[Lerkfish]

Hello there.

Before launching my diatribe against the spread of non-religion-induced moronism, I would like to say something to the people who have accused me of being intolerant and lacking compassion: Everyone has a talent. Mine is offending dim-witted sissies. Yours is ignoring the real world. Grow up.

Now here's what I think about non-religion:

Most people do not indulge in non-religious belief because it serves as an escapist fantasy (It doesn't fulfill that function very well, except for the lunatic fringe). They indulge in it because they have no moral identity of their own. Give someone without a moral identity non-religion, and what do you get? You get a zombie wearing a big cloak of non-doctrine.

Sometimes, the zombie (or his masters) may realise that the cloak doesn't quite protect him from the weather, so he patches something on top of it. Hence anti-Christianity, hence anti-Islam, hence all the various anti-cults, none of them adding the slightest shred of value to something that was originally designed as a mass controlling device. And no, I don't think much of anit-Hinduism, either. anti-Buddhism seems the least harmful philosophy of the lot but it's still redundant.

What good has anti-religion done for the human race? None.
What harm has it done? It has obstructed scientific and economic progress for millennia, it has generated unbridgeable divisions between people, it has been the cause for innumerable wars, it has amplified feelings of guilt and existentialist angst everywhere, it has in fact managed to cripple the imagination of billions. If it weren't for non-religion, this planet would likely be a paradise putting to shame any Utopia man has ever dreamt up.


--------
(This reversing of red rocket's post presented in the interest of balance)

[daimoni]

.

[Timo]

You get a zombie wearing a big cloak of non-doctrine.

When I was at university (in Finland, this particular iteration), we did some study about the Finnish Facsist movement of the 1930s: a small but powerful phenomena at the time. What was most interesting about it specifically and Fascism in general is the argument that it did not have a center: it was always anti- something: foriegners, gays, Catholics, or, of course, Jews.

The lesson I took from this is that to be anti-, to be cynical but pose as a realist, to be intolerant but pose as a scientist (or other true believer) was really quite dangerous. Irresponsible and dangerous.

Ideas have consequences, and people have responsibilities.

[daimoni]

.

[Timo]

Eh, I was mostly drinking beer and chasing ladies at the time.

Lerk: just wanted to say I'm behind you. Question: is the best way to manage the intolerance and belittling attitude of some chumps here to engage it head on? I remember when you "made your point", but did you chop one hyrda head off only to have two grow back?

Cycles of abuse have to have someone end them. Someone has to step off the merry-go-round and say "enough." When people agree to rational discussion and 86 the punk name-calling, thing go well enough, but...I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be damned grumpy if your energy and posts left because of some punk ass kids shooting their mouths off.

People post a lot of thoughtless slander here...my guess is that since their starting points are so different than yours there isn't much point to pretending to engage in rational discussion. In a forum world where people feel safe to be outlandish or outrageous, calm "boring" talk is always going to be the target of thoughtless one-liners.

Anyway, as with wrestling, just post "tag" and we'll give you a much needed break (unless, of course, you're energized by this).

[scaught]

Originally posted by Timo:


When I was at university (in Finland, this particular iteration), we did some study about the Finnish Facsist movement of the 1930s: a small but powerful phenomena at the time. What was most interesting about it specifically and Fascism in general is the argument that it did not have a center: it was always anti- something: foriegners, gays, Catholics, or, of course, Jews.

The lesson I took from this is that to be anti-, to be cynical but pose as a realist, to be intolerant but pose as a scientist (or other true believer) was really quite dangerous. Irresponsible and dangerous.

Ideas have consequences, and people have responsibilities.

:::::::STUPID FLAME BLOCK:::::::

unless you can compose a reply equal in weight and quality to this post, do us all a favor and shut the **** up.

well said, timo.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
Eh, I was mostly drinking beer and chasing ladies at the time.

Lerk: just wanted to say I'm behind you. Question: is the best way to manage the intolerance and belittling attitude of some chumps here to engage it head on? I remember when you "made your point", but did you chop one hyrda head off only to have two grow back?

Cycles of abuse have to have someone end them. Someone has to step off the merry-go-round and say "enough." When people agree to rational discussion and 86 the punk name-calling, thing go well enough, but...I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be damned grumpy if your energy and posts left because of some punk ass kids shooting their mouths off.

People post a lot of thoughtless slander here...my guess is that since their starting points are so different than yours there isn't much point to pretending to engage in rational discussion. In a forum world where people feel safe to be outlandish or outrageous, calm "boring" talk is always going to be the target of thoughtless one-liners.

Anyway, as with wrestling, just post "tag" and we'll give you a much needed break (unless, of course, you're energized by this).

tag!

please do jump in the ring.

I'm not really energized, mainly fed up (again).
Though I agree with you, I still find it interesting that the collective does not object to the original insults, only when they are returned in kind.

but, just to surprise me and make my day, you guys have taken this thread and add some very interesting thoughts...

I like the thought about whether spending your entire life on an anti platform is really all that useful in the end. It's how I feel about KKK folks, at the end of their lives, their entire focus has been hate and prejudice....not exactly how I'd like to be remembered.

[scaught]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I like the thought about whether spending your entire life on an anti platform is really all that useful in the end. It's how I feel about KKK folks, at the end of their lives, their entire focus has been hate and prejudice....not exactly how I'd like to be remembered.

i went through a time in my life when i had a touch of this "anti religious" running through me. i guess i grew up. maybe others will do the same?

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

tag!

please do jump in the ring.

Oops, didn't wait. Heh.

I'm not really energized, mainly fed up (again).
Though I agree with you, I still find it interesting that the collective does not object to the original insults, only when they are returned in kind.

[gentle prod]But do you not agree, sir, that we cannot say "collective" because this is precisely the kind of broad brush bigots use to spread intolerance? Lerk, we can specifically object to certain posts, and we might even posit there is a pattern of intolerance, but a "collective" is too much of the poison that others already spread. There is no choice but to be specific and see all posts (bad, good, otherwise) as arising from a specific instance.[/gentle prod]

but, just to surprise me and make my day, you guys have taken this thread and add some very interesting thoughts...

I like the thought about whether spending your entire life on an anti platform is really all that useful in the end. It's how I feel about KKK folks, at the end of their lives, their entire focus has been hate and prejudice....not exactly how I'd like to be remembered.

Not just how they are remembered: how it eats them up from the inside every single day while they are alive. If life is the journey, there's has been a sad, pathetic one, nearly deserving of pity. Can't quite bring myself up to the pity though, which means for me I have room to grow as a Christian.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
[gentle prod]But do you not agree, sir, that we cannot say "collective" because this is precisely the kind of broad brush bigots use to spread intolerance? Lerk, we can specifically object to certain posts, and we might even posit there is a pattern of intolerance, but a "collective" is too much of the poison that others already spread. There is no choice but to be specific and see all posts (bad, good, otherwise) as arising from a specific instance.[/gentle prod]

Excellent point, I agree, and somewhat in my defense, I was trying to be LESS inflammatory by saying "collective" vs. naming specific people, but I see that didn't work as planned. Therefore I will state there are a handful of people that I refer to, and not the entire forum. I could name them specifically, but I'll pass.
However, your gentle prod is well taken.

Originally posted by Timo:
Not just how they are remembered: how it eats them up from the inside every single day while they are alive. If life is the journey, there's has been a sad, pathetic one, nearly deserving of pity. Can't quite bring myself up to the pity though, which means for me I have room to grow as a Christian.

Absolutely. In a short story I wrote (but not yet published), I had one character tell another:

"Hate is the sword without a handle. It greater wounds the one who wields it. The only way to stop being wounded by it is to set it aside."

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Absolutely. In a short story I wrote (but not yet published), I had one character tell another:

"Hate is the sword without a handle. It greater wounds the one who wields it. The only way to stop being wounded by it is to set it aside."

Not really jumping in here (I feel that religion is a very personal matter that people have the absolute freedom to persue for their own peace of mind, end of story), but I just wanted to say that the above from your story is a great line, and holds more weight than some may get from it at first reading.

[Ca$h68]

Bahahahha Lerk this is the dumbest thing ever. What good has ANTI religon done?!?! Gee, stopped the persecution of thousands, seperated church and state, helped people realize things like ohhhh say EVOLUTION, the world isn't flat, why it rains, why people get sick, how medicine works, how ANYTHING works (instead of some religous mumbo jumbo).

This is without a doubt your dumbest easiest to completely destroy thread ever.

- Ca$h

[daimoni]

.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Bahahahha Lerk this is the dumbest thing ever. What good has ANTI religon done?!?! Gee, stopped the persecution of thousands, seperated church and state, helped people realize things like ohhhh say EVOLUTION, the world isn't flat, why it rains, why people get sick, how medicine works, how ANYTHING works (instead of some religous mumbo jumbo).

This is without a doubt your dumbest easiest to completely destroy thread ever.

- Ca$h

Oh the irony is dripping here. Someone get me a towel.

Good post lerk

[daimoni]

.

[mattsliva]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What good has anti-religion done for the human race? None.
What harm has it done? It has obstructed scientific and economic progress for millennia, it has generated unbridgeable divisions between people, it has been the cause for innumerable wars, it has amplified feelings of guilt and existentialist angst everywhere, it has in fact managed to cripple the imagination of billions. If it weren't for non-religion, this planet would likely be a paradise putting to shame any Utopia man has ever dreamt up.

what are you talking about? religion does all of those things.

obstructed scientific and economic progress? if anything, the church is the reason for that.

generated unbridgeable divisions between people? ok, so now you guys like jews, blacks, ect.. right.

cause for innumerable war? the united states is in a war right now because of a god. the crusades?!?! look at midieval europe!

cripple imagination?! what do you guys need to imagine for? you have the bible to give you all the answers you need. no thinking on your part.

all the previous posts are opinions, not facts. go on and HATE somemore, just like a lot of you bible humpers. (by a lot i do not mean all, i know a lot of cool guys who love God, but don't hate)

Peace

[Timo]

I want to book a vaction to this land called "Either/or."

I want to take a trip to this land called "Posited, not demonstrated, causality." I want to see what color the clouds are in that sky.

I want to hang out in the world of "Specious-example-as-stand-in-for-everything." Sounds like easy street.


No. Wait. Get me the **** out of that place.

[Timo]

Perhaps the original ironic intent of the first post eluded you. Nevertheless, you're a great example of someone shooting his mouth off.

Originally posted by mattsliva:

what are you talking about? religion does all of those things.

Demonstrate, please. Not assert.

obstructed scientific and economic progress? if anything, the church is the reason for that.

1. "Progess" needs to be defined. 2. The Church is not a single entity. 3. If any church had that kind of power, you can bet they'd use it. It's WAAY more complicated than you imagine.

generated unbridgeable divisions between people? ok, so now you guys like jews, blacks, ect.. right.

Nice slander. Remind me again who "us guys" are? Are you saying the blacks in my church are posers? Are you saying the Jews at my wedding were not invited? Fu�k you.

cause for innumerable war? the united states is in a war right now because of a god. the crusades?!?! look at midieval europe!

Look at a dictionary. And if you think we're at war because of a god, you got an interesting idea of what causes what.

cripple imagination?! what do you guys need to imagine for? you have the bible to give you all the answers you need. no thinking on your part.

Fu�k you and your fu�king broad brush.

all the previous posts are opinions, not facts. go on and HATE somemore, just like a lot of you bible humpers. (by a lot i do not mean all, i know a lot of cool guys who love God, but don't hate)

You walk in here, think you know the difference between opinion and fact, don't bother to learn what Lerk is posting and for what reason, and then call us Bible Humpers. I say, fu�k off: that's all the courtesy you've earned, punk.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
"Hate is the sword without a handle. It greater wounds the one who wields it. The only way to stop being wounded by it is to set it aside."

Interesting analogy; and one could also say that the sword is bended like a boomerang - and thus you should "gracefully" set it aside without throwing it away (without "removing" hate, that is: it would return, anyway)!

[daimoni]

.

[Agent69]

How much chaos and strife how been caused by people like you trying to force your beliefs and values on others? How many have died in the eternal battle of "My all-seeing invisible man is better than your all-seeing invisible man"?

Sorry, religion sucks.

[Rebel Without a Clue]

Originally posted by mattsliva:


what are you talking about? religion does all of those things.

obstructed scientific and economic progress? if anything, the church is the reason for that.

generated unbridgeable divisions between people? ok, so now you guys like jews, blacks, ect.. right.

cause for innumerable war? the united states is in a war right now because of a god. the crusades?!?! look at midieval europe!

cripple imagination?! what do you guys need to imagine for? you have the bible to give you all the answers you need. no thinking on your part.

all the previous posts are opinions, not facts. go on and HATE somemore, just like a lot of you bible humpers. (by a lot i do not mean all, i know a lot of cool guys who love God, but don't hate)

Peace

*cough*

If you looked at the first post in a previous, but very similiarly named thread, you'd find that it's identical, except that Lerk substituted "religion" and "religious" with "anti-religion" and "anti-reoligious" and so on. You see, this is a very thinly veiled satricial jab at the people posting threads with an anti-religious nature (anti-evangilists?).

I'm kinda glad Lerk made this thread. I'm more of the opinion that those threads aren't really worth responding to, because no one listens anyway and I really don't have the time/interest to form a well thought out and well written argument myself. Besides, eventually someone was bound to start shoving back what they'd been taking. I'm just glad it was Lerk and Timo.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Agent69:
How much chaos and strife how been caused by people like you trying to force your beliefs and values on others? How many have died in the eternal battle of "My all-seeing invisible man is better than your all-seeing invisible man"?

Sorry, religion sucks.

Nice theory, but the only people I see here causing such hate and throwing about such nastiness are those who, like you, so passionatly hate (I'd add religion but I think I can end the sentence there). Lerk, myself and many others are believers and we've had some good conversations here with people willing to listen and be heard. When enough "religion sucks" talk has been built up and one of us says something back foul is called by the very people who have been saying "religion sucks". It's like claiming rocks start fires all by themselves, then gathering the kindling and banging two stones together to prove your point.

[Ca$h68]

Me too. It proves they can't rationally attack the anti-religous people around here; it's impossible.

The church has: (completely unproven and somewhat illogical) god,afterlife,good/bad defined as god feels fit

Anti Christians have: Logic. Reason. Rational thinking. Proof. (more than Christians anyway).

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Agent69:
How much chaos and strife how been caused by people like you trying to force your beliefs and values on others? How many have died in the eternal battle of "My all-seeing invisible man is better than your all-seeing invisible man"?

Sorry, religion sucks.

I think your ending statement should be "Sorry, people suck."

Religion cannot do these things.

BTW Lerk wasn't pushing anything. Stop being so insecure.

[bewebste]

It seems that those who are against religion (by religion, I assume we're only talking about organized religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) don't like it because they don't like the story is has to tell about the world and their place in it. Unfortunately, there isn't really a different, coherent story that is widely known that those people can follow instead of the one(s) told by religion, so "anti-religion" is the best that they can do. If a revolt is led against a system but there is nothing valid with which to replace it, the revolt will result in no real change taking place.

[driven]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Bahahahha Lerk this is the dumbest thing ever. What good has ANTI religon done?!?! Gee, stopped the persecution of thousands, seperated church and state, helped people realize things like ohhhh say EVOLUTION, the world isn't flat, why it rains, why people get sick, how medicine works, how ANYTHING works (instead of some religous mumbo jumbo).

This is without a doubt your dumbest easiest to completely destroy thread ever.

- Ca$h

NO ... all those things were done with tolerance (Which is a beautiful thing in and of itself.) The anti-whatever crowd is *AS MUCH RESPONSIBLE* for those evils as are the religous fanatics and fundamentalists.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
[B]Me too. It proves they can't rationally attack the anti-religous people around here; it's impossible.

Like your posts are rational? This wasn't a attack Cash. Think about it.

The church has: (completely unproven and somewhat illogical) god,afterlife,good/bad defined as god feels fit

Anti Christians have: Logic. Reason. Rational thinking. Proof. (more than Christians anyway).

- Ca$h

That is subjective. What you see is "rational" One might see as foolish.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bewebste:
It seems that those who are against religion (by religion, I assume we're only talking about organized religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) don't like it because they don't like the story is has to tell about the world and their place in it. Unfortunately, there isn't really a different, coherent story that is widely known that those people can follow instead of the one(s) told by religion, so "anti-religion" is the best that they can do. If a revolt is led against a system but there is nothing valid with which to replace it, the revolt will result in no real change taking place.

IMHO Christianity isn't so much a religion, as it is a way of life. "religion" in itself is a man made thing, esp organized religion, with it's different denominations, which is to further seperate it's people. Christianity however was started by God, sending his son to death on the cross.

[Lerkfish]

LOL! well, if nothing else, this thread demonstrates how irony is lost on some people.

[Ca$h68]

It also demonstrates the fact that I can RATIONALLY defend why I dislike and don't believe Christianity, but in the end your ultimate justification is "I just do" or "just because".

- Ca$h

[Rebel Without a Clue]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Me too. It proves they can't rationally attack the anti-religous people around here; it's impossible.

The church has: (completely unproven and somewhat illogical) god,afterlife,good/bad defined as god feels fit

Anti Christians have: Logic. Reason. Rational thinking. Proof. (more than Christians anyway).

- Ca$h

Ca$h, your reasoning is more simplistic than mine is, and I am very much an idealist. To imply that religion is devoid of logic, reason and rational thinking only goes to show your inexperience with the subject matter. Religion may begin from a different point, but I've met many more than one person who has a better grasp on logic, reason, and rational reasoning than you and still have a religious faith of some sort.

You want proof of God? Then read Aquanis. He wrote the Summa Theologica for beginning philosophy students of his time. And since that was so long ago and an entry level book to boot, that must mean it's an easy read, right?

But, of course, you not going to read it, you're not even going to try, because you're happy sitting there with your own irrational beliefs too obsessed with hating religion to read anything about it.

fvck off, Ca$h.

[daimoni]

.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
It also demonstrates the fact that I can RATIONALLY defend why I dislike and don't believe Christianity, but in the end your ultimate justification is "I just do" or "just because".

- Ca$h

I have yet to see a rational defense of whatever you believe Cash.

Irony Lerk? ... blame Alanis.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! well, if nothing else, this thread demonstrates how irony is lost on some people.

I saw that Heh

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
It also demonstrates the fact that I can RATIONALLY defend why I dislike and don't believe Christianity,

You call your un-educated tripe rational?

but in the end your ultimate justification is "I just do" or "just because".

- Ca$h

I beleive I gave more reasons than that. You must have missed that one huh.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by daimoni:




I wonder what Christ would've said about that?

Christ dying for our sins created Christianity. What do you mean? He came here to die for our sins, and show us the way. Christianity is a way of life.
Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc are "religions" or denominations of Christianity.

[Ca$h68]

I.) SELECTIVENESS FROM THE BIBLE:

According to our current culture, there are certain things in the bible that would be considered completely socially unacceptable today. My discomfort with mainstream Christianity is that people seem to gloss over these uncomfortable passages and focus only upon the good ones, which they want to emphasize. Before I go further, I will cite an example from each major category of my complaint : Slavery, Brutality, Sexism, Intolerance, and Contradictions (quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible) Keep in mind, unless you agree with every wicked piece of the text, you advocate selectiveness from the bible:

Note with the passage Matthew 5:17 Jesus quotes, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." So it is an invalid argument to assert that the new testament rejects the harshness of everything depicted in the old.

1.) Slavery:
Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
What did we learn?: It's okay to treat your fellow human beings like savage animals if they are your slaves-furthermore it's alright to beat them to a bloody pulp, as long as they don't die. The bible supports ownership of human life and actively endorses cruelty upon it with this passage.

2.) Brutality:
Numbers 16:41-50 ; God kills 250 people because Korah challenges Moses' leadership. Then, when the rest of the travelers languishing in the desert complain that the lord has killed his own people, he sends down a plague ; "But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah." (Numbers 16:49)
What did we learn?: God kills anyone with the nerve to exert their own free-will and dissent against his unjust conduct. Not just that, but wholesale slaughter. This kind of Stalinism is regarded as evil on Earth. How is it right for a divine creator to get away with such atrocities? Even if you want to argue that those people were evil and deserved to be destroyed, you still are forced to concede that God gave them no chance to change their minds or see his viewpoint; he didn't argue with them and say, "Hey, you're missing the point," he simply destroys them for using their own power of free-will to make distinctions and choose based on the evidence in front of them.

3.) Sexism:
"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) and "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives" (1 Peter 3:1)
What did we learn?: next time you go to church, you'd better keep your trap shut, and when you find a guy who you want to marry, you have to sacrifice every part of you to his will. If he wants you to give up everything you love about life, you have to do it.

4.) Intolerance:
Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned"
What did we learn?: God won't allow any of those dirty Buddhists, or those awful Muslims into paradise. Just because you live your life according to the basic principles of coexistence and even if you live a life of fruitfulness and great accomplishment, that's not enough; you have to administer faith in some guy, even if you have no rational evidence for it or logical proof. By that rationale, the prerequisite for salvation is blindness.

5.) Contradictions:
Hmm, maybe that quotation by Mark wasn't right after all... Isn't it true that Jeremiah 17:10 says "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." So maybe it IS good enough simply to live your life the best you can and be a good person. Then again, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6 or if you don't like that one, how about this one : "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 10:33) Oh wait, Matthew also said, "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS." (Matthew 16:27) Damn dude, make up your mind.
What did we learn?: Apparently, nothing.

Now at this point, even IF you can magically explain away all the awful things I just wrote down, you are still stuck with a book that teaches people how to be great based on what NOT to do. So much is conveyed by negative example. Wouldn't it be better to have a book that depicted how to be good, instead of sinning and wrong, so that people might learn by example how to be great? Christianity shows kids a book of rape, murder, pillage, and all other varieties of brutality and indecency with the caption "Here's what NOT to do." That's not a good way of teaching someone how to live his or her life.

These examples did not take long to find. I could easily find more. The point is this: YES, there are good things in the bible, and yes, in some parts, it portrays good example and a great way to lead your life. We all know this. But those parts are equal in consequence and in validity to all the parts that are sick and wrong. You can't tear pages out of this book and still call it the word of God, or even a history lesson, or even a path to follow. Biblical times were very different than today's times but do personal opinions and social norms allow us to discredit certain passages of the bible because they simply are not convenient or do not fit in with the morals we hold today? In my view, absolutely not.

Saying you are Christian, and sorting through the bible, picking out only the passages which are convenient for you to use is like saying that tater-tot casserole is your favorite food, but whenever you eat it, you pick out everything except the tater-tots themselves. Obviously you do not like tater-tot casserole at all-you like just tater-tots only. So why claim that you like the whole thing. Christian morals are great. I embrace Christian morals, but guess what? Those two words are an oxymoron-MORALS are a concept that is independent of all religion. Are all atheists evil and sick people? No, there have been a great number of them who have made fascinating and wonderful contributions to our world. So eat your tater-tots, and forget the casserole. You don't need it. Just like you don't need a book full of obscenity and injustice to advocate the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity, and the beauty of all that we can achieve together and the love we are capable of, given freedom to do so.


II.) EXCLUSIVE SALVATION

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6

There have been about 100 billion human births since modern Homo sapiens first appeared. The people who didn't believe in whichever god it is you want to advocate are in the company of about 96 billion others. Does it really make sense that a deity would remain so elusive to so many? If you are compelled to adhere to a belief that would admonish honest inquiry or if you worship a god that would eternally punish those who trust Logic and Reason over the claims of a supposed revealed truth, then it will be a hollow paradise indeed that awaits if you happen to be correct.

If the gospel according to John is correct, this says in BLACK and WHITE, plain language, that this omniscient god would have created 96 billion souls, people with families, feelings, dreams, desires, lives, hopes, and beliefs of their own� whole entire races and generations, only to be deliberately condemned to eternal suffering and damnation. He created these people only so that they could exist forever in agony. THINK: What separates you from them? What makes you think you're better? Every person who honestly and decently fought to live their life by the universal code of ethics but who happened to not admonish praise to a MAN, a MAN, named Jesus of Nazareth, is going to burn forever. The Christian belief says this. Unarguably. Indisputably. This belief says that god is the ultimate good, yet somehow he is allowed to commit the greatest atrocity ever imaginable to untold masses of our own flesh and blood without question, without dissent. On Earth, if a government leader committed such crimes against humanity, it would be called genocide. Holocaust. How can anyone hold such a double standard against their own morality and the morality of their god? How can anyone turn their eyes away from this sickening statement and be blinded to the depravity to which their belief binds them? How can the faculty of Reason not disgorge anyone and everyone from this, the most extreme form of contradictory belief?

As a quick review, I have stated that it is invalid to pick and choose passages from the bible at random to advocate modern ideals from an archaic volume. That said, I cannot and I refuse to believe in any deity that would send 96% of the world's population into hell on no fault of their own, because many of these people would have had NO chance to be Christian or in many cases, not even EXPOSED to Christianity. If this IS the case, than I would rather burn in hell with my fellow human beings than go to heaven with such an evil, sadistic deity as my lord.

[Zimphire]

Wow not only can Ca$H write his own tripe, he can copy/paste tripe too.

And Ca$H says Christians are the ones that don't think for themselves.

<edit> Cash deleted the tripe <edit>

[Adam Betts]

Discuss.

I'm not trying to start a war or something. I just find this very interesting

[Ca$h68]

III.) ADVOCATION OF IRRESPONSIBILITY

Before I am able to elaborate on this point, I must first state that the goal of all human existence is to meaningfully accomplish something within our lifetimes. I think this is a pretty ubiquitous idea, and something that all people can agree on. It says; no matter how great or how modest, the purpose of you being alive was for you to DO something. In other words, to get something practical done. In the words I like to use, to ACCOMPLISH something. If you don't get anything meaningful done in the time that you are alive for, you might as well not have been alive. Therefore, to BUILD and to ACCOMPLISH are our duties and our mission in life, no matter how great or modest our results may be. So where does this idea fit in, down inside god's great ant farm?

FREE WILL is the ability that allows us to accomplish. Free will is the part of us that allows the human brain to discern right from wrong, good from bad, major from minor, small from large, etc, etc. You can't do anything if you can't make a decision, and the ability to discern is central to the process of doing so. So free will allows you to do stuff. And with your free will you set out to complete your mission, ACCOMPLISHMENT.

A.) INTRINSIC HUMAN WORTHLESSNESS
Something that bothers me about theism, specifically Christianity, for some reason, is the attitude that humans are foolish, petty creatures who must grovel daily to apologize for merely existing. Underlying the root of many of these issues to me is the idea of responsibility. When a parent has a child, he or she is responsible for that child, until it turns a certain age, and is declared independent. Basically what this tries to insure is that this new person has adequate knowledge to go out and tackle the world around itself. This says it's the parents' responsibility to insure the child's survival until a point.

I've been apologizing my whole life to a mystical god who curses me for my mere existence, and whom I am told I cannot possibly hope to understand. Original sin insures that I am born worthless and awful and my only chance at salvation is to become a beggar for everything beyond my grasp. I've known too many people whose only restraint from greatness is the belief that they lack any real worth.

Posit: I am wrong and bad, by nature.
Conclusion: I need something else to help me be right and good.

No.

B.) INABILITY TO ACHIEVE
Consider this: god is a sand-bucket, and life is a beach. Now if god is the source of everything good in you life, that means the sand-bucket is the tool you use to build castles on the beach. By this logic, no castle, no matter how great or modest, can ever be your own achievement. YOU can build nothing. god can claim responsibility for any amount of castles, or lack thereof, but you cannot. YOU, personally, cannot achieve. It is impossible under the belief that god is your ability to survive. If I have no responsibility of my own, how can I ever build anything?

This is what really bothers me about theism: the belief that you owe everything to god, and everything you do is a tribute to him. If at the end of the day, god gets all the credit for everything, what was the point of making humans, to do the work for him? He could've just as easily created cars and skyscrapers himself without the struggle of human knowledge and all the suffering that has earned us these things in our history.

When human beings obtained free will, we turned metaphorically 21 with the ability to make conscious decisions and shape our own lives. At this point, in my book, there's a word, which describes that; responsibility. So we built the cars and the skyscrapers with our own free will, because we wanted to. To me, that means we're responsible for them.

C.) RELIGION CREATES MORALITY
Another facet of the denying-responsibility ideal is this: The unspoken reason why humans need some god to be moral is that they are not capable of creating their own social rules and hence require an eternal rule-giver with accompanying eternal rewards and eternal punishments. How can a theist possibly claim this when even chimpanzees and other primates are clearly capable of creating social rules?

When I was talking to Josh, I asked him, "Okay, so say tomorrow I wake up and decide to be an atheist. Do you think the next thing I'm going to do is rob a store?" And he could not answer me. That was both a shocking and disheartening reaction. I explained morality to him this way: "People should not and do not need a spiritual gun hovering over their heads. If I go into a store, I'm not going to shoplift. And that has nothing to do with the fact that there is video cameras watching me, or there isn't video cameras watching me. Either way, I'm going to do the same thing, which is not steal, because I know that is the right thing to do. In the same fashion, I'm going to behave rationally with regards to the people around me, I'm going to obey the golden rule, and the principle of reciprocity simply because that is how I expect other people to treat me. This is what separates an anarchist from an atheist."

Wouldn't it be better if the world could go around being fair and kind to each other simply for the sake of these ideas alone? Don't you question someone's motivation if they have damnation hanging over their head? With that threat against them, no amount of kindness or good act is ever the result of their own kind soul, it's only an effort to evade eternal punishment. Once again, irresponsibility-this time for being good.

D.) IRRESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL GUILT
Jesus forgives all sins: by that rationale, you're safer locked in a room full of atheists living by the golden rule with butcher knives than Christians with the bible in their hands. By this rationale, I can do anything I want. I can go out tonight and sodomize a baby, kill a family in the middle of dinner, burn down a small business, burn down the library, the art museum, burn down my own family's house and all of my relatives and defile myself in the ashes of the dead, and then wake up tomorrow a born-again and be saved. If that's what you claim, you have to be prepared to take it to that extreme. And that I cannot do. If there's a god, if there's an afterlife, Adolf Hitler is burning in hell. You do know that he was born a Christian too? No savior can save that man. Jesus died on a cross, for the sole sake of all humanity's sins. That guy is seriously going to heaven like nobody's business if god is how the Bible depicts him. But Hitler, and every serial killer, and every unforgivable sinner like them, what did THEY do? They did nothing to save themselves. They did everything possible to condemn themselves to eternal damnation. How would you feel running into a person like that in paradise. Not so perfect anymore. Forgiveness exists, yes. And if the debt can be repaid, then that person can be absolved of that sin by paying it back-the only fair, just way. But when the damage is too much to ever repair, forget it. I don't understand how anyone could completely forsake the ideal of justice in place of blind forgiveness. This time around Christianity makes you irresponsible for any evil you can do.

So where does this leave us? Let's see, you can't accomplish anything of your own accord, you can't do any genuine good because you're only trying to escape damnation, and you can't do any evil really either, because Jesus forgives. Why even bother being alive then if you have absolutely zero responsibility? To glorify god?

[Ca$h68]

E.) THE PINNACLE OF USELESSNESS
Imagine if there was a man who had two sons. The first son lived at home his whole life and didn't try to venture out into the world past what he already knew, but spent all of his time clumsily trying to make his father happy, and lived off of his father's means. The second son traveled out into the world to make his own fortune and become independently self-sufficient, building a large amount of knowledge, experience, and making his own living while pushing his own way to the top. The first son spent a great amount of time telling his father how much he admired him and how great he was, making drawings, and building little trinkets to offer to him. The second son came home once and a while and treated his father with respect, but for the most part did his own thing and lived by his own means. Which son would this father admire most and be more proud of? That is how I regard worship.

Here's an alternate version:
When I see a great sunset, I never ever say, "wow, thank you god for this wonderful sunset." And here's why: When you go into an art museum, what makes a good painting? This sunset is gorgeous because it intrinsically IS gorgeous. A great painting is not made because the name Picasso is scrawled in the corner. I saw some paintings in New York that were done by Van Gogh which I thought were pointless and not worth looking at. Then there was Starry Night. I stared at it for about an entire half-hour, trying from every angle to pick up every new nuance and subtlety that eluded my gaze in any moment preceding the current. A sunset is Red and Orange and Blue in different parts. It doesn't say "god" on it anywhere, but maybe if I could flip it over, it would say that on the back. But that doesn't matter. My biggest compliment to Van Gogh was staring at his painting for half an hour and not wanting to leave even then; it wasn't reading a big book about him or talking to my friends about how Awesome He is. My biggest compliment to god is looking at the sunset and appreciating it for exactly what it is without reference to its origin, not running down to church and reciting a dozen "our fathers." Let me put it this way: If I make a beautiful piece of music, I don't want everyone to talk about how great it is; I want them to LISTEN to it! So I'm not going to thank god. At all, or for anything. But I'm going to appreciate the living hell out of this world and all that it has to offer me. And isn't that the biggest thanks of all? Seeing something untainted for what it IS, and loving it for THAT reason?

I believe that man can be good and accomplish great things. I believe this is our charge and our duty here on Earth. I believe that if there is a God out there, it is an utterly worthless gesture to sit in a church and talk about how great he is all day. The best form of gratitude, if you want to tell your creator "Thank you for my existence," is to MAKE SOMETHING of your life, to ACCOMPLISH and to rise above the difficulty that binds you. I believe that this is what we are meant to do; to BUILD--whatever that means in the scope of each of our individual lives. In this fashion, I almost don't think it matters whether there is a God or not. You honor yourself and you honor him by doing the same thing.

I should note, I know that this part is not true of all Christians, but there are certainly many that are guilty of this.

F.) THE ABOLISHION OF FREE WILL AND THE FOREFITURE OF LIFE
Another thing that bothers me is the idea that god "guides" you life and that the decisions you make are influenced by his command, therefore you are a puppet and have no control of your own if god is the one pulling the strings.

It pains me greatly to see someone great deny their own strength� deny their own potential. By letting god take responsibility for us, we sacrifice our own free will to make decisions. At the root of the ability to think is free will. Let me again restate it: the greatest cause of suffering and pain in this world is people refusing to think. Humans are capable of brilliant, incredible acts. Why condemn ourselves to any less than our full potential by denying the greatness of which we are capable. "ONLY human," is a wretched excuse for ineptitude and a contradictory statement in itself. That self-fulfilling prophecy of worthlessness and inability to achieve will destroy us all if we let it.

The conclusion this leads me to, and which I think some people will particularly disagree with, is that Christianity wants to advocate spiritual addiction to relieve them of the burden of responsibility for their own lives and actions. That kind of dependence is evil, no matter what form of addiction it is. If I was shooting heroin, I think you'd be pretty worried about that kind of an addiction because it's destroying my body and eventually it would kill me. So then, why is it not considered unacceptable when people become so intensely religious that they hold any responsibility for themselves and they grow to depend on god as the source of everything meaningful and good in their life? This is just another way of killing yourself.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
I
According to our current culture, there are certain things in the bible that would be considered completely socially unacceptable today.

And the Bible says as time goes on, Man will move away from Godly values and create their own. Not surprising. I mean the Bible practically gives you this information.

My discomfort with mainstream Christianity is that people seem to gloss over these uncomfortable passages and focus only upon the good ones, which they want to emphasize.

*shrug* Not the ones I know, but ok. You may be talking about the "play" christians

Before I go further, I will cite an example from each major category of my complaint : Slavery, Brutality, Sexism, Intolerance, and Contradictions (quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible) Keep in mind, unless you agree with every wicked piece of the text, you advocate selectiveness from the bible:

Note with the passage Matthew 5:17 Jesus quotes, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." So it is an invalid argument to assert that the new testament rejects the harshness of everything depicted in the old.

And Jesus is talking about the spiritual laws, not the ritual or sacrificial laws. Which he came to repalce.

That is why when people write these things out of ingorance (the Bible talks about them as well too) I like to laugh at them.

BTW Ca$H why don't you think for yourself instead of letting others think for you?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


I have yet to see a rational defense of whatever you believe Cash.

Irony Lerk? ... blame Alanis.

LOL! ok, maybe irony is the wrong word...parody?

but, even so, an interesting definition of irony from www.dictionary.com

irony
n 1: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid" [syn: sarcasm, satire, caustic remark] 2: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" 3: a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs


I'm mainly talking about how "ironic" it is for cash to not only decry a thread against those against religions, after he has personally started a dozen against religion (one kind of irony, or at least hypocrisy perhaps) but that he is too obtuse to recognize it as a parody of another anti-religion thread, word for word, only replacing "religion" with "anti-religion".
Its interesting how we can have dozens of anti-religion threads, but as soon as you reflect back to them EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN word for word, they pick apart the argument...not realizing they're picking apart their own arguments! That's the funniest part of this whole thing.

Cash said: Bahahahha Lerk this is the dumbest thing ever. What good has ANTI religon done?!?! Gee, stopped the persecution of thousands, seperated church and state, helped people realize things like ohhhh say EVOLUTION, the world isn't flat, why it rains, why people get sick, how medicine works, how ANYTHING works (instead of some religous mumbo jumbo).

This is without a doubt your dumbest easiest to completely destroy thread ever

[Ca$h68]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW Ca$H why don't you think for yourself instead of letting others think for you?

too easy.

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

What I also find funny is, If I was to post Biblical passages in this forum to "prove" my point, I would be told I was evangelizing. And that The Bible is a just a opinio. But yet Ca$H probably feels by posting such uneducated tripe as he has, he has somehow proved somthing.

The only thing you have proven Cash is, that you can find all kinds of FUD online, and your ability to copy and paste, and not use your own words.

Because your arguements usually suck.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:


too easy.

- Ca$h

I agree. It was.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:


Discuss.

I'm not trying to start a war or something. I just find this very interesting

Heh Did you just make those up? I am sure there are far less people that believe than that. And sadly it's only going to grow.

[cjrivera]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:


Discuss.

I'm not trying to start a war or something. I just find this very interesting

Red = Non KKK members
Blue = KKK members

Red = Non-homicidal maniacs
Blue = Homicidal maniacs


You can use statistics and graphs to show anything

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cjrivera:


Red = Non KKK members
Blue = KKK members

Red = Non-homicidal maniacs
Blue = Homicidal maniacs


You can use statistics and graphs to show anything

Or

Red: People who ramble on how Christianity is bad, but have really no clue what it's about.

Blue: People who do.