't kill" or "treat others like you want them to treat you" that's fine and dandy. But why not go the whole nine yards and say that those principles are good regardless of what some god says?

What if your god would have said that killing and torturing people who don't belong to your religion is good (as many christians, moslems etc. do)? Then you'd be right out there with the crusaders! Those who argue that murdering is bad only because god says so are already laying the first stone in the foundations of the next jihad.
Is athiestism the future or is it the singnal of the degradations of society?
Neither. Atheism is a fruit of the enlightenment, and society is generally not degrading, but since faith is a natural quality of humanity it won't go away in the next million years at least.

Atheism is bad. It's almost as bad as faith.

Atheism is bad. It's almost as bad as organized religion. So where do you stand in relation to all this?

I myself am personally a Protestant-Christian. I am, however, also a historian and from a purely objective standpoint athiesm is actually on the decline - numerically, speaking. Recently an Oxford professor published a fascinating book entitled "The Twilight of Atheism," in which he argued (convincingly) that the "golden age" of athiesm was between the beginning of the French revolution in 1789 and the fall of the Berlin Wall 200 years later. Nowadays, many people who describe themselves as "atheist" actually mean "agnostic," "deist" or "disillusioned with organised religion." Some historians of Christianity believe that the entire faith stands on a precipice not unlike it did in 1517, when a huge internal reformation forced it to reform and adapt. Is that the way of the future? Quite possibly. Although, it is supremely unlikely that Christianity will ever re-establish its dominance in the Western world (it's unlikely that it even WANTS it back), just as it is equally certain that with the advancement of time, Islam will loose its special state-religion status in the Middle Eastern countries.

The 'spiritualist' is one of the four main types of religious conviction, those being:

1 - Religious
2 - Agnostic
3 - Atheist
4 - Spiritualist
Were would that put the church of sweden? They are formally of the evangelical lutheran denomination, but the archbishop has said that you can be a christian without believeing that Jesus worked miracles or was resurrected, and also that in the future the church is either spiritual or dead (the latter being his reason for the first).

He (and I) would probably make the list more like

-Dogmatic
-Spiritualist
-Agnostic
-Atheist

and all major religions are combinations of dogmatism and spiritualism.

I myself am personally a Protestant-Christian. I am, however, also a historian and from a purely objective standpoint athiesm is actually on the decline - numerically, speaking. Recently an Oxford professor published a fascinating book entitled "The Twilight of Atheism," in which he argued (convincingly) that the "golden age" of athiesm was between the beginning of the French revolution in 1789 and the fall of the Berlin Wall 200 years later. Nowadays, many people who describe themselves as "atheist" actually mean "agnostic," "deist" or "disillusioned with organised religion." Some historians of Christianity believe that the entire faith stands on a precipice not unlike it did in 1517, when a huge internal reformation forced it to reform and adapt. Is that the way of the future? Quite possibly. Although, it is supremely unlikely that Christianity will ever re-establish its dominance in the Western world (it's unlikely that it even WANTS it back), just as it is equally certain that with the advancement of time, Islam will loose its special state-religion status in the Middle Eastern countries.

True, but if you are actually a true Christian then you should probably believe that your religion will eventually come to every be believed by every person or something like that because it is the Truth and humans always seek the Truth right? At least I know that what I believe as a Catholic Christian, though i know there is huge differences between modern Protestants and Catholics
For those of you who have read the whole thread:
1.The KJV is not the version of the bible the Catholics believe
2.I don`t think the New American Version is based on the KGV but I'm not sure
3.Catholics also believe that the Truth is found outside of the Bible, only Protestants believe in "sola scriptura" or scriptures alone
PS atheism doesn`t logically make sense, thats why so few of the smartest people in the world believe it

PS atheism doesn`t logically make sense, thats why so few of the smartest people in the world believe it

Eeehm... atheism per definition[1] makes logical sense ;) Doesn't mean it is the right view, but it is logical.

[1] Unless God makes his existence known. Then it becomes extremely illogical.

Eeehm... atheism per definition[1] makes logical sense ;) Doesn't mean it is the right view, but it is logical.

[1] Unless God makes his existence known. Then it becomes extremely illogical.
It makes logical sense only as a counter to those religions who have a literal interpretation of god.

It makes logical sense only as a counter to those religions who have a literal interpretation of god.

Intruiging statement :) What do you mean ?
My view: atheism is logical because it is generally based on the idea "if there is no evidence to support the idea something exists, assume it doesn't". The answer a true atheist gives to questions like "how did the universe start then ?" is "I do not know (yet)" instead of "I cannot explain it, therefor there must be a supernatural explanation".

Again: this is not necessarily right - but it is definately logical.

True, but if you are actually a true Christian then you should probably believe that your religion will eventually come to every be believed by every person or something like that because it is the Truth and humans always seek the Truth right? At least I know that what I believe as a Catholic Christian, though i know there is huge differences between modern Protestants and Catholics


So truth is exclusive to Catholics... okay.


2.I don`t think the New American Version is based on the KGV but I'm not sure


I just checked up, and the New American Bible is apparently translated direct from the original... the current edition is the 4th edition, which means it has had its language modified four times from the 'original' texts (Or at least the oldest surviving ones).

Would you do me a favour and find out if commandment number six of the ten commandments reads 'kill' or 'murder'?

I checked out the online version of the NAB and, just as with the other Bibles I have found, the Christian scholars have changed the wording of the ten commandments to read 'You shall not kill' instead of 'You shall not murder'.

And this translation was first released in 1970!

Incidentally, another common mistranslation is 'you shall not take the lord's name in vain' (foul language) when in the original it reads 'you shall not take the lord's name in vain oath' (As in a promise made before God).

Great... so you can't swear, but you can lie!

The New American Bible is just as badly translated as the rest, and it too is missing the rediscovered so called Coptic and Gnostic texts.

Check out : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary_Magdalene for what I feel is the most important ommission.

I'm begining to feel like a broken record... endlessly repeating that the bible is broken...

Here's a funny one - Samuel 20:41

"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)

and now I'm gonna quote from a website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm


The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

Now, I'm not saying that I think this website's interpretation is correct since they obviously have their bias, but the fact remains that all mentions of David 'becoming great' (Whatever that may be) have been removed from all the well known Christian Bibles... and in one case (The 'Living Bible' translation) the description of the two men kissing was removed too!

So here we have not even unintentional mistranslation, but intentional ommission of God's words, and in one case an actual deliberate exercise in writing fiction.

There are thousands of examples of 'errors' like these, and some of these 'errors' of ommission stretch to entire 'books' having been removed from the Bible.

Discuss?


*Edited 'cos I'm an idiot*

It's pretty interesting that even some of the Jewish bibles (Tanakhs) have the incorrect translations you have mentioned. I have an Orthodox Tanakh which has the "You shall not kill" translation, but also a Tanakh used at reform synagogues (Jewish Publication Society) with the "You shall not murder" translation. Go figure...

I find it interesting the tactics that mystics use to justify the existence of whatever it is they happen to worship. It never ceases to amaze me how seriously we're supposed to take the Bible when it happens to be the only source on the planet that validates Christianity; or at least, the more important parts of it.

Christians love to tell us, for example, than humankind is rife with sin and that we all need to repent or go to Hell, then they turn around with their next breath and tell us that somehow, we're managed to preserve "God's Word" for about 2,000 years now.

I could go on for hours, I've got dozens more examples and fallacies like these, but my brother just woke up and its time to wake and bake. I'll leave you with my biggest beef with organized religion: It tells me to remove all the faith I have in myself and surrender my body, my will, and my conciousness over to some 'higher power' which I can't know or perceive in the real world--a power which supposedly exists above the very senses I am asked to send packing in favor of faith. Sorry, no dice. If you want to hate yourself, fine. But I've got too much self-respect for that.

It's pretty interesting that even some of the Jewish bibles (Tanakhs) have the incorrect translations you have mentioned. I have an Orthodox Tanakh which has the "You shall not kill" translation, but also a Tanakh used at reform synagogues (Jewish Publication Society) with the "You shall not murder" translation. Go figure...

Very interesting.

It's pretty interesting that even some of the Jewish bibles (Tanakhs) have the incorrect translations you have mentioned. I have an Orthodox Tanakh which has the "You shall not kill" translation, but also a Tanakh used at reform synagogues (Jewish Publication Society) with the "You shall not murder" translation. Go figure...

How does Samuel 20:41 come out in your Tanakh?

Do they include the reference to David 'becoming great'?
Do they say that the two men shook hands sadly? :)

I suspect that the 'great' word is included since in a Tanakh, you have the hebrew right next to the english and an astute reader would pick up on it quite easily... or is that only in a Humash?

The Orthodox one says "Each man kissed the other and they wept with one another, until David [wept] greatly."

The Reform one: "They kissed each other and wept together; David wept the longer"

I do have it in Hebrew and there is a good site to translate Hebrew into English- I'll put in some words...

How does Samuel 20:41 come out in your Tanakh?

Do they include the reference to David 'becoming great'?
Do they say that the two men shook hands sadly? :)

I suspect that the 'great' word is included since in a Tanakh, you have the hebrew right next to the english and an astute reader would pick up on it quite easily... or is that only in a Humash?

I just checked my German bible on that (translation of Martin Luther) and the verse reads "and they kissed each other and wept together, but David wept most"

The Orthodox one says "Each man kissed the other and they wept with one another, until David [wept] greatly."

The Reform one: "They kissed each other and wept together; David wept the longer"

I do have it in Hebrew and there is a good site to translate Hebrew into English- I'll put in some words...

Interesting that in the orthodox translation 'great' does actually appear, but is 'clarified' by the editors' [wept].

I typed in הִגְדִּיל into the translator (from that verse; it has the word gadol in it) and it says "to enlarge, to expand". Hmm...

The Orthodox one says "Each man kissed the other and they wept with one another, until David [wept] greatly."

The Reform one: "They kissed each other and wept together; David wept the longer"

I do have it in Hebrew and there is a good site to translate Hebrew into English- I'll put in some words...


The reform one makes sense to me because you have the greater or longer idea used in a reasonable way.

I typed in הִגְדִּיל into the translator (from that verse; it has the word gadol in it) and it says "to enlarge, to expand". Hmm...

We must remember of course that 'to enlarge' may simply be its modern meaning, with it's ancient meaning simply being 'large' or 'great', or there may be a context-modifier, but nonetheless I'd say it's a good example of the phenomena I've been looking at here.

I have somewhat hijacked the thread with this discourse havn't I :rolleyes:

So we're only dealing with one or two jumps in language here (Do the texts contain vowels?), and already we're getting gadol differences!

This is why I think that many people find it easier to accept the party line on their faith rather than think and interpret... all the stuff that might make you think has been 'refined' or removed over the years.

Well, apart from that bit where Lot's daughters get him drunk and have sex with their own father in order to have his children, that bit's still in there!

there are vowels and I put the exact word with the vowels into the translator. Gadol, while meaning great, can also mean big or large as you said. Anyways I wouldn't be surprised if David was gay- you never know...

The reform one makes sense to me because you have the greater or longer idea used in a reasonable way.

Reasonable to you perhaps, but wouldn't it be better to provide a literal translation, and then also a (Biased?) clarification, rather than only the clarification?

Reasonable is what is responsible for 40% of the New Testament being lost probably beyond recovery for all time, with another 20% being virtually unknown in Christian circles... with the last 40% being available to Christians in the form of a 'reasonable' translation.

Mmmm.

there are vowels and I put the exact word with the vowels into the translator. Gadol, while meaning great, can also mean big or large as you said. Anyways I wouldn't be surprised if David was gay- you never know...

For the benefit of those who don't read hebrew, biblical hebrew was written without vowels, so the vowels in this case are also later additions which also often have an impact on meanings.

Thanks for informing us R-Earth-s

This may seem wierd, but it also says after that verse:

Reform: "For we two have sworn to each other in the name of the Lord: 'May the Lord be [witness] between you and me, and between your offspring and mine, forever!'"

Orthodox: "What the two of us have sworn in the name of Hashem-saying, 'Hashem shall be [a witness] between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring- shall be forever!'"

Doesn't that sound like a marriage? (of course I'm thinking outside the box)

Christianity is not just only about this invisible, omnipotent God. It is also a philosophy that promotes peace and love and justice and fairness in the world. It doesn't have to be scary, or inimical. Depends how you take it.
Yeah, I think that that Christians that others call extremist aren't true Christians; they use Christianity as an excuse for doing or saying certain [bad?] things.

This may seem wierd, but it also says after that verse:

Reform: "For we two have sworn to each other in the name of the Lord: 'May the Lord be [witness] between you and me, and between your offspring and mine, forever!'"

Orthodox: "What the two of us have sworn in the name of Hashem-saying, 'Hashem shall be [a witness] between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring- shall be forever!'"

Doesn't that sound like a marriage? (of course I'm thinking outside the box)

Naughty boy! Get back in your box this instant! Gay people don't believe in the Lord! :p

that is sarcasm right?

This may seem wierd, but it also says after that verse:

Reform: "For we two have sworn to each other in the name of the Lord: 'May the Lord be [witness] between you and me, and between your offspring and mine, forever!'"

Orthodox: "What the two of us have sworn in the name of Hashem-saying, 'Hashem shall be [a witness] between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring- shall be forever!'"

Doesn't that sound like a marriage? (of course I'm thinking outside the box)

Good thought but I think not, because it says my offspring and your offfspring, not our offspring which is how I think children within a marriage would be held. Also if David was gay than their whole society wouldn`t have condemned it because no society condemns the entire lifestyle of their king and holds him up as an ideal like the Jews do.

In addition, the New Testament only refers to things in the Bible, non-canonical texts of the same time about the same thing like the gnostic gospels etc. are not part of the New Testament

Lots of this thread deals with the KJV of the Bible. The KJV is ( or was at one point) in the Guiness Book or World Records for the most translation errors in a single work.

Also much of the Bible-haters cite the turning of Mary Maagdalene in the prostitute as an example of women hating in the early church. However, she was never considered to be the prostitute until a pope in thee Middle Ages ( can't remmber his name) mentioned it in his Easter homily.This happened well after the making of the Bible so the two are unrelated.

that is sarcasm right?

Very much so.