# Is Christianity Safe?



## PadawanBater (Dec 4, 2009)

This thread is going to be used to show some of the self proclaimed "conservatives", Christians and other believers in general that religion... specifically Christianity, has blood on it's hands.

If you're going to try to refute anything I say, I ask that you do it with sound logic and reasoning. Tell me where I'm wrong, point it out. Don't just come with insults or attacks. It doesn't strengthen your position, it infact weakens it. 

So lets get started.

I am personally of the opinion that Christianity and Islam are the two most dangerous religions humanity practices. One because of the actual doctrine and two because of how many believers of each faith there are. There are plenty of other threads that point out the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, so to save time, I'm going to focus only on Christianity. 

There is bloodshed all throughout the Bible, with God personally killing (or having killed) an estimated 2,391,421 people. 

Detailed list - http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

...but dismissing all the deaths, lets focus on the other issue, and in my opinion, the more important one, that indirectly shapes the world we live in today. The indoctrination aspect. This is the most dangerous thing about organized religion. Believers essentially force children to believe or, in most cases, be cast out or shunned from their community. This has been happening since the beginning. It's a mellenia old game of telephone, except in this game, nobody knows they're playing. Indoctrination is one of the hardest forces to escape from, harder than addiction. Those of us lucky enough to live in somewhat secular households while we were growing up witnessed it with our own eyes, and those of us smart enough to keep them open realized it's bullshit. So those kids grow up with the fear of hell ingrained in their minds, influencing every thought that passes through it and every decision they make. Believers simply don't understand morality doesn't come from the Bible and it doesn't come from Christianity, it comes from within. Politicians gain and control power by manipulating these same people, telling them exactly what they want to hear while not straying too far from their most prescious beliefs, those that they hold so dearly nothing will change them, not even reality. These politicians approve and pass legislation that affects us all based on their personal religious beliefs. Their beliefs indirectly affect foreign policy, which consequently lead to indirect deaths. 

-most believers cannot list all ten commandments, yet follow some of them (the ones they hear repeated in the mainstream) wholeheartedly, without question

-almost every single believers interpretation of heaven, hell, God, Satan, angels, demons, the soul, etc. are different

-there are over 30,000 different sects of Christianity (all of them are right?)


So, do you think Christianity is completely safe, totally harmless and there's absolutely nothing wrong with practicing it, or do you think it's dangerous, it can be interpreted in many ways that can lead to violence, even today?


----------



## Yeah (Dec 4, 2009)

Didn't read the whole post as I am tired of reading after reading the bullshit in that ft. hood thread and the dude sucking the long, wart covered dick of fox news and trying to infect the rest of us.

Anyway, yes, christianity is dangerous. Only because it gives power to the high ranking members of the church. Any formal religion with a structure like an army is dangerous, because it gives them the power to inflict their views on others. "Do this or God will punish you! You will burn in HELL!" Sounds like brainwashing to me.

I think there is a higher power or "God" if you will. But I believe he would be more compassionate and less vengeful than the church makes him out to be. After all his son was Jesus and I don't remember Jesus smiting people for being sinners.


----------



## tebor (Dec 4, 2009)

There is no harm in practicing any religion unless it involves human sacrifice.
I think its not my business what somebody elses religious beliefs are.
If they dont fuck with me I wont fuck with them, I could care less what people believe.
I'm just grateful I live in a society where I can believe whatever I want.


The christians founded this country. I know they can be annoying, but give them a break.
At least they're not trying to see if you can float. or burning non-believers at the stake.
They have come a long way.

And between Christianity and islam, Christianity is the lesser of the 2 evils.
Thank god for the crusades.


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 4, 2009)

tebor said:


> There is no harm in practicing any religion unless it involves human sacrifice.
> I think its not my business what somebody elses religious beliefs are.
> If they dont fuck with me I wont fuck with them, I could care less what people believe.
> I'm just grateful I live in a society where I can believe whatever I want.
> ...


Great post tebor! This is a great example of the kind of post I'm looking for, totally civil and to the point, exactly stating your position. Damn, refreshing, thank you for that!

To your first point. I pretty much agree with you for the most part. I don't really care what anyone believes to be honest, that's life right, everyone is just as able to figure it out for themselves as the next guy. But after giving it a lot of thought, I've concluded that when it comes down to advancing humanity and positively progressing, making smart decisions about the environment, smart decisions about our future as a species, thinking about the bigger picture, the planet and humanity at large and getting away from the individual greedy aspect of the majority of the population, the beliefs people hold are an obstacle doing nothing but holding all these goals we all collectively need to get accomplished back. They're holding up progress. How can we reflect on ourselves as a species and be content with leaving the place worse off than when we got here for the next generations? Honestly, I think that's a tragedy.


----------



## fulbright (Dec 4, 2009)

I vote that Christianity is dangerous. Not because I believe there is imminent death at their hands or that they'll physically harm me in any way, but because their ideologies are harmful.

It's a religion that allows and encourages weakness. It's a religion that preaches a hatred for life and man. And things that are integral parts of life are declared sins.

In my mind, Christianity (and Islam) are standing in the way of the evolution of Man.


----------



## iNVESTIGATE (Dec 4, 2009)

lol.. you reminded me of what addicts always come to say when attempting to help themselves. "Admitting that there is a problem is the first step to a solution." 

Looks as if the Church needs to step forward with a little statement parallel to that one haha.. yah right!



But as far as rights go and while personal beliefs are a factor. It goes without saying that when some one decides to lay down their foundational beliefs and play the faith card. They are subjugating themselves to the unjustification of thought. Critical and analytical thought process is what differs us from the other species. And in some circles of discourse unjustified beliefs is considered lunacy. But the thing that worries me most of all would be the fact that more and more academics are being intertwinded with religious ideals. Succumbing the cold-hard facts of modern science to the whim of a 'miracle'. Taking away all of the fun and excitement out of exploring and discovering new worlds and possibilities with our intellect. And not reducing it to our correct choice of piety.

A hierachical system of beliefs is a dangerous one. And the superiority that one intercepts and follows it is just as annoying. Fuck religion.


----------



## Vindicated (Dec 5, 2009)

lol, this is probably a shocker to anyone who has followed my posts. But I *don't* think Christianity is dangerous. In fact, I think more people should read the Bible. I think it's this lack of reading or just skipping over all that confusing stuff and picking bits and pieces is what's really dangerous. Reading a book is never a bad thing, especially if that book inspires you or makes you a better person. I'm not a believer, but I love a good story. Romeo and Juliet, The story of Troy, The story of Moses ordering the killing of babies (http://www.reasonworks.com/Audio/BS/BSPart1A.mp3); all of these stories should be in everyone's personal library. People just need to actually read it and god willing (pun intended) not accept it as Dogma. But there is so many damn pages (and they're really thin pages with tiny font) that a lot of us just say fuck it, and go to church to get the Idiots Guide version. 

I think what we really have is a case of people in power finding creating ways of getting us into a war. Hell, I'm sure after a good vape session I could use Dr. Suse's Green Eggs and Ham to justify the killing of kittens. The Bible just happens to give presidents & kings a cleaver line or two to use in their speeches. You want to know what's really dangerous? Nukes, guns, and midgets with knives.


----------



## undertheice (Dec 5, 2009)

it's sad but true, the greatest threat to world peace is knife wielding midgets. they steal into your house at night on those crafty little feet, slicing open milk cartons and rending draperies. they are everywhere, but they remain unseen. this is the new enemy of the twenty-first century.


----------



## fish601 (Dec 5, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> > -almost every single believers interpretation of heaven, hell, God, Satan, angels, demons, the soul, etc. are different
> 
> 
> almost every single believers.... wow thats alot how many have you ask?
> ...


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 5, 2009)

fish601 said:


> 30.000 denominations  thats alot or did you use the same caclculator you used for "every single believer" .....


Just a quick bit of looking and you would have found this to be about right fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

actually wiki says its more like 38000 denominations


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 5, 2009)

fish601 said:


> All christians will agree on essentials of the faith which are abundantly clear in Gods Word.
> 
> *1 john 4:**7* Dear friends, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born again because of what God has done. That person knows God.
> 
> 1 john 3:11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,


Where is this abundantly clear word of god. You have quoted some verses from scripture which was written by a man, this is not the word of god.


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 5, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> There is bloodshed all throughout the Bible, with God personally killing (or having killed) an estimated 2,391,421 people.
> 
> Detailed list - http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html


You are far to kind PB, you should have gotten the full revised list from the same site where the number of deaths associated to god climbs up to 33,041,220

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 5, 2009)

And to give my two cents, I do believe that Christianity can be safe but is not. Many of my family found solace in their beliefs at times when its needed, not to say that solace could not be found another way as I do but for them it is what works and in this sense it is good for them on a personal level, but this is only personal faith and not the religion as an organisation that it is. The problem and where it truely goes wrong is the so called leaders of the faith and of countries. Wether its to wage war or dictate law leaders have abused the people for millenia by using their religion against them. Even when the religion goes against the 'leaders' plans, they can simply change the books word to suit them, take out this scripture add another, rewrite this part and that part. So in this sense as a man made organisations form of control over the people it is wrong. Keep it as personal faith and to yourself and I can see some benifits but as a whole the organisations known as Christianity push their agenda onto others, even when contradictory to proven facts, are an unnecessary obsolete form of control.


----------



## DubsFan (Dec 5, 2009)

There are pretty much two types of Christians. You've got Catholics and Protestants. That covers a good 90%. Other than that this thread is sort of blah.

I like how you have a precise number of deaths. LOL. You clearly have counted them all.


----------



## DubsFan (Dec 5, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> And to give my two cents, I do believe that Christianity can be safe but is not. Many of my family found solace in their beliefs at times when its needed, not to say that solace could not be found another way as I do but for them it is what works and in this sense it is good for them on a personal level, but this is only personal faith and not the religion as an organisation that it is. The problem and where it truely goes wrong is the so called leaders of the faith and of countries. Wether its to wage war or dictate law leaders have abused the people for millenia by using their religion against them. Even when the religion goes against the 'leaders' plans, they can simply change the books word to suit them, take out this scripture add another, rewrite this part and that part. So in this sense as a man made organisations form of control over the people it is wrong. Keep it as personal faith and to yourself and I can see some benifits but as a whole the organisations known as Christianity push their agenda onto others, even when contradictory to proven facts, are an unnecessary obsolete form of control.


There are pretty much two types of Christians. You've got Catholics and Protestants. That covers a good 90%. Other than that this thread is sort of blah.

I like how you have a precise number of deaths. LOL. You clearly have counted them all. 

Faith like everything is shared with people that have the same beliefs. There is nothing wrong with organized religion if the people there want to be there. Nobody should have to keep their faith to themselves. 

You say practice by yourself yet in the same sentance you say their beliefs are forced onto others. So you think people should listen to you (practice by yourself) but not their fellow parishioners. Interesting...I don't think you recognized the hypocracy and narcacism in your post.


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 6, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> There are pretty much two types of Christians. You've got Catholics and Protestants. That covers a good 90%. Other than that this thread is sort of blah.
> 
> I like how you have a precise number of deaths. LOL. You clearly have counted them all.
> 
> ...


I think I put it badly, might have something to do with it being 7am where I am and 11 hours into a 12 hour shift. What I am trying to say, hopefully I am putting it better this time, is that I dont see anything wrong with personal faith and this includes as a collective of like minded people (don't confuse what I mean by collective of like minded people with the organisation that is Christianity). By keeping it to yourself I dont mean locking yourself away on your lonesome to practice your faith but rather don't force your faith onto others, wether this be door knocking, street preaching or teaching the bible as fact in schools. My problem with Christianity, apart from not believing it or any religion for that matter, has always been the hiarkey that controls it and has changed it to suit its means for hundreds of years.
Maybe it is hypercritical of me for speaking my mind, but the need to speak my mind on the matter would not be there if Christians would stop 'spreading the word' and trying to indoctrinate my children.


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 6, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> I like how you have a precise number of deaths. LOL. You clearly have counted them all.


 
That's another thing... Believers don't get how those of us that don't buy into it simply don't follow it at face value... they can't fathom how/why we would get into the details or read any of it if we didn't believe it... 

I personally have not counted all the deaths within the Bible, yet, as I haven't read the whole Bible, yet. When I gather my data together, I'll let you know.


----------



## Vindicated (Dec 6, 2009)

A lot of people of faith and non-faith choose to share their opinion, because that's what they believe is right. They're not trying to hurt you or disrespect you in anyway. I expect a priest to talk to me about God. I expect a doctor to talk to me about my health. And a mechanic to talk to me about my car. Now, when my mechanic goes on a rant about god, it can be a little annoying for obvious reasons. I just want my car fixed. 

The people that come door to door are sales people. I treat them differently from regular people of faith. These sales people are _working_ for their organization, either for profit or voluntarily. They're asking for you to work, buy, or donate to their cause. 

I'll donate a few bags of clothes to the Salvation Army. That's because this is an christian organization that I trust and has a reputation for doing a lot of good work. I'm sure some of the smaller churches are good too, but I don't know enough about them, to be willing to donate to their cause. 

I'll choose to hold on to my money when I see an organization that is anti-science or against my ethics. For example, if you hold a sign that says, fuck the jews, abortion is murder, god hates fags, etc. I won't care if your a doctor or a minister, you aren't getting my support or my money. And I'll think your below dirt and are doing more harm then good with your hate speech. Everyone else on the other hand, are just talking and are trying to do good things for their communities. 

I can't hate someone for that.


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 6, 2009)

Vindicated said:


> A lot of people of faith and non-faith choose to share their opinion, because that's what they believe is right. They're not trying to hurt you or disrespect you in anyway. I expect a priest to talk to me about God. I expect a doctor to talk to me about my health. And a mechanic to talk to me about my car.


Its fine for a priest to speak to me about god, if I go to him for answers. Don't come looking for me to tell me about god. Don't try to have children forced to learn the bible as fact in state schools, if I want my children to learn that way then I will send them to a faith school. I dont want religion (of any faith) to come looking for me to tell me how to live my life, if I want religion to tell me what to do I will come and ask. I believe in a seperation of state from the religion but religion keeps trying to force its way back into state. If religion stops trying to force itself upon me then I would be happy to stop putting down religion as it would then have become truely a personal choice to take.


----------



## tebor (Dec 9, 2009)

Its not really fair to blame deaths and wars on Christianity or religion.
People were killing each other and going to war long before Christianity.
War is human nature.
so is conquering those that are weaker.
atrocities will occur with or without religion.

Look at the Americas, Australia, Africa.
People were killing and waring before white people or Christianity showed up.

Look at European religion before Christianity. Even more violent and warlike.


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 9, 2009)

Not all of the wars had to do with religion but some did. Look at the troubles in Northern Ireland, if their religion was taken out of the equastion what excuse would they then have to keep on fighting each other? But it has been used as an excuse to hide the real reasons for wars. It can be dangerous in other ways.
But its not just about wars, Christianity has tried to dictate what people should think as well as do. I cant see how this form of control could help in the progression of mankind which I see as harmful as its the free thinkers that come up with innovative ideas. If the Church could have its way we would still be in the dark ages without knowledge of the world around us and how things work. Knowledge is power and the church does not want the people to have any power.


----------



## tebor (Dec 9, 2009)

> Look at the troubles in Northern Ireland, if their religion was taken out of the equastion what excuse would they then have to keep on fighting each other?


Northern Ireland is not a religious issue as much as it is an issue of Occupation by the bloody U.K.



> But its not just about wars, Christianity has tried to dictate what people should think as well as do. I cant see how this form of control could help in the progression of mankind which I see as harmful as its the free thinkers that come up with innovative ideas. If the Church could have its way we would still be in the dark ages without knowledge of the world around us and how things work. Knowledge is power and the church does not want the people to have any power.


Good points.
I agree with you about the Church.
But I would say that Christianity itself is not to blame, but the way religious leaders exploit the believers.


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 9, 2009)

tebor said:


> Northern Ireland is not a religious issue as much as it is an issue of Occupation by the bloody U.K.


A lot more to it than that. Not saying that the UK should be in Ireland but that's not what the troubles in Ireland are all about. The Catholics and Protestants have been slaughtering each other for a long time and almost rose to such a level could almost be considered ethnic cleansing. There are underlining issues that are the root of the conflicts, but hidden behind the mask of religion. What I am saying is if you took religion out of the way, could the people rearly go on hating each other in this day and age as all the other social boundaries that the original troubles started with are obsolete. Its the guise of religion in the conflicts that keeps it going, without it people would have to admit they are plain evil.


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 9, 2009)

tebor said:


> But I would say that Christianity itself is not to blame, but the way religious leaders exploit the believers.


Agreed, this is the biggest problem I have with any religion. Its used as a form of control, slave religions.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 9, 2009)

The biggest danger it poses now is that it's leading this country and that's just plain wrong. Check out this fool and his take on how global warming is in gods hands. This isn't unusual at all, most don't openly say such stupid crap but it guides their thinking in everything they do anyway so same difference.

[Youtube]_7h08RDYA5E[/Youtube]

It doesn't matter how stupid a person is, there are millions even dumber who vote them in. There is just no excuse for this, something needs to change.


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 9, 2009)

This idiot misses a massive flaw in his logic. Even if the bible was the infallible word of god, Global warming will not destroy the earth, it will make the planet uninhabitable to human kind. Still fits in with his book don't it. The earth couldn't give a shit if were here or not.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 9, 2009)

I should have added listen where he says there are even members of the clergy on the panel. Someone explain to me how any of that is allowed when we are supposed to have separation of church and state? The clergy shouldn't even be allowed in the room let alone influence any decision making process in our government which you can see they are clearly and openly doing.


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 9, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> The biggest danger it poses now is that it's leading this country and that's just plain wrong. Check out this fool and his take on how global warming is in gods hands. This isn't unusual at all, most don't openly say such stupid crap but it guides their thinking in everything they do anyway so same difference.
> 
> [Youtube]_7h08RDYA5E[/Youtube]
> 
> It doesn't matter how stupid a person is, there are millions even dumber who vote them in. There is just no excuse for this, something needs to change.


 
Laughing my goddamn ass off on that one!

Look at the girl behind the guy, right as he gets into his speech, she's thinkin' "...is this fool really bringin' the Bible to the house of congress?!" 

Her expression says more than I can. Lmfao!


----------



## krustofskie (Dec 9, 2009)

She realy is trying to keep a straight face isn't she.


----------



## SkeeterChap (Dec 10, 2009)

First off, if you want some background on where I sit before I tell you where I stand, you can go here to know my persona story on another post about being a Christian. 
This is a great post first of all. I really enjoy hearing about what other tokers think about Christianity. Before I joined this Forum, (which I am just a newbie at) I was afraid that Id be crucified, but there seem to be some like mined thinking going on here.
Thanks Padawan for bringing this topic to light!
Is Christianity dangerous, yes it is. Just as all religions can be when striving for power. It has become dangerous from the many ways Christianity has been self-indoctrinated into society by man. When I say self-indoctrinated I mean how Christianity has been inclined by power hungry individuals in so many areas of society through out the ages into becoming an evil destructive force; the Persecution of the Jews, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, to name a few. But do you honestly think Jesus had this in mind when he started this new way of living ones life??? Im sure He really got his jollies watching women thrown into lakes all tied up to see if she either floated or sunked, by the way, they all sunked. 
Jesus was mainly about one thing, LOVE! And if that sounds too simplistic, so be it. But that is what he spoke of more than anything else. His love and sacrifice was a gift to us that is either freely taken or sorry, not interested. Totally your choice, and He never started a jihad to make sure you did love Him. Problems start to happen when man starts to impose his will on how to receive Jesuss love, looking for ways to control the people, and the world around them. Remember Jim Jones. 
Its when we no longer see the love that Jesus talked about and surrounds us with that we get into trouble, and start looking for other ways to fill our lives. This love really is there if your willing to look for it. And Ill probably get needled for this one; Jesuss love is always available, 24/7. You just need a little faith. (Faith, a whole other topic for another time). Not easy to come by nowadays. We simply have too many distractions in this day and age to fill in the gaps of needing His love, and way to love.
Yes, Im a Christian, a term that man created, not Jesus. I guess I'd have to say Im a Jesusain. So Padawan, Ive now come up with the 300,000 and 1 sect.
Sleep in heavenly peace,
Skeeter


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 10, 2009)

SkeeterChap said:


> -clip-
> 
> But do you honestly think Jesus had this in mind when he started this new way of living ones life???
> 
> -clip-




Jesus is just descibed as a middle man, like any huckster with a new cult they claim "the only way to god is through me". They tell you to shun your family and leave everything behind. They do things like scare the fuck out of you with tales of imminent doom and claim they are the only ones with the answers. The imminent doom was supposed to have happened within the lifetime of the people he conned btw, and it never did. 


That's really about all you need to hear to know something isn't right and you can't really refute any of that, it's all in the bible.

As a matter of fact lets see how the bible desribes god, his likes, his hobbies, etc: Feel free to compare to your old testament.


* [FONT=&quot] Cruelty and Violence in the 1st Four Books of the Bible[/FONT]*

* Genesis*

1. God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5 2. Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8
3. God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
4. God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
5. God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
6. Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." 8:20
7. To free Lot from captivity, Abram sends an army of slaves to pursue and smite his captors. 14:14-15
8. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
9. Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6
10. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:7-8
11. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
12. God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe's lie. 20:3-7
13. God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13
14. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31
15. "The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them." I don't know what the "terror of God" is, but I'll bet it isn't pleasant. 35:5
16. "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7
17. After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
18. After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24
19. Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. 40:19

* Exodus*

20. Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking. 2:11-12 21. God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son. 4:23
22. God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26
23. God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4
24. "And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." Who else could be so cruel and unjust? 7:5, 17
25. God tells Moses and Aaron to smite the river and turn it into blood. 7:17-24
26. The fifth plague: all cattle in Egypt die. 9:2-6
27. The sixth plague: boils and blains upon man and beast. 9:9-12
28. "For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14
29. God kills all Egyptian cattle with hail. 9:19-20
30. The seventh plague is hail. "And the hail smote throughout the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast." 9:22-25
31. These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated. 11:4-6 (see 12:29-30)
32. God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7
33. God explains to Moses that he intends to "smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. 12:12
34. After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29
35. To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children, Moses instructs the Israelites to "sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix" -- all the males, that is. God has no use for dead, burnt female bodies. 13:2, 12, 15
36. After hardening Pharaoh's heart a few more times, God drowns Pharaoh's army in the sea 14:4-28
37. Moses and the people sing praises to their murderous god. 15:1-19
38. "The Lord is a man of war." Indeed, judging from his acts in the Old Testament, he is a vicious warlike monster. 15:3
39. God's right hand dashes people in pieces. 15:6
40. Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13
41. "The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:14-16
42. Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or "shot through." 19:12-13
43. God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such "burnt offerings," he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? 20:24
44. A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15,17
45. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 21:24-25
46. If an ox gores someone, then both the ox and its owner must die. 21:28-29
47. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18
48. "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Is it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn't we just send them to counseling or something? 22:19
49. "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20
50. If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24
51. "The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me." (As a burnt offering?) 22:29
52. God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27
53. Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people. This makes God happy. 24:5-8
54. Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all around -- in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you sick, but it makes God feel good. 29:11-37
55. Have your killed and offered your bullock for a sin offering today? How about the two lambs you are supposed to offer each day? 29:36-39
56. Wash up or die. 30:20-21
57. Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be "cut off from his people." 30:33
58. Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14
59. God asks to be left alone so that his "wrath may wax hot" and he can "consume them. 32:10
60. God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor." "And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." 32:27-28
61. But God wasn't satisfied with the slaughter of the 3000, so he killed some more people with a plague. 32:35
62. If you can't redeem him, then just "break his neck." Hey, it's all for the glory of God. 34:20
63. Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3

* Leviticus*

64. God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord." Chapters 1 - 9 65. Wringing off the heads of pigeons for God. 5:8-9
66. The holy law of trespass offering: Find an animal; kill it; sprinkle the blood around; offer God the fat, rump, kidneys, and caul; burn and eat it in the holy place, for "it is most holy." 7:1-6
67. The priest must sprinkle the blood of the peace offerings. 7:14
68. Be careful what you eat during these animal sacrifices. Don't eat fat or blood -- these are for God. (And he doesn't like to share!) 7:18-27
69. God gives instructions for "wave offerings" and "heave offerings." He says these offerings are to be made perpetually "by a statute for ever." Have you made your heave offering today? 7:30-36
70. Moses does it all for God. First he kills an animal; wipes the blood on Aaron's ears, thumbs, and big toes. Then he sprinkles blood round about and waves the guts before the Lord. Finally he burns the whole mess for "a sweet savour before the Lord." 8:14-32
71. More killing, sprinkling of blood, waiving animal parts, and burning carcasses "before the Lord." 9:8-21
72. Two of the sons of Aaron "offered strange fire before the Lord" and "there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." 10:1-2
73. If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by uncovering their heads, tearing their clothes, leaving with holy oil on them, or by drinking "wine or strong drink", then God will kill them and send his wrath on "all the people." 10:6-9
74. God's treatment for leprosy: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-32
75. God explains the use of scapegoats. It goes like this: Get two goats. Kill one. Wipe, smear, and sprinkle the blood around seven times. Then take the other goat, give it the sins of all the people, and send it off into the wilderness. 16:6-28
76. If you upset God, he'll cause the land to vomit you out. 18:25
77. "Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations ... shall be cut off from among their people." I'm not sure what being "cut off" means exactly, but I bet it isn't any fun. 18:29, 19:8
78. Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off. 20:2-5
79. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Couldn't we try spanking first? 20:9
80. Both parties in adultery shall be executed. 20:10
81. "And the man that lieth with his father's wife ... both of them shall be put to death." Which? The man and his father? The father and his wife? Or the man and his father's wife? Oh heck, just kill all three. 20:11
82. If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed. 20:12
83. Homosexuals must be executed. 20:13
84. If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. 20:14
85. If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the poor animal are to be killed. 20:15-16
86. People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27
87. A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death. 21:9
88. God gives us more instructions on killing and burning animals. I guess the first nine chapters of Leviticus wasn't enough. He says we must do this because he really likes the smell -- it is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 23:12-14, 18
89. Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you. 23:29-30
90. A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23
91. Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. 24:16
92. God tells the Israelites to "chase" their enemies and make them "fall before you by the sword." He figures five of the Israelites will be able to "chase" a hundred of their enemies, and a hundred will be able to "put ten thousand to flight." 26:7-8
93. God describes torments that he has planned for those who displease him. The usual stuff: plagues, burning fevers that will consume the eyes, etc. but he reserves the worst for the little children. He says "ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it", "I will send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children", and "ye shall eat the flesh of your sons .. daughters." 26:16-39
94. All "devoted" things (both man and beast) "shall surely be put to death." 27:28-29

* Numbers*

95. God displays his hospitality with the admonition: "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." 1:51 96. Two of Aaron's sons are killed by God for "offering strange fire before the Lord." 3:4
97. God repeats his order (see 1:51) to kill any strangers who happen to come near. 3:10
98. Once again (see 1:51 and 3:10) God tells his favorite people to kill any strangers that come near. 3:38
99. Don't touch or "go in to see when the holy things are covered." God kills people who touch or look at uncovered holy things. 4:15, 4:20
100. "And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it." (He had his hearing aid on.) He then burns the complainers alive. That'll teach them. 11:1
101. "And wile the flesh [of the quails] was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague. "The Bible isn't too clear about what these poor folks did to upset God so much; all it says is that they had "lusted." 11:33
102. More plagues and pestilence sent by God. God repeats one of his favorite promises: "your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness." 14:12, 29, 14:32-37
103. God gives more instructions for the ritualistic killing of animals. The smell of burning flesh is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 15:3, 13-14, 24
104. The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. 15:32-36
105. Because of a dispute between Korah and Moses, God makes the ground open up and it swallows Korah and his family. And then, just for the hell of it, God has a fire burn 250 men (friends of Korah?) to death. 16:20-49
106. After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." 16:41-50
107. God threatens to kill those who murmur. To which the people reply, "Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish .... Shall we be consumed with dying?" 17:12-13
108. According to this verse, it is wise to stay away from holy things and places -- like churches. God will kill you if you get too close. 18:3
109. God shows us how to make new friends by saying : "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." 18:7
110. God describes once again the procedure for ritualistic animal sacrifices. such rituals must be extremely important to God, since he makes their performance a "statute" and "covenant" forever. Why, then don't Bible-believers perform these sacrifices anymore? Don't they realize how God must miss the "sweet savour" of burning flesh? Don't they believe God when he says "forever"? 18:17-19
111. Don't get near holy things or "pollute" them. If you do, God will kill you. 18:22, 32
112. The purification of the unclean. These absurd rituals, cruel sacrifices, and unjust punishments are vitally important to God. He even insists that they are to be "a perpetual statute" to all humankind. 19:1-22
113. "And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities." This verse demonstrates the power of prayer: If you ask God, he will destroy entire cities for you. 21:3
114. God sends "fiery serpents" to bite his chosen people, and many of them die. 21:6
115. God delivers the Amorites into Moses' hands. (You're in God hands with Moses.) So Moses does the usual thing, killing everyone "until their was none left alive." 21:34-35
116. God's people will kill like a lion and then "drink the blood of the slain." 23:24
117. God, who is as strong as a unicorn, will eat up the nations, break their bones, and then pierce them through with his arrows. What a guy! 24:8
118. After the people "commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab," Moses has them all killed. Then God tells Moses to hang their dead bodies up in front of him; God says that this will satisfy him. 25:1-5
119. When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman, "Phinehas (Aaron's grandson) sees them and throws a spear "through the man .. and the woman through her belly." This act pleases God so much that "the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." But not before 24,000 had died. 25:6-9
120. God tells Moses how to care for his neighbors by saying: "Vex the Midianites, and smite them." 25:16-17
121. The ground swallow Korah and his companions and a fire consumes 250 men. 26:10
122. "And Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord." When you go camping avoid making any unusual fires. 26:61
123. In these chapters, God provides ridiculously detailed instructions for the ritualistic sacrifice of animals. The burning of their dead bodies smells great to God. Eleven times in these two chapters God says that they are to him a "sweet savour."
124. Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! [Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins. (31:28-29)] 31:1-54 28-29
125. God killed all the Egyptian firstborn. 33:4
126. "The revenger of blood" must murder the murderer just as soon as he sees him. 35:19, 21
127. When a murder is committed the blood pollutes the land. The only way to cleanse it is to spill more blood by killing the killer. 35:33


The Old Testament kind of speaks for itself really. The New Testament is just some watered down more palatable version but as with anything you should start with the source I think. Looks like you have it all wrong and will burn for eternity.


----------



## fish601 (Dec 11, 2009)

1 Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men--


----------



## PadawanBater (Dec 11, 2009)

fish601 said:


> 1 Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men--


 
lmao

127 > 1


----------



## Smallsn (Dec 22, 2009)

I went to Church, well my friend invited me to one. The people there were all nice and that, though i didn't like to go there sometimes. Mainly because i was high. Good thing about it they change some bad things about me but though sometimes u don't want to change somethings and then here we go again with the lecture of its a sin and blah blah. Like seriously, its a sin for having sex when your not married to that person. Plus is their any evidence that god exist? The bible is just a book, it really doesn't prove much on god, just stories or quotes. Sorry about my english. Not trying to be a gronk that is.


----------



## morgentaler (Dec 22, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> lmao
> 
> 127 > 1


 Actually, I think Fish was saying that if you kill him to shut him up, it's the will of "God".


----------



## naked gardener (Dec 22, 2009)

If Christians/Christianity were to have actually followed the lessons and example of Christ, then it could have been a beautiful thing. 

I would like to say that people can believe whatever they want and that is no affront to me--but unfortunately it is the innocent believer, who outwardly harms no one, that keep the quacks in office and on television, that rally support for political candidates that stand for the opposite of what Christ stood for--even though s/he SAYS otherwise. Makes no sense. As long as a politician says they are a Christian and/or Pro-life, they will get blind votes from people who have learned to swallow what ever has been spoon fed to them. 

As for pro-life...It's strange how much a republican cares about you when you are in the womb--but God-forbid you need some assistance once you are actually BORN. Guess what Christian Republicans...Jesus was not only Jewish...he was also A SOCIALIST. He advocated communal living, sharing resources and assisting the poor. 

Christianity has been perverted by politics since it gained popularity (300 yrs after Jesus died). 

There was a time when the Church had nearly omnipotent power over the West...that period is referred to as The Dark Ages. That alone tells us how dangerous religion can be, historically and presently.

Jesus loves the HELL out you!!


----------



## Brazko (Dec 22, 2009)

All Power Corrupts, the blind with the Innocent, however, they too are Cowards and Atheists...

Excellent Post Freaky Botanist



naked gardener said:


> If Christians/Christianity were to have actually followed the lessons and example of Christ, then it could have been a beautiful thing.
> 
> I would like to say that people can believe whatever they want and that is no affront to me--but unfortunately it is the innocent believer, who outwardly harms no one, that keep the quacks in office and on television, that rally support for political candidates that stand for the opposite of what Christ stood for--even though s/he SAYS otherwise. Makes no sense. As long as a politician says they are a Christian and/or Pro-life, they will get blind votes from people who have learned to swallow what ever has been spoon fed to them.
> 
> ...


----------



## tebor (Dec 23, 2009)

Smallsn said:


> I went to Church, well my friend invited me to one. The people there were all nice and that, though i didn't like to go there sometimes. Mainly because i was high. Good thing about it they change some bad things about me but though sometimes u don't want to change somethings and then here we go again with the lecture of its a sin and blah blah. Like seriously, its a sin for having sex when your not married to that person. Plus is their any evidence that god exist? The bible is just a book, it really doesn't prove much on god, just stories or quotes. Sorry about my english. Not trying to be a gronk that is.


This is not so bad.
when the Bible was written there was no Birth Control
This helped prevent men from knocking up women they didn't really want to be with


----------



## Smallsn (Dec 23, 2009)

tebor said:


> This is not so bad.
> when the Bible was written there was no Birth Control
> This helped prevent men from knocking up women they didn't really want to be with


I read in the bible that, at the start everyone was naked. That it was not a sin, until someone ate some apple that was forbidden by god. By eating that apple sin was introduced.


----------



## juleswinnfield (Dec 25, 2009)

I was called stupid by a 'christian' for reading about the mayans. She told me to get a hobby since reading about history was stupid and had no purpose... although that was only one person, it still bugged the shit out of me, but i felt like being the better person so I left it at that. But ever since grade 6 I went to church every sunday and went to a private christian school in my area. I went from a christian school to a public school. Everyone in the christian school labeled public schools as sinful, which just shows you how ignorant everyone was. I actually saw the good in people when i changed, and I was actually for once able to have my own opinion on things without getting shunned down and called a sinner. Christianity I believe is very dangerous, it doesn't teach children to be creative or opinionated at all which only hurts them in the future. I personally know alot of people who call themselves christians and they are some of the most close minded people i have ever met with BIG double standards. So that was my story I hope you enjoyed it.


----------



## morgentaler (Dec 25, 2009)

Brazko said:


> All Power Corrupts, the blind with the Innocent, however, they too are Cowards and Atheists...


Cowardly is walking around proclaiming your belief in Sky Captain Jesus as eternal fire insurance.

Cowardly is standing up in the pulpit and political chambers as a Christian attacking the immorality of single parents and gays, only to be caught out in a mens room or a parked car with a prostitute's cock in your mouth.

Cowardly is teaching children if they don't follow the bible they will burn in hell.

Cowardly is using the term "atheist coward" whenever you don't have an actual argument to present because you're a rambling idiot.


----------



## LaughingJim (Dec 25, 2009)

LOL...



> There is bloodshed all throughout the Bible, with God personally killing (or having killed) an estimated 2,391,421 people.


Did you forget that "God" killed "Everyone", except Noah, his cargo and his family... Even all the innocent animals and humans... (Back when the world was flat. God must have forgotten to tell anyone that the world was really round... it must have slipped his mind... you know, after he created it...)

No religion is safe. Beliefs are what segregate people and cause wars. (Religion is not the only "belief" that I am talking about.)

As long as one group wants something, or doesn't want something, that another group has... There will be blood spilled. Even those who choose to do nothing, have done something to contribute to the whole. (It is those people that each "religion" wants to adopt, to gain more power, money, following, etc... To make themselves look better to others, or gain leverage into a place they think exists.)

The only thing that every religion can agree with, is that every religion, except their own, is wrong.


----------



## Radiate (Dec 25, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Cowardly is standing up in the pulpit and political chambers as a Christian attacking the immorality of single parents and gays, only to be caught out in a mens room or a parked car with a prostitute's cock in your mouth.





ZING!

+rep


----------



## christoisonfire (Dec 31, 2009)

Its very dangerous. More lives have been lost in the name of Christianity than all other reasons combined. Where ever Christians moved at least in pre-modern times, there was a subsequent destruction of cultures and peoples in the name of bringing Christ and Civilization to barbarians.


----------



## elduece (Jan 4, 2010)

It's just one of many religions that serves the same purpose. Reality, reason and logic alone is not enough to compel most humans into making great sacrifices. Given enough religious fervor, people will throw themselves against impossible odds and consider themselves blessed into doing so.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 4, 2010)

elduece said:


> It's just one of many religions that serves the same purpose. Reality, reason and logic alone is not enough to compel most humans into making *STUPID* sacrifices. Given enough religious fervor, people will throw themselves against impossible odds and consider themselves blessed into doing so.


Fixed.

And I'm damn proud of my ability to see through the bullshit.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 4, 2010)

I wonder if any of the religious or agnostic people would care to comment on the existence of TANGATA-MANU.

Where does he fit into your view of the world? Do you give thanks to him during easter egg hunts?

Or do you deny that he exists?


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 4, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> I wonder if any of the religious or agnostic people would care to comment on the existence of TANGATA-MANU.
> 
> Where does he fit into your view of the world? Do you give thanks to him during easter egg hunts?
> 
> Or do you deny that he exists?


Don't know why you would be putting agnostic into the same barrel as the religious for this but I would view this bird-man the same way I view the so called gods of religions, that they are man made ideas and nothing more.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 4, 2010)

krustofskie said:


> Don't know why you would be putting agnostic into the same barrel as the religious for this but I would view this bird-man the same way I view the so called gods of religions, that they are man made ideas and nothing more.


There seem to be two types of agnostics here, so the replies might sort out which people are agnostic, and which people are only agnostic about "THE" god, and absolutely certain Thor doesn't exist.


----------



## Mr.KushMan (Jan 4, 2010)

I had a thought. If man were the decendents of Mdma, sorr adam, and eve. But everyone but Noah, and his family, was wiped out at the great flood. Wouldn't all man be decended from NaOH? Sorry Noah.

Peace


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 4, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> There seem to be two types of agnostics here, so the replies might sort out which people are agnostic, and which people are only agnostic about "THE" god, and absolutely certain Thor doesn't exist.


Very much like Dawkins says then when he says he's just Atheist about one more god than most.
I see where your coming from now. It is difficult to define though as there are many different variations of agnosticism, probably as many variations as there is in Christianity (well maybe not that many but you get my drift), but the general consensus with agnostics is that all religions are man made and their gods are non existent. Its hard to get this through to some, especially religious types. Everyone in my family (all Catholics, including my wife) label me Atheist as I don't believe in 'their' god even when I try to explain that I don't claim there is no god I just simply dont know and the evidence is lacking for me to give a definitive answer (must say I do ere on the side of there being no god though), but because I don't follow a religion they say that makes me an Atheist. I suppose I am as close as an agnostic can be to an all out Atheist which can be confusing, hell I confuse myself quite often.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 4, 2010)

krustofskie said:


> Very much like Dawkins says then when he says he's just Atheist about one more god than most.
> I see where your coming from now. It is difficult to define though as there are many different variations of agnosticism, probably as many variations as there is in Christianity (well maybe not that many but you get my drift), but the general consensus with agnostics is that all religions are man made and their gods are non existent. Its hard to get this through to some, especially religious types. Everyone in my family (all Catholics, including my wife) label me Atheist as I don't believe in 'their' god even when I try to explain that I don't claim there is no god I just simply dont know and the evidence is lacking for me to give a definitive answer (must say I do ere on the side of there being no god though), but because I don't follow a religion they say that makes me an Atheist. I suppose I am as close as an agnostic can be to an all out Atheist which can be confusing, hell I confuse myself quite often.


You're as much an atheist as I am bro, you've seen my posts. 

We share almost identicle positions.


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 5, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> You're as much an atheist as I am bro, you've seen my posts.
> 
> We share almost identicle positions.


But I would not call myself atheist even though you're right that we agree on most things, there is a very fine line between atheism and agnosticism sometimes.

I do believe a lot of people call themselves atheist's when they are probably more likely agnostic but either get labeled atheist, as I am, or use the term atheist because of lack of knowledge in the terminology of agnosticism by themselves or others (does that make sense, tried to put it differently in my head a few different ways but none seemed quite right, anyhow) Atheism is also easier to explain.

I find atheism is a complete lack of belief in the existence of any pathomable or unpathomable idea of a god where as agnosticism is the complete lack of belief in religion, the variations of agnosticism is in what the idea of a god is or could be and what you think the likelyhood of one existing is.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 5, 2010)

krustofskie said:


> But I would not call myself atheist even though you're right that we agree on most things, there is a very fine line between atheism and agnosticism sometimes.
> 
> I do believe a lot of people call themselves atheist's when they are probably more likely agnostic but either get labeled atheist, as I am, or use the term atheist because of lack of knowledge in the terminology of agnosticism by themselves or others (does that make sense, tried to put it differently in my head a few different ways but none seemed quite right, anyhow) Atheism is also easier to explain.
> 
> I find atheism is a complete lack of belief in the existence of any pathomable or unpathomable idea of a god where as agnosticism is the complete lack of belief in religion, the variations of agnosticism is in what the idea of a god is or could be and what you think the likelyhood of one existing is.


I hold that I don't know if a god exists. I do *know* any god mankind has thought up, Zeus, Thor, Allah, Jesus, ect. all of them do not exist as the creator of this universe. I can say that with almost 100% certainty. (as keeping a scientists perspective, nothing is ever 100% certain)

That makes me an atheist. 

Could there be something out there? Something outside our universe that established or created ours? Sure, why not? Could it be a force we can't understand or haven't been able to detect yet? Sure, why not? Could it be a man born of a virgin who descended from a man who God saved from a worldwide flood to repopulate the earth after he had destroyed it because the previous population of people that he himself created were too fucked up and needed to be killed... who descended from a man who was created out of dirt who ate the fruit from a tree put right in the middle of a garden God himself created and specifically told the man not to eat from while simultaneously knew he'd do it anyway... 

No. No it couldn't.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 5, 2010)

krustofskie said:


> I find atheism is a complete lack of belief in the existence of any pathomable or unpathomable idea of a god where as agnosticism is the complete lack of belief in religion, the variations of agnosticism is in what the idea of a god is or could be and what you think the likelyhood of one existing is.


Gnostic just means "to know" with no other connotations than what it's associated with. 

So you can be a gnostic or agnostic of any concept, not strictly religion 

You can be a gnostic a-unicornist. Or an agnostic fart-in-your-sleeper.


----------



## tip top toker (Jan 5, 2010)

let me think


1st crusade, let me think some more, 2nd crusade, and a bit more, oh, 3rd crusade.

i'ma gonna have to say no 

i think it's silly to start a thread aimed specifically at christianity. is ANY religion safe? i think i'd have to say no to that as well.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 5, 2010)

tip top toker said:


> let me think
> 
> 
> 1st crusade, let me think some more, 2nd crusade, and a bit more, oh, 3rd crusade.
> ...


Very good point, and I'd absolutely agree (regarding all the religions I've ever learned about, there might be a few out there that don't spout violence at every disagreement, but I haven't heard of them...) all organized religions are dangerous to the rest of us. But the point of the thread was to show a few of the other members what the people here thought about Christianity specifically. They were claiming they were morally superior and that their beliefs were the only way to personal happiness and a lot of other retarded bullshit with no proof or evidence or anything else to back it up. So I started this poll, and gee wizz... take a look at the results...  - Never coulda guessed it...


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 5, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> Gnostic just means "to know" with no other connotations than what it's associated with.
> 
> So you can be a gnostic or agnostic of any concept, not strictly religion
> 
> You can be a gnostic a-unicornist. Or an agnostic fart-in-your-sleeper.


Granted, but we are in the context of religion so its meaning gets narrowed slightly


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 5, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> I hold that I don't know if a god exists. I do *know* any god mankind has thought up, Zeus, Thor, Allah, Jesus, ect. all of them do not exist as the creator of this universe. I can say that with almost 100% certainty. (as keeping a scientists perspective, nothing is ever 100% certain)
> 
> That makes me an atheist.
> 
> ...


I agree with this and I say that is an agnostic view. Do you know there is no god of any kind whatsoever, not just the religions constructed by man, but do you know there is not and can not be any god at all. To be truly atheist this is the stand you must make. If you just disbelieve the man made religions and cant answer if there is a god of any kind then that's agnosticism.


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 5, 2010)

Paddy and morgen, you got me looking at the distinctions between Atheism and Agnosticism a lot closer. There are so many different ideas about both and it seems to me that there is not a line you can cross to say this is where agnosticism ends and atheism begins. There seems to be a very large middle ground where the two merge. As with your comment earlier Paddy that I say seems an agnostic view to me and to you its what defines you as Atheist, suppose it depends on your perspective as to which side it would belong. Seems most of my ideas fall smack bang in the middle ground, can I call myself an 'agnostic atheist'? may seem better suited or does this just cause more confusion.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 5, 2010)

krustofskie said:


> Paddy and morgen, you got me looking at the distinctions between Atheism and Agnosticism a lot closer. There are so many different ideas about both and it seems to me that there is not a line you can cross to say this is where agnosticism ends and atheism begins. There seems to be a very large middle ground where the two merge. As with your comment earlier Paddy that I say seems an agnostic view to me and to you its what defines you as Atheist, suppose it depends on your perspective as to which side it would belong. Seems most of my ideas fall smack bang in the middle ground, can I call myself an *'agnostic atheist'*? may seem better suited or does this just cause more confusion.


Yep, I believe that's the correct term for people with our view. No man-made god exists, but there could be something out there somewhere.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 6, 2010)

krustofskie said:


> .....there is not a line you can cross to say this is where agnosticism ends and atheism begins.


i may be wrong, but it seems to me that there is a very definite line you must cross to travel from agnosticism to atheism. you must cease to believe that the existence of any of the gods of man is possible. however you reach that conclusion, it is that denial that defines atheism. if there is even a hint of doubt or a glimmer of belief that some sentient creature or self-aware energy may have had a hand in the creation of the cosmos, then you are still an agnostic. any true skeptic will never cross that line, it is a leap of faith that demands one abandon any suspicion that such a thing may be possible.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

No actually many atheists do believe in some remote possibility there could be some kind of god and are agnostic. 

An athiest has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all. The only difference between agnostic and atheist really is the fighting religion part.

The danger to societies is in organized religion where people can be manipulated in large numbers, not so much individual personal beliefs. I'd never try to argue a personal belief in a god away only a belief in an ancient demanding controlling judgmental killing machine type god or anything affiliated with that god including the watered down new testament version of that same god. 

Anyone claiming to have answers 100% is lying or uninformed, we aren't saying we have the answers for sure, what we are saying is your answers are just dead wrong if you believe in the prepackaged pop tart gods of a cristian/muslim/jew/etc where someone has claimed to know anything about a god and especially when he's described as so flawed and really pathetic, childish, needy and petty. Just reading any of these texts seriously and questioning them at all will show you they are impossible. A god would have to be really quite intelligent to create all this and those gods are simply not up to snuff as described they have the mental capabilities of maybe a 12 year old really insecure boy at best. That is not the kind of being that could have created all this if you cling to the hope there may be some being.

If you just want the heaven idea I think you have to believe in a childish needy god. An athiest or agnostic probably has a more logical approach like maybe there is a god that started all this but that doesn't mean he gives one shit about you or that you would ever see him. Any being as intelligent as a creater of this universe couldn't stand to be around us ever. They would not create a heaven for you unless it was just to keep the annoying stupid humans away from him in the afterlife. At best we would be like pets or like ants to a being of that level. I use the term god loosely, my remote possibility would be just a more evolved being than us not really a "god" certainly nothing to be worshiped even if way more evolved than us or ever to be feared. Would you sit and judge the actions of an ant versus another? Would you squash one ant if he had sex before marriage or if it didn't worship you as it's master? Will you create even an ant cemetary to bury them individually let alone an ant heaven and hell if you could?


Logic should prevail when thinking about things not ancient stories and we fight so more people will just think. Nobody will change anyones mind but maybe some of you won't brainwash your children as much as your parents brainwashed you and maybe you too will encourange more thinking for them at least or give them more freedom to choose than you had. We would all be better off today if all nations gave up the idea of the gods in old story books and just thought of each other more equally.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> No actually many atheists do believe in some remote possibility there could be some kind of god and are agnostic.
> 
> An athiest has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all. The only difference between agnostic and atheist really is the fighting religion part.
> 
> ...


What does the existence of a god have to do with religious dogma? You are attaching biblical symbolism and perhaps ancient superstition to god's existence. Many people believe in the existence of god but don't subscribe to the biblical definition of god. It's like the creation vs. evolution argument. Why can't god have created the universe to evolve? Bringing up the bible or the koran or the torah and some of the contradictions within doesn't do anything to strengthen the atheist position IMO.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

You misunderstand my post if you think I do anything but attack those stupid religions. I name those things to fight them.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> You misunderstand my post if you think I do anything but attack those stupid religions . I name those things to fight them.


I guess I don't understand your point then. You seem pretty angry about religion and think the world would be better off without it. Like most atheists you seem to be fixated on all the negative things about religion and won't aknowledge the positive things. I am not religious and agree that organized religion has a lot of negative things about it. But by being closed minded about religion you have shut the door on anything positive (something the sober community has been doing to us potheads for a long time). Religion is not all about a bunch of hateful, judgemental, hypocrites. I don't seek to change your beliefs. Either there is a god or there isn't. Nothing you or I can do to change the reality. I realize that atheists have been persecuted by religious types and religion in general but how can you rise above all that shit if you do the same thing to them? Just something to think about.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

We can only rise above them by putting them down over time. We can't let superstitions continue to rule the world and if you don't understand the danger and the need to destroy them, then you are completely blind to everything going on news wise in the world.
(And most of us are because we don't get any real world news without seeking it out on the internet these days.)


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

We could be headed to disaster, world war 3 if we keep what you see as mostly positive religions around and continue to say they are ok.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> We could be headed to disaster, world war 3 if we keep what you see as mostly positive religions around and continue to say they are ok.


I'm simply pointing out that you are only seeing one side of religion. A typical problem with humanity wouldn't you agree. The inability to empathize. You are fighting a losing battle since the vast majority of the world's population believe in a god. Religion is responsible for a lot of the problems in the world. But you fail to aknowledge the positive. It's something you obviously feel strongly about and I don't seek to change your beliefs but lack of empathy and lack of respect for one another's beliefs is the real problem. The very fact that you don't see anything good that religion does is testimony to that fact.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

I never said there wasn't good, but there is easily just as much bad and they aren't necessary any more all people need is an education. We will be past this eventually as we evolve if we don't kill each other off first. Ensuring ultimate survival and world stability for us all is way way way more important than a little good of community get togethers that could still be done without the evil controlling religions.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> I never said there wasn't good, but there is easily just as much bad and they aren't necessary any more all people need is an education. We will be past this eventually as we evolve if we don't kill each other off first. Ensuring ultimate survival and world stability for us all is way way way more important than a little good of community get togethers that could still be done without the evil controlling religions.


You see religion as the problem but I see human nature as the problem. Even if you got rid of religion today people are still going to have plenty of other reasons to disagree. If you believe that the problems of the world would magically disappear if religion vanished overnight.......................wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

Of course, ok, we agree on enough not to need to argue anyway. Only time will work this out you are right I said we need to evolve further too, human nature is in our way it would be just one less thing in our way. I get your point though.


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 6, 2010)

you know, athieism is a religion. it has its own theory of creation.(random series of events slowly evolving into our modern world)

its own common beliefs and doctrine(Originally Posted by *OregonMeds: *An athiest has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all) beliefe there is no god without certainty??? sounds like alot of faith to me.

that fits the bill for a certified religion. congrats now you can all start converting too.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

A religion requires a belief in a supreme being and some silly scriptures with insane writings and false answers.

Saying "I know you don't know and neither do I or anyone else" is not the same as claiming "This is how it is and lets now pray".

We have answers to some things up to a point with science, that's as far as it goes it doesn't ever claim to answer it all, we are only in real "unproven theory territory" with things like string theory. We past the old books when we learned the earth was round and older than the books say with a long history before that we can prove with physical evidence.


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 6, 2010)

no, it is your belief/faith in the fact that no man made religious beliefs are correct. you do not know how it hapened and neither does anyone else you operate on your faith that you are right.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

No you don't understand faith is different from physical evidence, one has proof. We have already proven they are wrong and reading them shows they are silly beyond comprehension if given any thought at all. Religion is dead, proven wrong, people just haven't realized it yet.


----------



## elduece (Jan 6, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Fixed.
> 
> And I'm damn proud of my ability to see through the bullshit.


Calling me out as bullshitter or you're just full of yourself, padawan?

My input was impulsively off the cuff. Maybe I should've read the question again. Today I would've said xtianity itself is no more dangerous than cup of coffee with real sugar. Or maybe I would've said this entire thread/poll is just a waste of bandwidth if I felt like saying anything because the question is incomplete like: Xtianity, safe for what?. 

My post was just an observation on religiion tiself without sounding opinionated. The "great" in my statement in mind was referring to neither good, bad, stupid but only for the magnitude of it. Get over yourself


----------



## Hobbes (Jan 6, 2010)

.

*Pope Sidious The First* 







*&#8220;He would hurt all mankind just to save his own belief&#8221; - some dying African*


Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001. It asserted the church's right to *hold its inquiries behind closed doors* and *keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood.* The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week. 

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'. 

The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years. 

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. *Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication. *

.

If you want documentation of this article just google "Pope protects child rapists so they can rape again." Probably several hundred articles for you to bone up on the love of the Catholic church.

.

*What is different about these approaches?*


By those who love us to death:

*"While on a trip to Africa, the pope made news by saying that condom distribution doesn&#8217;t help the HIV problem, but in fact worsens it."*


By those who will send their people to their deaths.

"Thai investigators examining the impact of condom use among the military reported that new infections dropped from 12.5 percent in 1993 to 6.7 percent in 1995.* The number of new HIV infections in Thailand plummeted after the introduction of a &#8220;100-percent condom use&#8221; program."*


By people who speak funny:

"The European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV followed 124 discordant couples (in which only one of the pair is infected with HIV) who *consistently used condoms*. Over a two-year period and roughly *15,000 sexual acts, none of the HIV-negative partners contracted the virus.*

.

We don't really need any examples of the love of Islam, I'm sure we can all come up with a couple.

.

The Mormon church, after achieving main stream recognition, went after the gays with a deceitful glee, and used their political pressure to curb bar openings in Utah. They just couldn't stay to themselves and they will be worse than the fundamentalist in years to come.

.

People are sometimes dangerous, religions are made up by sometimes dangerous people but in the end, regardless of the time, we can be sure of one thing - the church will look out for the church's interests: not it's followers' interests and certainly not the peoples' well being. 

They forget the One Rule: *Your rights stop where the next person's nose begins.
* 
.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 6, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> No actually many atheists do believe in some remote possibility there could be some kind of god and are agnostic.
> 
> An atheist has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all. The only difference between agnostic and atheist really is the fighting religion part.


isn't is odd how we can change the meaning of words just to suit our own bias. i'm sorry, but a simple perusal of webster's or any other dictionary that strikes your fancy will give you adequate definitions of both atheism and agnosticism and i think you'll find that neither of them has the slightest thing to do with fighting anything. all you are describing is your own anti-religious fanaticism or, more specifically, your hatred of the abrahamic creeds. 

sure, many atheists feel the need to crusade against the inherent elitism of religion and the damage it can do to the fabric of society, but that is just a by-product of their belief system. that's all atheism really is, a belief system that denies the existence of a sentient force behind creation and the workings of the universe. an atheist that believes there may be some god, just that man has not yet been able to define that god, either does not understand the simple definition of atheism or has failed to comprehend what a god really is. the gods of mankind are self-aware creatures or forces that may or may not be subject to the laws of nature, but are most certainly responsible for creating them. atheism, like all of man's religions, is an absolute.



> Anyone claiming to have answers 100% is lying or uninformed, we aren't saying we have the answers for sure, what we are saying is your answers are just dead wrong.....


belief that gods either exist or do not exist is a 100% sort of thing, all else is mere skepticism. it's not about answers, but beliefs. we can never _know_ the answer to the question of god, so the atheist makes the choice to to deny its existence.



> We can only rise above them by putting them down over time. We can't let superstitions continue to rule the world and if you don't understand the danger and the need to destroy them, then you are completely blind to everything going on news wise in the world.


ignorance (the atheist must believe in the ignorance of the faithful) is never destroyed by "putting down" the beliefs of the ignorant. insult or violence only strengthens the resolve of those with deep seated belief and shows the attacker to be intolerant, weakening his credibility. if there is a duty in atheism, it is to teach by example that morality is not the sole domain of religion and to educate by pointing out the obvious fallacies of religious dogma. merely railing against the real and imagined dangers of religion is counterproductive and a fatuous waste of time and energy.

claiming that religion is dangerous or that it should be abolished is just another example of the hubris of fanatical atheists. religion has been a powerful force for good throughout history as well as evil and its value cannot be entirely discounted merely because of its rather infantile nature. in times of calamity and utter despair, faith is often all that stands between a patient wait for the return of normalcy and the total breakdown of society into lawlessness. those same causes that men will go to war for can also engender acts of bravery and self-sacrifice, the same belief systems that created the inquisition and persecuted those who pushed the limits of scientific knowledge also kept learning alive during civilization's darker periods and helped to spread the benefits of that education throughout the world. that religion should die out so that man and his society can expand and evolve may be obvious, but to press for anything more than its gentle decline is even more dangerous than religion itself.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 6, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> No you don't understand faith is different from physical evidence, one has proof.


no, *you* don't understand. there is no proof, no evidence that gods do not exist. though much of man's religious ignorance may be disproved, the essential question can never be answered. claiming otherwise is just so much childish hubris.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 6, 2010)

undertheice said:


> i may be wrong, but it seems to me that there is a very definite line you must cross to travel from agnosticism to atheism. you must cease to believe that the existence of any of the gods of man is possible. however you reach that conclusion, it is that denial that defines atheism. if there is even a hint of doubt or a glimmer of belief that some sentient creature or self-aware energy may have had a hand in the creation of the cosmos, then you are still an agnostic. any true skeptic will never cross that line, it is a leap of faith that demands one abandon any suspicion that such a thing may be possible.


I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to explain the terminology but here it goes again.

Gnostic / Agnostic is just a modifier.

Gnostic = Know
Agnostic = Don't know

Gnostic Deist - someone who is sure there is a deity, unassociated with any particular religion.

Agnostic Deist - someone who is unsure of the existence of the deity, but leans in that direction.

Gnostic adeist - someone who is sure there is no deity.

Agnostic adeist - unsure if the deity does not exist but leans in that direcion.

And you go on to do that with theism, etc.

You don't swing from agnosticism to atheism, because agnosticism is a modifier for atheism.
You swing from agnosticism to gnosticism.


The irony of it all is that the term atheism even needs to exist. As has been put by others in the past, we don't call everyone who doesn't collect stamps "Non-stamp-collectors" (by the way, there's an excellent YouTube channel by a fellow with that very title).

Apparently I am an awoman, have an avagina, go asnowboarding, while using my apsychic powers to order my afavorite food.


----------



## Hobbes (Jan 6, 2010)

.

*"no evidence that gods do not exist."*

Undertheice it's usually the person making the claim who has to prove the claim to be correct. There is no possible way to prove negative existence of an entity that can have any power or attribute the religionist can imagine. Russel's veritable Tea Cup In Space scenario updated for our advancement in science.

.

*"isn't is odd how we can change the meaning of words just to suit our own bias." *ie atheism

I completely agree. It happens so often: people using baby when they mean fetus; "without morals or ethics" when they are actually talking about "different morals or ethics".

Dawkins made a 1-7 scale with 1 being a complete religionist and 7 being a complete atheist. The *Class 6 Atheists* are what Oregon is referring to I believe, Dawkins defines it as a person who is agnostic only to the point that they acknowledge that deities could exist. Sometimes people who reject theism are called atheists but to me a person has to have a 100% denial of deities to be an atheist. Otherwise you're just Christopher Hitchens, the anti theist. 

(If you're a class 6 watch out for the secret class 8 atheists, the Eights are hunters of the Sixes for their heretical atheist beliefs.)

.

*"**We can only rise above them by putting them down over time."*

Oregon we will never put down religion or spiritual belief, it's hard wired into our brains. We must "know" - and in the absence of understanding superstition will take it's place. And in a lot of cases the people don't care about the truth, "these lies what we believe" is good enough for them as it is for you and I in other matters.

Nor should we ever limit people's access to religions that give comfort to the practitioner, so long as they and their religion follow the One Rule. The older I get the more I see the comfort that my religionist family and friends get from their beliefs.

The only thing we can hope for is to completely separate church and state, and that is going to take some time. An example is Turkey, 99%+ Muslim but moderately sane in a sea of Islamic insanity only because:

*"Turkey is officially a secular state with no official religion since the constitutional amendment in 1924 and later strengthened in the Kemalist Ideology, alongside the Atatürk's reforms and the appliance of laïcité by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk at the end of 1937"

*.


----------



## Leothwyn (Jan 6, 2010)

Well, if most of the world collected stamps, and they fought wars and tortured each other for collecting the wrong type of stamps - there would be people calling themselves non-stamp-collectors.

And, I do see a definite difference between agnostic (not sure) and atheist (sure). In your gnostic/agnostic scale agnostic can be a modifier of atheist... but those aren't the words that most people use. They use agnostic and atheist, and they use them to mean two clearly separate things.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 6, 2010)

UTI, the logical postion to hold is agnosticism - you don't know, and hold that it cannot be proven a god exists or does not exist. 

I believe no god any human mind has ever conceived of exists. As far as certainty goes, I am certain of this. How? Why? Because I've never seen any evidence that says they do exist. Simple right. 

This is not a form of faith. I don't have faith no gods exist in the exact same way I don't have faith that Santa Claus exists. You say no god has ever been "disproven" - to that I say you have to prove it first. There is no way to "disprove" *anything *without it having been confirmed in reality to begin with. 

Dr. Greenz, try again.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 6, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to explain the terminology but here it goes again.


when dealing with the existence of a deity there is no know/not know, there is only believe/doubt. your belief may be so strong that you _convince_ yourself that you know one way of the other, but there is no proof in either direction and that knowledge is false.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 6, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> the logical position to hold is agnosticism


the realm of religions and gods is no place for logic. logic demands evidence and facts and the rarefied air of that realm cannot support such mundane toys. if one is to make any choice, it must be conscience and imagination that show the way. though it may be rational to avoid making such a choice, some of us feel that a decision is needed.


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 6, 2010)

still sounds to me like you have alot of FAITH in your belief in your skepticism of the existance of any god.


----------



## Hobbes (Jan 6, 2010)

.

*Thomas Jefferson* - [1743-1826] 3rd American president, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat.

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise."

.


----------



## Brazko (Jan 6, 2010)

I didn't say atheist cowards, but yeah, atheist are cowards, and Cowards believe in God.

Go ahead and comprehend that 1 too while you're at it. (NOT)
 Please, Just hit the ignore button. Monkey!! 



morgentaler said:


> Cowardly is walking around proclaiming your belief in Sky Captain Jesus as eternal fire insurance.
> 
> Cowardly is standing up in the pulpit and political chambers as a Christian attacking the immorality of single parents and gays, only to be caught out in a mens room or a parked car with a prostitute's cock in your mouth.
> 
> ...


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> UTI, the logical postion to hold is agnosticism - you don't know, and hold that it cannot be proven a god exists or does not exist.
> 
> I believe no god any human mind has ever conceived of exists. As far as certainty goes, I am certain of this. How? Why? Because I've never seen any evidence that says they do exist. Simple right.
> 
> ...


Good day to you Padwan. I think this is one of the most intelligent things I've seen anybody write in this thread yet. I've always said that a finite mind cannot conceive, and I mean really conceive, the infinite. Our minds just don't have the capacity for this type of thought. It's rather simple to conceptualize but we can't imagine something that has no beginning and no end. It's like the white beard and flowing robe of a powerful, yet benevolent man concept of god. Mosts religious folk don't even buy that image of god. If there is a god, there is no way we can conceive what IT is or what it looks like.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> still sounds to me like you have alot of FAITH in your belief in your skepticism of the existance of any god.


I said this very thing to an atheist on here (can't remember who) and they vehemently denied that there was any FAITH involved here. I said if you can't prove it one way or another you must have FAITH that your position is correct, no?


----------



## yellowrain53 (Jan 6, 2010)

Leothwyn said:


> *Well, if most of the world collected stamps, and they fought wars and tortured each other for collecting the wrong type of stamps - there would be people calling themselves non-stamp-collectors.*
> 
> And, I do see a definite difference between agnostic (not sure) and atheist (sure). In your gnostic/agnostic scale agnostic can be a modifier of atheist... but those aren't the words that most people use. They use agnostic and atheist, and they use them to mean two clearly separate things.



true dat!!! as of today i am an official "non-stamp collector".


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

yellowrain53 said:


> true dat!!! as of today i am an official "non-stamp collector".


Do you mind if I check out your "Non-stamp collection"?


----------



## yellowrain53 (Jan 6, 2010)

doc111 said:


> Do you mind if I check out your "Non-stamp collection"?



lol. whats mine is yours.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 6, 2010)

yellowrain53 said:


> lol. whats mine is yours.


Likewise my friend.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 6, 2010)

doc111 said:


> Do you mind if I check out your "Non-stamp collection"?


Here's mine http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 6, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to explain the terminology but here it goes again.
> 
> Gnostic / Agnostic is just a modifier.
> 
> ...


I so wish people would understand that agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism. I wonder where that idea started. It is downright confusing to talk to people when they misuse a term like that, especially when they apply it to themselves. 

I think we should adopt the Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability:
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]


Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. _De facto_ theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. _De facto_ atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
 Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7." Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7  I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."


"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 6, 2010)

undertheice said:


> isn't is odd how we can change the meaning of words just to suit our own bias. i'm sorry, but a simple perusal of webster's or any other dictionary that strikes your fancy will give you adequate definitions of both atheism and agnosticism and i think you'll find that neither of them has the slightest thing to do with fighting anything. all you are describing is your own anti-religious fanaticism or, more specifically, your hatred of the abrahamic creeds.


Wrong. Language evolves also as is evidenced by Wikipedia.

I give you the proper meaning today as described by many athiests including myself, I could care less what "most" people think or dictionary definitions of this particular word because most people don't get it at all and have no business trying to define it, how could you expect them to define it properly they can't because that requires agreement and there is no agreement even among atheists themselves.

Wiki does say though further down:
*"Theoretical atheism*

Further information: Existence of God, Evolutionary origin of religions, and Evolutionary psychology of religion
Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods."

I am not one of the atheists who believes there is any god or any chance for any god just to set the record straight, and I find the term theoretical atheist to be the dumbest thing I've stumbled across in a while.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 6, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I didn't say atheist cowards, but yeah, atheist are cowards, and Cowards believe in God.
> 
> Go ahead and comprehend that 1 too while you're at it. (NOT)
> Please, Just hit the ignore button. Monkey!!



Just when you thought he had nothing left to say, he shows up and says nothing again.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 6, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> Just when you thought he had nothing left to say, he shows up and says nothing again.


lmfao 



OK, so howbout this then... 

Apparently, as evident by the poll, Christianity is dangerous, in most of our opinions. Now, what do you guys think it is that makes the followers think it's all fluffy bunnies? Most of them say they read the bible, the most outspoken ones anyway, the ones who respond to these threads, but it seems like they just cherry pick the stuff they hear in the mainstream and try to find some way to justify the other stuff they don't when one of us brings it up, ex. slavery, genocide. It's become apparent to me that if you're working with any kind of "absolute", like how God is always right, always best, always just, ect... then the morality is no longer based on the consequences of the action, it's based on the person (or in this case, God) performing the action. God, to these peoples minds, can do no wrong. Nothing God does is ever wrong, because whatever God does is always right and always just... Circular to the rational mind, but logical to the believer... 

It's sort of like evolution... There is so much evidence staring people right in the face, but they choose not to accept it. With religion, it's exactly the opposite, there's not a shred of evidence and they base their entire life on it...


----------



## 8deez8 (Jan 6, 2010)

What a farce. Christianity is what keeps a good portion of the world population humble and being nice to others, even when they're wronged. If it is all dust to dust and there is no afterlife, it makes sense that many who fear God would live for today and rape and kill as they please. Many Christians know better; they are aware that Christ will be the final Judge and to live within the morals written into the DNA that separates them as humans from other animals. For is it our intelligence that separates us from beasts? Are we not simply more intelligent than other creatures?...
This thread is a joke if you ask me, the world would be 100x more dangerous without the Christian-based fear of final judgement.


----------



## 8deez8 (Jan 6, 2010)

Yeah it's dangerous alright... to a lost soul's complacent mindset. There is a spiritual realm, it is what tugs at you when you think there might be. Free your mind and "go with the tug".

What do you atheists have to say about the New World Order, and its leaders who believe they're being guided by "ascended spirits"? Go listen to Barack Obama's speech backwards if you don't believe they're is a spiritual realm.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 6, 2010)

8deez8 said:


> What a farce. Christianity is what keeps a good portion of the world population humble and being nice to others, even when they're wronged.


And for those that don't need the threat of eternal damnation, there's always plain old reason and altruism.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 6, 2010)

8deez8 said:


> What do you atheists have to say about the New World Order, and its leaders who believe they're being guided by "ascended spirits"? Go listen to Barack Obama's speech backwards if you don't believe they're is a spiritual realm.


Backmasking?

What the fuck? Are you a 12 year old who just teleported here from 1973?


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 6, 2010)

8deez8 said:


> What a farce. Christianity is what keeps a good portion of the world population humble and being nice to others, even when they're wronged. If it is all dust to dust and there is no afterlife, it makes sense that many who fear God would live for today and rape and kill as they please. Many Christians know better; they are aware that Christ will be the final Judge and to live within the morals written into the DNA that separates them as humans from other animals. For is it our intelligence that separates us from beasts? Are we not simply more intelligent than other creatures?...
> This thread is a joke if you ask me, the world would be 100x more dangerous without the Christian-based fear of final judgement.


So you are only good because of fear of retribution in the afterlife? So you must be a right nasty piece of work who wants to rape rob and murder but don't because of fear in a god. Nonsense. 
I have no belief in the after life or any god concept man has made up. I don't get my morals from a book and I have never intentionally caused harm to another creature, except in defence of myself or others.
Why is that then? Because by your standard I should be out robbing, raping and murdering anyone I wish.
Its quite simple, its called empathy. Don't need a book for that.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 6, 2010)

8deez8 said:


> What a farce. Christianity is what keeps a good portion of the world population humble and being nice to others, even when they're wronged. If it is all dust to dust and there is no afterlife, it makes sense that many who fear God would live for today and rape and kill as they please. Many Christians know better; they are aware that Christ will be the final Judge and to live within the morals written into the DNA that separates them as humans from other animals. For is it our intelligence that separates us from beasts? Are we not simply more intelligent than other creatures?...
> This thread is a joke if you ask me, the world would be 100x more dangerous without the Christian-based fear of final judgement.


Yea, that's the first thing that pops into ones mind when they are thinking about doing something wrong is whether it will affect them in their afterlife. What must we do to stop all of these murders in the name of atheism?
</sarcasm>


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 6, 2010)

krustofskie said:


> So you are only good because of fear of retribution in the afterlife? So you must be a right nasty piece of work who wants to rape rob and murder but don't because of fear in a god. Nonsense.
> I have no belief in the after life or any god concept man has made up. I don't get my morals from a book and I have never intentionally caused harm to another creature, except in defence of myself or others.
> Why is that then? Because by your standard I should be out robbing, raping and murdering anyone I wish.
> Its quite simple, its called empathy. Don't need a book for that.


There certainly are fears of repercussions but quite earthly ones. Maybe he thinks piranha don't eat each other in a feeding frenzy because of their fear of afterlife too. Morals are most certainly an acquired evolutionary trait.


----------



## krustofskie (Jan 6, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> There certainly are fears of repercussions but quite earthly ones. Maybe he thinks piranha don't eat each other in a feeding frenzy because of their fear of afterlife too. Morals are most certainly an acquired evolutionary trait.


ie: the selfish gene


----------



## Brazko (Jan 6, 2010)

,

The only thing that kept me responding to your particular posts was the misconception on my part that all athiest on here were SLOOoooWhaa (the 1's that decided to post here), I was wrong on that. I've been busy, but glad now I have a bit of reading in front of me. It'll be the evolved posts and discussions I'll try to pay more attention to tho'. I've seen a lot of good threads started lately I plan on posting on, but I'll pay 50cents to see the Monkey Dance as well. Right now I'm checking out this documentary on t.v. discussing the tools used inside your cave 30,000yrs ago, 


Wasn't I on your Big BAd Ignore List... Please, Save Yourself 





morgentaler said:


> Just when you thought he had nothing left to say, he shows up and says nothing again.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

I love the fact that he thinks mocking evolution makes him look smart.

Would you like to start mocking the measles and polio vaccines next?

Or pretend to understand physics some more?


----------



## Brazko (Jan 7, 2010)

I love the Fact that You have absolutely no Clue of what your talking about. 
You have the comprehension level of an 3yo (Blind Ignorance). 
I'll advise you to phone a friend to help out. 
And my ability to pretend is a secret, SHHhhhhh 





morgentaler said:


> I love the fact that he thinks mocking evolution makes him look smart.
> 
> Would you like to start mocking the measles and polio vaccines next?
> 
> Or pretend to understand physics some more?


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 7, 2010)

i love how every one in these debates argues against catholic dogma not christianity. the crusades, witch hunts, molestation all stems from a church not the religion. christianity itself teaches only love, peace, and respect. not once in any church outside of a catholic one have i ever even heard someone really discuss hell as being an eternal punishment and lake of fire. hell literally means absence of god. not burning lava lake, not horny demons fucking up the place, simply absence of god. so hell could literally be just havin to chill outside the pearly gates.

one religion that is dangerous in and of itself however is islam(it is better to kill an infidel than to allow him to conver to islam. the koran, "may god bring death to the christians and the jews" mohamad at his death. 

thats right ill say it, if every single muslim died tonite, tomorrow the world would be a safer place.

btw to all the race baters, my 2nd best friend in the world is AbdaRahim, a muslim, so im not just hating, its just that to make an omlet you gotta crack some eggs lol.


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jan 7, 2010)

Paddy, check out this link:

http://www.flamewarrior.com/islam.htm

It's written by an Atheist who *usually* criticizes Christianity because it is what affects us most here in the West. 

He claims that *modern* Christianity is *tame* compared to Islam.

I'm curious to see your reaction to the piece.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 7, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> I love the fact that he thinks mocking evolution makes him look smart.
> 
> Would you like to start mocking the measles and polio vaccines next?
> 
> Or pretend to understand physics some more?


Ya know morgen, I don't know why you have to be so condescending. It's really unbecoming, especially from someone who is as intelliegent as you appear to be. Why don't you stop ridiculing people and simply make your point. If you are so confident you are right then there's no reason to belittle the others posting in these threads don't ya think?


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jan 7, 2010)

Many here might think my vote is out of character based on my Agnosticism.

I have voiced many criticisms of Christianity and will continue to do so.

I selected 'Christianity is safe' because I am free to *criticize* Christianity without fear of losing my life.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 7, 2010)

Johnnyorganic said:


> Many here might think my vote is out of character based on my Agnosticism.
> 
> I have voiced many criticisms of Christianity and will continue to do so.
> 
> I selected 'Christianity is safe' because I am free to *criticize* Christianity without fear of losing my life.


I'm agnostic as well but I have to say that christianity is much safer than islam. Christianity certainly has its nutjobs but one only has to go to New York and look at that giant crater in lower manhattan to see how dangerous islam is. I criticize religion all the time but I would never make a blanket statement like "christianity is dangerous" or "islam is a peaceful religion". Which is safer? I think hands down christianity is safer than islam. Where does judaism fall? There are some nutjobs who practice kaballah and there are many militant jews as well. Even without religion people would find something to fight about. Probably without religion people would pay more attention to race and ethnicity. Who knows.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> Wrong. Language evolves also as is evidenced by Wikipedia.


that some portion of a community should choose a more rabid approach to their belief system is no excuse to redefine the entire community. the very phrase you have used, "as described by many atheists including myself", clearly shows that even you understand that this fight you speak of is not an integral component of atheism, but a choice made by a portion of the atheist community.


----------



## undertheice (Jan 7, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> I so wish people would understand that agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism.


in a sense, we are all agnostic when we speak of gods and such. agnosticism is nothing more than "not knowing" and, though we may delude ourselves that we know one way or the other, the very nature of that realm makes "knowing" impossible. that delusion is "belief" or "faith", it is a choice. the theist has made that choice, the atheist has made that choice, all else is indecision. that indecision is perfectly rational, given that there is a dearth of real information on the subject, but religion isn't really the domain of the rational mind.

i'm always a bit amused when folks like dawkins attempt to insert logic into the question of gods (yes, i do it too and i chuckle at myself on those occasions). it confuses the rational mind with the emotional mind and makes a mess of the whole thing by over-complicating the obvious. these milestones of his seem more the work of an overinflated ego than any way of judging the infinite number of variables involved. since "knowing" is impossible, numbers 1 and 7 are a waste of perfectly good numerals. numbers 2 and 6 are those who have made the choice. without a full understanding, they have decided to believe. while those who fall into category 6 may concern themselves with probabilities, the denizens of category 2 are usually more concerned with the unquantifiable. all that remains, numbers 3 through 5, is doubt. which way one might tend is beside the point, no decision has been made.

of course agnosticism is no middle ground, it is the failure to commit to either side of the question and an adherence to the limitations of logic. but, as i have said before, logic has little to do with the gods of men.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 7, 2010)

undertheice said:


> in a sense, we are all agnostic when we speak of gods and such. agnosticism is nothing more than "not knowing" and, though we may delude ourselves that we know one way or the other, the very nature of that realm makes "knowing" impossible. that delusion is "belief" or "faith", it is a choice. the theist has made that choice, the atheist has made that choice, all else is indecision. that indecision is perfectly rational, given that there is a dearth of real information on the subject, but religion isn't really the domain of the rational mind.
> 
> i'm always a bit amused when folks like dawkins attempt to insert logic into the question of gods (yes, i do it too and i chuckle at myself on those occasions). it confuses the rational mind with the emotional mind and makes a mess of the whole thing by over-complicating the obvious. these milestones of his seem more the work of an overinflated ego than any way of judging the infinite number of variables involved. since "knowing" is impossible, numbers 1 and 7 are a waste of perfectly good numerals. numbers 2 and 6 are those who have made the choice. without a full understanding, they have decided to believe. while those who fall into category 6 may concern themselves with probabilities, the denizens of category 2 are usually more concerned with the unquantifiable. all that remains, numbers 3 through 5, is doubt. which way one might tend is beside the point, no decision has been made.
> 
> of course agnosticism is no middle ground, it is the failure to commit to either side of the question and an adherence to the limitations of logic. but, as i have said before, logic has little to do with the gods of men.


Excellent post!  This is what I've been trying to say. Logic doesn't hold up when talking religion. For that matter logic doesn't hold up when talking humanity.


----------



## BigTitLvr (Jan 7, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> This thread is going to be used to show some of the self proclaimed "conservatives", Christians and other believers in general that religion... specifically Christianity, has blood on it's hands.
> 
> If you're going to try to refute anything I say, I ask that you do it with sound logic and reasoning. Tell me where I'm wrong, point it out. Don't just come with insults or attacks. It doesn't strengthen your position, it infact weakens it.
> 
> ...


I can't disagree with anything you said here. Safe or unsafe? No religion is safe.

Humans have a tendency to radicalize to an idea they agree with. Republicans 'hate' democrats, and vise-verse. And religious nuts can be found in EVERY religion. 

It is really the responsibility of the religious leader to teach his followers moderation. Christianity is more moderate then Islam (now) because our developed society is enlightened to social and scientific facts. Islam is simply going thru its own Dark Age right now. Soon, I believe, the younger Muslim generations will experience their connection with the world, and lose radicalism in favor of modernity thru education.

That is, unless the U.S. continues to bomb the shit out of innocent brown civilians, intentionally spawning their own enemies to continue world violence and justify the outrageous profits into the military industrial complex.

The Islamic people would have welcomed modernity, even if their leaders desired to incite radicalism, if only the U.S. would have used its enormous wealth to benefit the world, instead of subjugating it.

And it is the U.S. which hijacks ignorant and/or corrupt Christians into supporting their bullshit agenda as well. So, Christianity dangerous? I daresay! But more to the point: Stupid Christians, capable of radicalization, are dangerous. Moderates of any religion are welcomed; even though they waste their time asking someone else to do their thinking for them.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 7, 2010)

Johnnyorganic said:


> Paddy, check out this link:
> 
> http://www.flamewarrior.com/islam.htm
> 
> ...


Good article for the most part. I agree with 90% of what was said. 

Though I did want to point out, one of the major reasons I think Christianity is so dangerous is because of the sleek, safe appearance it has to most of the believers. It's a trick, show them the fluffy side and promise all the rewards (when they're young no less) and you don't even have to mention the rest, they'll believe whatever you tell them. It's a different kind of "terrorism", one that lasts generations and doesn't really "harm" people physically (for the most part), but like I said throughout the thread, mental harm is just as bad as physical harm, and it lasts much longer, which to some might arguably make it worse. 

I like this bit a lot, in my case I apply it to all organized religion, not just Islam;

I make little distinction between terrorists and those who enable them, excuse them, and fail to condemn them.


----------



## Leothwyn (Jan 7, 2010)

I agree with what you've said about islam being more dangerous. Christianity's book of myths has plenty of kooky and scary quotes like the koran one you gave. The difference is that christianity has been more adaptable. The reason that only catholics committed the atrocities that you mentioned was because they _were_ the christian church then (exception: church of England). It's their willingness to change that brought about all of the other sects that we now have (who do preach hellfire... I don't know what rock you've been under). I'm glad that many christians are happy to ignore parts of the bible in order to keep up with modern times (reality)... the perfect example is your idea that hell is just being stuck outside the pearly gates (that's a new one for me).

Let's hope that islam will start pulling its head out of its ass a bit, and start selectively ignoring more of the bullshit aspects of their religion. (We are slowly seeing some of that... islamic sects in Indonesia that incorporate alcohol in their rituals, for example).




Drgreenz said:


> i love how every one in these debates argues against catholic dogma not christianity. the crusades, witch hunts, molestation all stems from a church not the religion. christianity itself teaches only love, peace, and respect. not once in any church outside of a catholic one have i ever even heard someone really discuss hell as being an eternal punishment and lake of fire. hell literally means absence of god. not burning lava lake, not horny demons fucking up the place, simply absence of god. so hell could literally be just havin to chill outside the pearly gates.
> 
> one religion that is dangerous in and of itself however is islam(it is better to kill an infidel than to allow him to conver to islam. the koran, "may god bring death to the christians and the jews" mohamad at his death.
> 
> ...


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I love the Fact that You have absolutely no Clue of what your talking about.
> You have the comprehension level of an 3yo (Blind Ignorance).
> I'll advise you to phone a friend to help out.
> And my ability to pretend is a secret, SHHhhhhh


That's funny. 3 year olds can learn something.
You obviously haven't learned anything any time recently. Like when you no longer have a leg to stand on with anything you say you still pop up now and again to make a couple of empty insults, because if you were to try and join in the actual conversations your ignorance and inability to convey any idea clearly would get you bitchslapped back into last tuesday.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

doc111 said:


> Ya know morgen, I don't know why you have to be so condescending. It's really unbecoming, especially from someone who is as intelliegent as you appear to be. Why don't you stop ridiculing people and simply make your point. If you are so confident you are right then there's no reason to belittle the others posting in these threads don't ya think?


Maybe you want to go back and read a bunch of his nonsense posts, where his best attempt at making a point was just to use the word monkey in each one. 

Once anyone has established themselves as too lazy to look something up, or just repeats the same unsubstantiated crap that was argued by themselves or someone else in the discussions they're fair game for contempt.

I grew tired of the liars for jesus and the "god is real you just don't know how to look for him" crowd, long ago.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> i love how every one in these debates argues against catholic dogma not christianity.


Hardly. You haven't been paying attention.

I'm not the only one who has argued against ALL forms of dogmatic faith, and other points are regularly dealt with:

The claim by some that the existence of the christian god is undeniable truth, yet completely lacking in evidence.

The claim that Christianity is loving, etc. and the New Testament is a wonderful diversion from the old, yet it still promises eternal suffering to unbelievers throughout. 

and more.


Here's a new one: If Christ was such an awesome guy (if he even existed) why did he not abolish slavery on the spot. The apologists will say "Because it wasn't culturally appropriate." Well, you're talking about the son of the being that supposedly created the universe. Can apparently deliver bread and fish to beat the band, but not save people from the abuses of slavery. Hmmm.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 7, 2010)

Hobbes said:


> *"**We can only rise above them by putting them down over time."*
> 
> Oregon we will never put down religion or spiritual belief, it's hard wired into our brains. We must "know" - and in the absence of understanding superstition will take it's place. And in a lot of cases the people don't care about the truth, "these lies what we believe" is good enough for them as it is for you and I in other matters.
> 
> ...


I disagree completely on the "never put down religion" part. I agree it's human nature but as you said it also requires a lack of understanding and lack of education in certain areas. I am quite certain that over time we can overcome religion. There will always be some stragglers but I still would consider it a total win just getting the number of believers under 50% so it's no longer ruling us as a majority. People do need answers or they make up superstitions to fill the gaps, true, so educate educate educate. We will get there eventually.

I think in just 10-20years time things will start slowly changing for the better in modern countries just because education will have to get better also the more we advance.


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 7, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> Hardly. You haven't been paying attention.
> 
> I'm not the only one who has argued against ALL forms of dogmatic faith, and other points are regularly dealt with:
> 
> ...


once again you have little idea of what you are talking about. god himself(assuming a christian standpoint here) can not even end slavery, it is called free will, he gave man the will to go out and do as they please with themselves, to stop slavery, murder, rape, pillaging would be to control the will of those who are doing it. the best thing about christianity is the fact that under that belief system you are free to do as you please, god doesnt say pray 6 times a day or burn. he says "hey here is a life for you, do what you want but try to at least be decent and oh remember, even though your pretty much a peice of shit, i still have a place for you if you want."

btw as far as the "was jesus real debate" did all of you know, even the koran dictates that jesus is the mesaih? well not yet at least to be a messaih is when he will return to earth. but he is the one they acknowledge of being the one to come.
in fact there are over 1000 text outside of the bible which all talk about jesus and his life including the 18 years not in the bible.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> once again you have little idea of what you are talking about. god himself(assuming a christian standpoint here) can not even end slavery, it is called free will, he gave man the will to go out and do as they please with themselves, to stop slavery, murder, rape, pillaging would be to control the will of those who are doing it. the best thing about christianity is the fact that under that belief system you are free to do as you please, god doesnt say pray 6 times a day or burn. he says "hey here is a life for you, do what you want but try to at least be decent and oh remember, even though your pretty much a peice of shit, i still have a place for you if you want."
> 
> btw as far as the "was jesus real debate" did all of you know, even the koran dictates that jesus is the mesaih? well not yet at least to be a messaih is when he will return to earth. but he is the one they acknowledge of being the one to come.
> in fact there are over 1000 text outside of the bible which all talk about jesus and his life including the 18 years not in the bible.


Free will is one thing, never speaking out against things like slavery is another. All he had to do was speak against it not force anyones hand. 

You have never even picked up the old testament have you? Your god requires strict obediance or he will kill you in many different bloody ways and then he will enjoy the "sweet savory smell of your blood".

If you need I can pull out some bible passages to educate you.


And what are you doing with that sig? Who's side are you on? Thomas Jefferson was not on your side.

Lastly the fact that the bible the koran and the torah all share much of the same crap is not something you can use to strengthen your argument, it's only evidence of ancient plagiarism.


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 7, 2010)

lol you may want to read a copy of The Founding Fathers someday, TJ was a devout christian spiritualist. also as for the rest of your ill informed statement, it is called the new covenant.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> once again you have little idea of what you are talking about. god himself(assuming a christian standpoint here) can not even end slavery, it is called free will, he gave man the will to go out and do as they please with themselves, to stop slavery, murder, rape, pillaging would be to control the will of those who are doing it.


All he had to do was say "Slavery is evil, and you will suffer for it as you will suffer for all other sins."

And you can dance around that all you like but if the bible is dictating that you must do X or suffer Y in other places, why couldn't "God" or Jesus speak up on that issue?


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> btw as far as the "was jesus real debate" did all of you know, even the koran dictates that jesus is the mesaih? well not yet at least to be a messaih is when he will return to earth. but he is the one they acknowledge of being the one to come.


You're using another religious text to support your religious text as real.
That's like using Ender's Game to show that Harry Potter was real.




> in fact there are over 1000 text outside of the bible which all talk about jesus and his life including the 18 years not in the bible.


Cite them. Historical, non-religious texts.
Greek and Roman would be the most accurate in that time period. Good luck with that.
You'll be hard pressed to find *4* non-religious historical documents, at least 1 a forgery (Josephus), and none within his lifetime.


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 7, 2010)

you are looking at this from your pretty pink tinted 20/20 hindsite goggles. up until really the 1500's slavery was not considered evil. it was just another facet of life. and also, where does it say do x or suffer y? the only 2 things the christian bible truly dictates is 1: have faith that god can and has saved you. 2: try to be a decent fucking human being. anything else is just specific stories of god telling certain people to do very specific things at that moment, there are no mass dictations except, to put it in jesus' words "1: have faith 2: be cool"


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> lol you may want to read a copy of The Founding Fathers someday, TJ was a devout christian spiritualist. also as for the rest of your ill informed statement, it is called the new covenant.


He really sounds like one:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

What is it men cannot be made to believe! -Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. -Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816 
My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

To talk of _immaterial_ existences is to talk of _nothings_. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are _nothings_, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of _immaterialism_, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. -Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

I can never join Calvin in addressing _his god_. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 7, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> You're using another religious text to support your religious text as real.
> That's like using Ender's Game to show that Harry Potter was real.
> 
> 
> ...


 the dead see scrolls, the gnostic texts and here are a few more greek and roman texts
Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110) 
Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) [The best current discussion on this passage is in my friend JP Holding's site] 
Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) 
Lucian (mid-2nd century) 
Galen (c.150; _De pulsuum differentiis_ 2.4; 3.3) 
Celsus (True Discourse, c.170). 
Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) 
Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 7, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> You're using another religious text to support your religious text as real.
> That's like using Ender's Game to show that Harry Potter was real.


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 7, 2010)

Please do explain to me how the new covenant or new testament or whatever makes the same old religion any better. And how do you justify completely changing many of the core practices or ignoring them just because they were in the original book? There are many many things in the old testament that say they must be done forever or god will be very angry and you just went 180 degrees with a new book but it's still just the same old religion. Why why why when everyone saw a need for a new book didn't you all just say screw this old religion lets make up a completely new one? Why continue to lend your support to a church so born on cruelty and blood?


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 7, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> He really sounds like one:
> 
> Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
> 
> read up on him a bit, he was adamintly opposed to organized religion(the church) but he is in fact a christian spiritualist, you may want to further your search outside of "google_anti christian jefferson quotes"


----------



## Drgreenz (Jan 7, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> Please do explain to me how the new covenant or new testament or whatever makes the same old religion any better. And how do you justify completely changing many of the core practices or ignoring them just because they were in the original book? There are many many things in the old testament that say they must be done forever or god will be very angry and you just went 180 degrees with a new book but it's still just the same old religion. Why why why when everyone saw a need for a new book didn't you all just say screw this old religion lets make up a completely new one? Why continue to lend your support to a church so born on cruelty and blood?


you do realize that the old testament is the jewish torah right? christianity is a totaly different religion. they stem from the same history(that of the old testament) but are totally different guess what the first half of the koran is???? thats right, the torah!!!


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> morgentaler said:
> 
> 
> > He really sounds like one:
> ...


----------



## shnkrmn (Jan 7, 2010)

Really weak comeback.



Drgreenz said:


> read up on him a bit, he was adamintly opposed to organized religion(the church) but he is in fact a christian spiritualist, you may want to further your search outside of "google_anti christian jefferson quotes"


----------



## shnkrmn (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> you do realize that the old testament is the jewish torah right? christianity is a totaly different religion. they stem from the same history(that of the old testament) but are totally different guess what the first half of the koran is???? thats right, the torah!!!


Completely incorrect re first half of the Koran. Where do you get that stuff?


----------



## SeanIzen (Jan 7, 2010)

tebor said:


> And between Christianity and islam, Christianity is the lesser of the 2 evils.
> Thank god for the crusades.


And who are you to declare that? Is it wrong for the majority of them to want to kill every American on there land? If a small group of the KKK blew up the Canadian capital. the Canadians would attack, would you sit around because OTHER people did wrong to them? or would you fight against these people because you yourself didn't do shit in the first place? THERE ARE NO LESSER OF THE TWO. Evil is evil and religion holds humanity as a whole back from being a civilized species...


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> read up on him a bit, he was adamintly opposed to organized religion(the church) but he is in fact a christian spiritualist, you may want to further your search outside of "google_anti christian jefferson quotes"


What kind of 'christian spiritualist' would rewrite the bible completely removing any references to miracles and the divinity of Jesus? 

Jefferson was very clearly a deist and made no apologies for it. He was certainly not a Christian.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

Drgreenz said:


> read up on him a bit, he was adamintly opposed to organized religion(the church) but he is in fact a christian spiritualist, you may want to further your search outside of "google_anti christian jefferson quotes"


He was most closely associated with Deism.

That does not make him a Christian spiritualist.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 7, 2010)

SeanIzen said:


> And who are you to declare that? Is it wrong for the majority of them to want to kill every American on there land? If a small group of the KKK blew up the Canadian capital. the Canadians would attack, would you sit around because OTHER people did wrong to them? or would you fight against these people because you yourself didn't do shit in the first place? THERE ARE NO LESSER OF THE TWO. Evil is evil and religion holds humanity as a whole back from being a civilized species...


Agreed. Would Christianity be any less dangerous if western civilization hadn't secularized government to limit the wholesale murder of citizens by the religious state?

I sure as hell don't want a government or court system that relies on "communication with the almighty by the chosen" rather than a democratic process or evidence.


----------



## SeanIzen (Jan 7, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> Agreed. Would Christianity be any less dangerous if western civilization hadn't secularized government to limit the wholesale murder of citizens by the religious state?
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a government or court system that relies on "communication with the almighty by the chosen" rather than a democratic process or evidence.


Agreed, and no it would not... just like the which hunts and crusades have proven themselves to be no more than acts of religious paranoia. Oh and were they not christian churches that justified the use of slaves in early America? Did our founding fathers have slaves? you bet. 
Thats the problem with most Christians, they justify their religion by claiming these all mighty all good and all pure "founding fathers" were christians themselves. But whenever you point out their faults they say, "we'll times were different" but mysteriously the bible wasn't so the message has stayed the same... 
Obviously the bible is simply a tool for justifying acts of evil and violating HUMAN rights... in the name of god


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 7, 2010)

SeanIzen said:


> Agreed, and no it would not... just like the which hunts and crusades have proven themselves to be no more than acts of religious paranoia. Oh and were they not christian churches that justified the use of slaves in early America? Did our founding fathers have slaves? you bet.
> Thats the problem with most Christians, they justify their religion by claiming these all mighty all good and all pure "founding fathers" were christians themselves. But whenever you point out their faults they say, "we'll times were different" but mysteriously the bible wasn't so the message has stayed the same...
> Obviously the bible is simply a tool for justifying acts of evil and violating HUMAN rights... in the name of god


Yep, good post.

Someone needs to explain that shit. Only problem is, they can't.

So they'll just ignore it, like usual, and carry on believing it because Jesus said the Christians would be "persected for their beliefs" - those same beliefs the Westburo Baptists claim so highly and moral... So they think they're doing the right thing, because if they weren't everyone would be on board with Christianity... (Christian logic fails at every corner)


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jan 7, 2010)

SeanIzen said:


> Agreed, and no it would not... just like the which hunts and crusades have proven themselves to be no more than acts of religious paranoia. Oh and were they not christian churches that justified the use of slaves in early America? Did our founding fathers have slaves? you bet.
> Thats the problem with most Christians, they justify their religion by claiming these all mighty all good and all pure "founding fathers" were christians themselves. But whenever you point out their faults they say, "we'll times were different" but mysteriously the bible wasn't so the message has stayed the same...
> Obviously the bible is simply a tool for justifying acts of evil and violating HUMAN rights... in the name of god


Not *all* of the founders favored slavery. It was a contentious issue even then. They *punted* on the issue in order to establish the U.S., but that decision was ultimately decided four-score and nine years later. We all know how that turned out.

Today, Christians would *not* favor slavery because Christianity has *evolved*. This is due to the *Reformation*, a theme I keep coming back to. The Reformation changed *everything*. The full effects of it did not occur overnight, but they occurred.

In fact, using the *Protestant Reformation* as a benchmark, consider how many extremely *significant* developments occurred in Western Civilization *after* it. How many would have occurred had the Catholic Church *succeeded* in maintaining it's iron-fisted dominance?

By the way, there is a major religion operating today which turns a blind eye to *slavery*, tolerating it even now. *Any guesses?*


----------



## doc111 (Jan 7, 2010)

SeanIzen said:


> Agreed, and no it would not... just like the which hunts and crusades have proven themselves to be no more than acts of religious paranoia. Oh and were they not christian churches that justified the use of slaves in early America? Did our founding fathers have slaves? you bet.
> Thats the problem with most Christians, they justify their religion by claiming these all mighty all good and all pure "founding fathers" were christians themselves. But whenever you point out their faults they say, "we'll times were different" but mysteriously the bible wasn't so the message has stayed the same...
> Obviously the bible is simply a tool for justifying acts of evil and violating HUMAN rights... in the name of god


A bit exaggerated don't ya think? Bad people will always hide behind the church or the imam or the temple or what the fuck ever! They hide in our government's highest ranks. I mean, why not, it's the perfect place to hide. They are everywhere! Everywhere I tell ya!


----------



## Brazko (Jan 7, 2010)

Everything you say is a Lie that you twist and Manipulate into a bigger Lie. You are a Liar, I can prove that as fact. I'm busy at the moment, haven't been on site lately and I'm excited to see so many new people posting, but I had to pause to respond to your stupid shit for calling me an Idiot for no reason, other than your simple minded Monkee reasoning skills. Now your lying saying I was too lazy to look something up, which is another Flat Out Lie from the depths of a baboons Ass.

I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to your stupid ass posts. You are right, there is finally some intelligent conversations going on, the only thing is the threads and topics haven't changed, just the People. So, stop proving yourself to be a liar and Ignore me, or call the RIU maintenance Man/lady to fix your Ignore Button, or Fall upon Your Knees, and Submit to Your God as Well.. 

You want me to respond with something insightful for repping somebody post and including Atdeist in the same category of Human FAllacies, and you calling me an Idiot for it. (not like I really give a shit what you call me annway) Yes, I'll respond with something of substance just for you. I'll prove you lack the comprehension skills of an 4yo, I'll prove with FAct that you are an unconscious habitual Liar. I'll also prove that you are 2 Cuckoos short of some Cocoa Puffs Too, if you Like... 




morgentaler said:


> Maybe you want to go back and read a bunch of his nonsense posts, where his best attempt at making a point was just to use the word monkey in each one.
> 
> Once anyone has established themselves as too lazy to look something up, or just repeats the same unsubstantiated crap that was argued by themselves or someone else in the discussions they're fair game for contempt.
> 
> I grew tired of the liars for jesus and the "god is real you just don't know how to look for him" crowd, long ago.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 7, 2010)

What the fuck did you just say?


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 7, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Everything you say is a Lie that you twist and Manipulate into a bigger Lie. You are a Liar, I can prove that as fact. I'm busy at the moment, haven't been on site lately and I'm excited to see so many new people posting, but I had to pause to respond to your stupid shit for calling me an Idiot for no reason, other than your simple minded Monkee reasoning skills. Now your lying saying I was too lazy to look something up, which is another Flat Out Lie from the depths of a baboons Ass.
> 
> I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to your stupid ass posts. You are right, there is finally some intelligent conversations going on, the only thing is the threads and topics haven't changed, just the People. So, stop proving yourself to be a liar and Ignore me, or call the RIU maintenance Man/lady to fix your Ignore Button, or Fall upon Your Knees, and Submit to Your God as Well..
> 
> You want me to respond with something insightful for repping somebody post and including Atdeist in the same category of Human FAllacies, and you calling me an Idiot for it. (not like I really give a shit what you call me annway) Yes, I'll respond with something of substance just for you. I'll prove you lack the comprehension skills of an 4yo, I'll prove with FAct that you are an unconscious habitual Liar. I'll also prove that you are 2 Cuckoos short of some Cocoa Puffs Too, if you Like...


Please do this, whoop on him hard core, I want to see. Remember he values logic and reason so try to use only those against him, that'll get through.


----------



## SeanIzen (Jan 7, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> What the fuck did you just say?


HAHA... word

and I like Johnnyorganic's post... all that's true. BUT the problem lies in the fact that people who are "hardcore believers" are almost always against any kind of radical change that would make there ways of doing things different. 
I.E. Slavery, the SOUTH fought the war to protect slavery because they had the majority of slaves. Ending slavery would mean a shit ton more work for themselves and ultimately money, which is a whole other issue, so they fight against it. And today ask any defender of slavery and white supremacy how they can be a christian man and believe this and he will point out "New Living Translations" of condoning slavery as well as Hebrew references on how you should treat slaves if you have them...
And you can blame mistranslation or whatever but the bottom line is *people should not allow an ancient book based off astrological symbolism and superstition to govern their daily lives and practices. 
*Instead of a religion we should all be ready to take on new information and ways of doing things even if that information or discovery threatens our current beliefs and traditions. Religion stops us from achieving this by allowing a common belief or church to make its followers protectors of the status quo by outcasting anyone who does not agree or threatens what they believe.

If you don't agree look at how the modern God/Jesus based religions try to talk their way out of proving dinosaurs were here way before their god "created it" But accepting this means their entire belief system crumples because god is wrong and if god is wrong apparently the world ends (_as depicted in the movie dogma with ben afflec matt damon),_ many people believe this that god simply cannot be wrong.

But shit does all this typing have my hands tired, time to spark the bizzong and get to tending to the children


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> Please do this, whoop on him hard core, I want to see. Remember he values logic and reason so try to use only those against him, that'll get through.


If he starts talking again about how we live in a gravity well so strong it can pull light back toward us to make the apparent age of the universe change, I'm just gonna puke.

And that's from the symptoms you get when exposed to a force that would rend you into individual atoms.

Puking followed by disintegration.

Or laughter.



edit: I wonder if his proof of the "liar" claim will be the Santa Claus origin. I stopped at the Dutch interpretation, thinking that was the origin, but it actually goes back to a man in Turkey. Just read about that the other day. Oh noes!


----------



## Brazko (Jan 8, 2010)

This comment is Stupid Meds. Pointless and Stupid. Simply taking a side because you are clueless as well. You say and do shit that is completely contradictive as well just because. Your posts are meaningless as well. If there is no logic and reasoning for what I just said, You can hit the ignore button as well, because I have more of the same for you.



OregonMeds said:


> Please do this, whoop on him hard core, I want to see. Remember he values logic and reason so try to use only those against him, that'll get through.


 
You see, I don't have to do anything. You are an Unconscious Habitual Liar. Show me where I said we live in a gravity well so strong light is pulled back, also, show me where I said I'm too Lazy to look up something as well. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about in regards to the universe age change. Some more shit you just making up. I know where you are pulling the information from, but nothing of the like was even said. You are a Blind Unconscious Liar and Say shit just because you are a Blind Unconscious Liar. I would recommend a Head doctor for you, but I'm for alternative health 1st, but it doesn't look like the weed you are smoking is strong enough to remedy your circumstances. I just had an flash of thought and now understand why you say this shit. You read what I say and then try to take in what I said with your 3yo comprehension level of understanding. Maybe meds was not joking. Maybe I should stick with making things simple for you to understand. My bad, I Forgot. Sorry Meds, and Sorry Morgue. I'll break out the colors next time... 

edit: YOu lied about Santa Claus as well , 



morgentaler said:


> If he starts talking again about how we live in a gravity well so strong it can pull light back toward us to make the apparent age of the universe change, I'm just gonna puke.
> 
> And that's from the symptoms you get when exposed to a force that would rend you into individual atoms.
> 
> ...


Oh Yeah, btw:

A Coward Dies a Thousand Deaths, A Soldier only Dies Once, Coward!!


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm working on it.

I just got to the part where you claimed gravity comes from a "metallic weight" because everything has metal in it, and then I pointed out Hydrogen is not metallic, has mass, and exerts gravitational forces.

Nice backpedaling job:
https://www.rollitup.org/3202010-post286.html

Ahoy! What's this?
https://www.rollitup.org/3254845-post87.html

You made a statement about light being sucked back. For light to be "sucked back" there needs to be a gravity well strong enough to do so.

So one can infer you either know about the gravity well or you're just making stuff up and hoping not to be caught. Which I point out in the messages following.







Brazko said:


> You see, I don't have to do anything. You are an Unconscious Habitual Liar. Show me where I said we live in a gravity well so strong light is pulled back, also, show me where I said I'm too Lazy to look up something as well. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about in regards to the universe age change. Some more shit you just making up. I know where you are pulling the information from, but nothing of the like was even said. You are a Blind Unconscious Liar and Say shit just because you are a Blind Unconscious Liar. I would recommend a Head doctor for you, but I'm for alternative health 1st, but it doesn't look like the weed you are smoking is strong enough to remedy your circumstances. I just had an flash of thought and now understand why you say this shit. You read what I say and then try to take in what I said with your 3yo comprehension level of understanding. Maybe meds was not joking. Maybe I should stick with making things simple for you to understand. My bad, I Forgot. Sorry Meds, and Sorry Morgue. I'll break out the colors next time...
> 
> edit: YOu lied about Santa Claus as well ,
> 
> ...


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Oh Yeah, btw:
> 
> A Coward Dies a Thousand Deaths, A Soldier only Dies Once, Coward!!


How many does a 'Liar for Jesus' die?
Do you get frequent liar miles?


----------



## Brazko (Jan 8, 2010)

Wasn't no need to back pedal, everything I said before then, up to, & after made sense. Ahoy what? You still proving me correct by saying your comprehension is of an 3yo. We were talking about Super Massive Black Holes, remember (Not). Sorry, I forgot light only escapes the gravity of black holes in fantasy atdeist land. And yes, I will suggest that every galaxy known by man is submerged in a galaxy well, the one at the center Monkee..

Also, a liar for Jesus only has to die once.., for 3 days you're in the clear, then you gotta watch your back, Monkee




morgentaler said:


> I'm working on it.
> 
> I just got to the part where you claimed gravity comes from a "metallic weight" because everything has metal in it, and then I pointed out Hydrogen is not metallic, has mass, and exerts gravitational forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brazko (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm busy, Coward, post away and ill take time out later to prove why logically and reasonably, you fit nicely in the category of Coward, Coward!! Ill show you how to bait with shark @ the end of your reel, Coward!! =)


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 8, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I'm busy, Coward, post away and ill take time out later to prove why logically and reasonably, you fit nicely in the category of Coward, Coward!! Ill show you how to bait with shark @ the end of your reel, Coward!! =)


 
What the hell is the point of that, of this?

Go talk to him about this via pm if it's so important, all you're doing now is dragging the thread along. 

The point of this thread is that Christainity is obviously dangerous. That much has been concluded. 

When atheism mounts multiple crusades to go kill thousands of people in the name of atheism, you guys (speaking generally) will have some ground to stand on.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

Once again, for light to be "sucked back" toward us to change our perception of it, there would need to be a black hole behind us large enough to disassemble us at the atomic level.

Your inability to grasp that became part of your "atheists are cowards" "monkeys" claptrap.

You know, there's a lot more people reading these than me, Padawan and CJ. Yet somehow I haven't really noticed anyone pipe up about you previously and say you know what you're talking about...


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> What the hell is the point of that, of this?


He gave up any semblance of trying to appear sensible.

It's just a long, drawn out, capitulation.

It could be his brain is rebooting while he evolves to atheism.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 8, 2010)

Im gonna ask this question to people I know in real life, see what kind of results I get. 

I live in soCal so I'm expecting more "no, it's dangerous" answers, but we'll see. Anybody else down to do the same?


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 8, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> He gave up any semblance of trying to appear sensible.
> 
> It's just a long, drawn out, capitulation.
> 
> It could be his brain is rebooting while he evolves to atheism.


Idk what it is but it's not productive, that's for sure.

The "monkey" thing is kind of ironic, if Braz is usin' it the way I think he is... 

 It's payday, I'm just hanging out enjoying the afternoon. All this shit aside, what are the both of you guys up to today?


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

I finally got out of hillbilly country isolation last night and went and played Nazi Zombies with an old buddy of mine from high school.
It was a good time. I veer wildly back and forth between missing the city and hanging out with friends every day, and just enjoying going outside and being able to breathe, see the stars at night, etc.

Today is laundry day, then then I have to take a pickaxe to frozen dirt and start filling in the trench under the house where the sewage lines went in. Whee! Indoor plumbing? Highly underrated. Especially when you go without for a while.

And now that I have the PS3 back, might have to go out and find me a copy of Modern Warfare 2.


edit: 


> The "monkey" thing is kind of ironic, if Braz is usin' it the way I think he is...


Either he has contempt for the concept of evolution, or he doesn't understand it and the relationships among primates. Either way, he just looks like a sore loser every time he does it.

edit2: I would assume it's him that occasionally reps me with stupid remarks. It would fit his behavior pattern. Try to insult you, give you positive rep.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> I live in soCal so I'm expecting more "no, it's dangerous" answers, but we'll see. Anybody else down to do the same?


Most people I know just think religion in general is a silly waste of time, like the psychic friends network and other crap.

A couple think that religion or faith are completely harmless.

Then there's one or two born agains, and I'm pretty sure they don't think it's dangerous.

And then a few people who think blind faith / religion / dogma is always dangerous. 

So it's a spectrum.

The ones that think faith is harmless usually start to shift their position when you show them the effects of faith healing, using "alternative medicine" that has no basis in reality.


----------



## Brazko (Jan 8, 2010)

You see Paddy, It all started right here with me repping this post and saying that the blind and innocent become corrupted by dangerous people doing harmful things in religion, but they too are also cowards for not standing up and doing the right thing, but they are people none the less, just like atheist, who can be blind, innocent, & cowardly. And I sincerely think this was an excellent post because it was delivered with honest reasoning, and truthfullness. Not some hate bash shit 



Brazko said:


> All Power Corrupts, the blind with the Innocent, however, they too are Cowards and Atheists...
> 
> Excellent Post Freaky Botanist





naked gardener said:


> If Christians/Christianity were to have actually followed the lessons and example of Christ, then it could have been a beautiful thing.
> 
> I would like to say that people can believe whatever they want and that is no affront to me--but unfortunately it is the innocent believer, who outwardly harms no one, that keep the quacks in office and on television, that rally support for political candidates that stand for the opposite of what Christ stood for--even though s/he SAYS otherwise. Makes no sense. As long as a politician says they are a Christian and/or Pro-life, they will get blind votes from people who have learned to swallow what ever has been spoon fed to them.
> 
> ...


Here she calls me a rambling idiot for what? Do you read your posts are just cherry pick what you wish to acknowedge? 


morgentaler said:


> Cowardly is walking around proclaiming your belief in Sky Captain Jesus as eternal fire insurance.
> 
> Cowardly is standing up in the pulpit and political chambers as a Christian attacking the immorality of single parents and gays, only to be caught out in a mens room or a parked car with a prostitute's cock in your mouth.
> 
> ...


It was nothing meant to be productive to the topic, I already added to a sense of degree of how I felt about christanity. But to be clear, it's not dangerous, People are, and Yes some harmful shit has been done behind the cloak of Christanity/Religion. But's it's not dangerous, and if the spread of religion cease to exist as we evolve, so be it. But it's nothing that I feel endangered by. Present Christanity/Religion contribute more good than harm collectively, and to isolate Christanity to the selective few people, or groups compared to the whole, and say it is dangerous is absurd. 

And you're not that slow, are you? Yes, I'm being a Monkee right along with her. But I'm an evolved Primate (man). She still thinks like MonKee, so a MonKee she'll be. 

Anyhow, I'm about to load up a bowl as I type now bro'... 



PadawanBater said:


> Idk what it is but it's not productive, that's for sure.
> 
> The "monkey" thing is kind of ironic, if Braz is usin' it the way I think he is...
> 
> It's payday, I'm just hanging out enjoying the afternoon. All this shit aside, what are the both of you guys up to today?


hahahahahaahha, You have no Clue of what the Hell you are talking about..., There is a Black Hole Behind Us , MonkEE, and Yes, our perception of light changes when it comes towards us. It turns Blue, there's a Big Blue Light coming Towards Us Now, as we speak.. There is probably blue light everywhere, we just don't have the technology to observe it's occurence within other galaxies..MOnkee

Monkee........, where did you learn to think like that, Disassembling us at the Atomic Level,  My inability to grasp became evident to you, huh? 

Hey Morgue, why would someone choose, or not choose to say I know what I'm talking about? before you answer that, think about it....OOooops, My bad.

I think somebody just told me to stop teasing..., I'm sorry.. It's all good.









morgentaler said:


> Once again, for light to be "sucked back" toward us to change our perception of it, there would need to be a black hole behind us large enough to disassemble us at the atomic level.
> 
> Your inability to grasp that became part of your "atheists are cowards" "monkeys" claptrap.
> 
> You know, there's a lot more people reading these than me, Padawan and CJ. Yet somehow I haven't really noticed anyone pipe up about you previously and say you know what you're talking about...


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

Brazko said:


> hahahahahaahha, You have no Clue of what the Hell you are talking about..., There is a Black Hole Behind Us , MonkEE, and Yes, our perception of light changes when it comes towards us. It turns Blue, there's a Big Blue Light coming Towards Us Now, as we speak.. There is probably blue light everywhere, we just don't have the technology to observe it's occurence within other galaxies..MOnkee
> 
> Monkee........, where did you learn to think like that, Disassembling us at the Atomic Level,  My inability to grasp became evident to you, huh?


You just showed once again that you have no idea at all what you're saying. Sure you can parrot phrases about doppler shifting, and black holes, but you don't actually learn anything about it.

Remember when I posted about how if the sun disappeared earth would be affected gravitationally instantly but the light would still not disappear for 8 minutes? And then a day or so later I came back and updated it in a later post because the episode of The Universe that mentioned it used newtonian physics for the example, but a later episode addressed it with Einsteinian physics and gravitational waves.

Well, you still haven't admitted your own incomprehension of what you were saying. 



> WE may actually be seeing farther INto Space than What the Actually size of The Physical Universe May Be, VIA Light.... HOwever Light is Being Sucked Back AS WEll...


For light to be "sucked back" the light must already be going away from us. For the lens effect - which only changes the direction of light by small amounts - you need a massive object like the sun.
To "suck" it back, you would need that black hole. If the black hole was between us and the light we would never see the light.
If it was behind us and it was exerting enough force to pull light back from billions of light years away, we'd already be disintegrated. We'd have been torn apart atom by atom and integrated into the singularity.

Is that plain enough for you? Or do we need to break out Elmo again?







The red/blue of the doppler shift has nothing to do with black holes. And is unrelated to your previous statement. It is caused by a perceived difference in wavelength due to the speed at which we are moving away/toward objects. Just like with sound waves!

Go take a physics class already. And pay attention instead of seeing how much pot you can cram in your pipe.

And then you cry about being called a rambling idiot when you've already been calling other people "athiest cowards".

Well, guess what? I won't be shedding any tears over any hard feelings you have. You finally learned how to use the text editor and not talk like a little kid that just discovered caps-lock. Whoopee. Does that make anything you have to say now valid? Want some respect around here? Earn it.

Good luck though. You're in the hole. Maybe a black one. Try sucking some light back so you can see your way out.


----------



## Brazko (Jan 8, 2010)

Morgue, everything your post just stated, I Understand Completely.. Yet, it has nothing to do with what I said. Cocoa 

Goodbye


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 8, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Morgue, everything your post just stated, I Understand Completely.. Yet, it has nothing to do with what I said. Cocoa
> 
> Goodbye


It might not have anything to do with what you meant. It had everything to do with what you said.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 8, 2010)

Brazko said:


> It was nothing meant to be productive to the topic, I already added to a sense of degree of how I felt about christanity. *But to be clear, it's not dangerous, People are, and Yes some harmful shit has been done behind the cloak of Christanity/Religion. But's it's not dangerous*, and if the spread of religion cease to exist as we evolve, so be it. But it's nothing that I feel endangered by. Present Christanity/Religion contribute more good than harm collectively, and to isolate Christanity to the selective few people, or groups compared to the whole, and say it is dangerous is absurd.


It is dangerous. Check the results of the poll at the top. A bunch of us have given our reasons why we think it's dangerous. You're more than welcome to address them, I'd be interested in hearing what you had to say. You can either read through the thread or I can re-state em', no prob. 

I totally disagree with that statement. Organized religion is the number one problem our society faces today.


----------



## Kushkittens (Jan 8, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> It is dangerous. Check the results of the poll at the top. A bunch of us have given our reasons why we think it's dangerous. You're more than welcome to address them, I'd be interested in hearing what you had to say. You can either read through the thread or I can re-state em', no prob.
> 
> I totally disagree with that statement. Organized religion is the number one problem our society faces today.


 Well said padawan...well said lol


----------



## Brazko (Jan 9, 2010)

I've read the thread for the most part, but reiterate what the present danger of Christianity is? 

And not to take jabs at your poll, but its significance is none. Its like me asking a poll question to a religious based audience if atheism is dangerous you see. What would be more productive to your query is to take a piece of paper out in your area as you stated and take a random poll. No ad lib.. Just is Christianity dangerous or not. Then tell me the results of your poll. Christians have an distaste I guarantee towards corrupt officials/clergy that are hypocrites and impostors. They believe these people to be dangerous and harmful to Christianity, however, that doesn't make them the christians dangerous. But reiterate, are we talking organized religion or, simply Christianity.




PadawanBater said:


> It is dangerous. Check the results of the poll at the top. A bunch of us have given our reasons why we think it's dangerous. You're more than welcome to address them, I'd be interested in hearing what you had to say. You can either read through the thread or I can re-state em', no prob.
> 
> I totally disagree with that statement. Organized religion is the number one problem our society faces today.


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jan 9, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I've read the thread for the most part, but reiterate what the present danger of Christianity is?
> 
> And not to take jabs at your poll, but its significance is none. Its like me asking a poll question to a religious based audience if atheism is dangerous you see. What would be more productive to your query is to take a piece of paper out in your area as you stated and take a random poll. No ad lib.. Just is Christianity dangerous or not. Then tell me the results of your poll. Christians have an distaste I guarantee towards corrupt officials/clergy that are hypocrites and impostors. They believe these people to be dangerous and harmful to Christianity, however, that doesn't make them the christians dangerous. But reiterate, are we talking organized religion or, simply Christianity.


The biggest danger Christians pose to society is their disregard for the Constitution when it suits them. Now this is *not* limited to Christians, but they are the most egregious offenders in this regard. Furthermore, they have gotten away with it for so long that they feel slighted, even *persecuted*, when challenged by people like me.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 9, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> It is dangerous. Check the results of the poll at the top. A bunch of us have given our reasons why we think it's dangerous. You're more than welcome to address them, I'd be interested in hearing what you had to say. You can either read through the thread or I can re-state em', no prob.
> 
> I totally disagree with that statement. Organized religion is the number one problem our society faces today.


Does a bunch of people taking a poll on a weed site really make that the reality? What's real for some is fantasy for others and vice versa. Your opinion and the opinion of some others is that Christianity is dangerous. I could killl a man with a spoon. Does that make spoons dangerous?


----------



## NavarreFla (Jan 9, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Those of us lucky enough to live in somewhat secular households while we were growing up witnessed it with our own eyes, and those of us smart enough to keep them open realized it's bullshit.


Dude, thats leading the question.
This isn't a forum of open investigation.. you've already formulated one and obviously hold any other perspective in disdain. Intruth you arn't looking anymore you are attempting to sway others with your ground breaking research (sarcasm).
Clearly, you have a ax to grind.


BTW. I was raised in a secular household and was EXTREMELY antagonistic towards organized religion in general and Christianity in particular. I had a conversion experience at 24 and spent the better part of 2 years attempting to refute the Bible (KJV), then the prophetic record and finally the Messianic prophecies.


----------



## Brazko (Jan 9, 2010)

I agree, I wouldn't even say its just extreme fundamentalists, but fundamentalist & the politicians that want their vote, but importantly its the politicians. And yes we elect them into office, but its just not Christians who elect them. I feel that our constitutional freedoms do get infringed upon by religious politics, but for a nation built ground up on Christian values/morals, It must be noted that the ability to evolve and adapt has always been in the direction of positive with Christianity. I wish things could instantly be right, but that's not how things evolve right?





Johnnyorganic said:


> The biggest danger Christians pose to society is their disregard for the Constitution when it suits them. Now this is *not* limited to Christians, but they are the most egregious offenders in this regard. Furthermore, they have gotten away with it for so long that they feel slighted, even *persecuted*, when challenged by people like me.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 9, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I've read the thread for the most part, but reiterate what the present danger of Christianity is?
> 
> And not to take jabs at your poll, but its significance is none. Its like me asking a poll question to a religious based audience if atheism is dangerous you see. What would be more productive to your query is to take a piece of paper out in your area as you stated and take a random poll. No ad lib.. Just is Christianity dangerous or not. Then tell me the results of your poll. Christians have an distaste I guarantee towards corrupt officials/clergy that are hypocrites and impostors. They believe these people to be dangerous and harmful to Christianity, however, that doesn't make them the christians dangerous. But reiterate, are we talking organized religion or, simply Christianity.


I get to the significance of the poll in my response to doc, below. 

As for the issues, it's mostly with organized religion. I find most people who practice their beliefs who do not visit church on a regular basis are the most normal believers of the bunch. So obviously that means that the abuse these people put out in society is taught to them, either through some interpretation they learned in church or something they were told by their fundamentalist pastor. So my biggest beef is with *organized religion*. The flocking together to swap terrible ideas that are not based on science. 

That's the side you see, the side of organized religion that you can actively be wary of and avoid if you want. But then there's the other side... The hidden side, the dark side of religion, belief. The side that tells you to turn off that critical thinking section of your brain (because that's the only fuckin' way anyone would ever believe it) and take it on 'faith'. They tell you it's not going to make sense to you, but that's because it "can't" or because "you can't understand it". 

This mentality *actively dumbs down our youth*. I laid it all out there in one of jeff's threads. How it goes from innocent belief system, not harming anyone, to voting in elections, to electing fundamentalists into the white house and lower houses to affecting our foreign policy, to affecting a lot of our domestic policy (ban on stem cell research, war on drugs, etc.)... it's like a domino effect. Organized religion is in every single facet of our way of life, and specifically Christianity because we live in America.

So to sum it up for you Braz, I think *organized religion *is dangerous because it makes people incapable of learning and understanding knowledge. There are a million examples of this on youtube. I can provide an example or two of the kind of person I'm referring to, but again, like I said, and I'm sure most of us agree, most of the believers are as harmless as a house cat... but their passive belief system is what allows the more fanatical ones to exist. 



doc111 said:


> Does a bunch of people taking a poll on a weed site really make that the reality? What's real for some is fanasy for others and vice versa. Your opinion and the opinion of some others is that Christianity is dangerous. I could killl a man with a spoon. Does that make spoons dangerous?


No, obviously not, the poll isn't "scientific" in the least. What it does though is provide a rough concensus of peoples opinions here on RIU. That, with the reasons provided, serves as a pretty good start. (I haven't seen any believers address any of the actual problems, have you?) Is it just a coincidence we all have similar complaints? 



NavarreFla said:


> Dude, thats leading the question.
> This isn't a forum of open investigation.. *you've already formulated one and obviously hold any other perspective in disdain. Intruth you arn't looking anymore you are attempting to sway others with your ground breaking research* (sarcasm).
> Clearly, you have a ax to grind.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you're right, I obviously did have an opinion when I started this thread, as everyone does. But you're incorrect in saying that I'm trying to sway peoples minds. I don't recall ever saying "convert to atheism" - or something similar... Throughout the thread you'll see me and a few others support logical positions and rational ideas, so I guess it's in a way _indirectly_ telling people not to be so blindly ignorant anymore, but I couldn't give a fuck less what you believe to be honest, skim the thread, as I told Braz, all the reasons are there, address each of them if you have an issue. Don't just say "it's not dangerous"... Tell me why.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 9, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> I get to the significance of the poll in my response to doc, below.
> 
> As for the issues, it's mostly with organized religion. I find most people who practice their beliefs who do not visit church on a regular basis are the most normal believers of the bunch. So obviously that means that the abuse these people put out in society is taught to them, either through some interpretation they learned in church or something they were told by their fundamentalist pastor. So my biggest beef is with *organized religion*. The flocking together to swap terrible ideas that are not based on science.
> 
> ...


I feel and respect what you're saying but I don't think it's that simple. Nothing is ever so simple when the layers are peeled back. And some feel the way they do because of how they are raised and some feel the way they do because of experience. I wouldn't go so far as to say christianity is safe but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dangerous either. I keep getting accused of being on the fence. I make no apologies. A fair and open observation is what I strive for. Doesn't always happen but hey.......................


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 9, 2010)

doc111 said:


> I feel and respect what you're saying but I don't think it's that simple. Nothing is ever so simple when the layers are peeled back. And some feel the way they do because of how they are raised and some feel the way they do because of experience. I wouldn't go so far as to say christianity is safe but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dangerous either. I keep getting accused of being on the fence. I make no apologies. A fair and open observation is what I strive for. Doesn't always happen but hey.......................


Well look at it this way. Imagine a world without religion. Actually think about it, not a world where religion vanished, a world where religion never got off the ground and nobody ever conceived of a god. What do you think those people would be doing instead?

Consider all the ancient philosophers and how some of them were exiled, executed, ect for some of the things they were saying - would the contributions made by them maybe have had an earlier head start on society? 

Consider all the ancient technology without the rituals and cults of the ancient world. What did the ancient Egyptians provide us with? The Aztecs, Chinese... again, some of the same questions need to be asked about technology but this one has a different side to it - with war - brought on by *religious motivations *- new technologies arose... Countless things were provided by warfare, to what degree each individual conflicts motivations were solely based on religion is debatable, and hard to know for sure... (but think about it, whose to say some of those millions, if not billions of people killed in warfare throughout human history wouldn't have invented these new technologies that came about during a time of warfare? Further, whose to say mankind is *better off *with the inventions those wars provided? Are we really better off having nuclear weapons? M16's? F22's?... you be the judge of that)

Science? This is one facet of humanity I think religion has done nothing *BUT HINDER*. Since the beginning, science has been proving religious texts incorrect, and since the beginning, the early believers realized this would be a very big problem. Since I believe science is our biggest weapon against anything that might come between us and the future, our survival, I see religion as the number one obstacle to that goal.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 9, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Well look at it this way. Imagine a world without religion. Actually think about it, not a world where religion vanished, a world where religion never got off the ground and nobody ever conceived of a god. What do you think those people would be doing instead?
> 
> Consider all the ancient philosophers and how some of them were exiled, executed, ect for some of the things they were saying - would the contributions made by them maybe have had an earlier head start on society?
> 
> ...


I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't know what we would do in place of religion. Throw rocks in the pond, take more walks through the park. I can't answer this. We live in a world shaped by religion. Science has had its role in shaping things as well. I long for a better world like most people do I'm sure. Philosophers long before us and long after us have and will ask these questions. We all want to know if there is more. We all want to know our purpose. If you can honestly say that these questions haven't piqued your curiosity then I admire your steadfast belief but I don't share it. I think there is more, I think we each have a purpose. Not in the religious sense but in life. If there is nothing greater than what we are doing here now, then what's the point? I mean what the hell is the point in all the shit we do? We save, we work, we raise families, and for what?


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 9, 2010)

doc111 said:


> I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't know what we would do in place of religion. Throw rocks in the pond, take more walks through the park. I can't answer this. We live in a world shaped by religion. Science has had its role in shaping things as well. I long for a better world like most people do I'm sure. Philosophers long before us and long after us have and will ask these questions. We all want to know if there is more. We all want to know our purpose. If you can honestly say that these questions haven't piqued your curiosity then I admire your steadfast belief but I don't share it. I think there is more, I think we each have a purpose. Not in the religious sense but in life. If there is nothing greater than what we are doing here now, then what's the point? I mean what the hell is the point in all the shit we do? We save, we work, we raise families, and for what?


Perhaps the point is... there is no point.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 9, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> Perhaps the point is... there is no point.


I think there is a point though. I devoted my life to helping others. I didn't talk about it, I did it. I'm retired now, not because I'm an old man but because I was injured while trying to help someone. I have helped save a lot of lives and seen a lot of death. I have looked into the eyes of many a dying person. I can only imagine what goes throught the mind of the dying. I certainly hope I have not done all this in vain.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 9, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> So to sum it up for you Braz, I think *organized religion *is dangerous because it makes people incapable of learning and understanding knowledge. There are a million examples of this on youtube. I can provide an example or two of the kind of person I'm referring to, but again, like I said, and I'm sure most of us agree, most of the believers are as harmless as a house cat... but their passive belief system is what allows the more fanatical ones to exist.


I would substitute *faith *for *organized religion *in your first statement.

You don't need to be part of organized religion to believe Meryl Dory when she says that the pertussis vaccine is bad, and children don't die from pertussis or measles. That's faith.

Hundreds, probably thousands, of products are sold in health food stores, based on no evidence they have any beneficial effect - just faith.

People elect politicians because that person has the same religion, comes from the same geographic area, went to the same school, has the same skin color or sex, and expect that person to represent their interests - all without investigating the track record of the individual. That's faith. There are Obama supporters that are just off their gourd about supporting everything he does, and they're just as irrational as the Palin supporters.

People stay with abusive partners because they have faith that the person will change, when the evidence says otherwise.

It's nice to have hope. But faith is a different beast, with poisoned fangs.


----------



## Brazko (Jan 9, 2010)

Do anybody think this Man is Dangerous?



I think somebody said earlier it doesn't become that simple when you peel back the layers..


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 9, 2010)

Anyone in opposition to his political beliefs surely would.

From the outside looking in, he's probably the closest living example to the idealized Republican, rather than the right wing religious nuts that have wrested control over the party.

So he gets hate from Republicans *and* Democrats. But he's one of the few Republicans I have heard Democrats say they would vote for on principal, because they consider him a rare politician of his word.

I'd certainly have issue with some of his stances politically, and think some of the ideas would be dangerous for some citizens if implemented.

But I'd agree with some too.

He's far less dangerous (in a democratic political system) than the typical politician because he bases his voting patterns on the application of the constitution, and that pattern makes him fairly predictable. So you know what you're getting if you vote him in, as opposed to flip-flop politicians.





Brazko said:


> Do anybody think this Man is Dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> I think somebody said earlier it doesn't become that simple when you peel back the layers..


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

morgentaler said:


> Anyone in opposition to his political beliefs surely would.
> 
> From the outside looking in, he's probably the closest living example to the idealized Republican, rather than the right wing religious nuts that have wrested control over the party.
> 
> ...


Has anybody seen Bruno? The part where he is in the hotel room trying to seduce Ron Paul is fucking hilarious! Sorry, I had to inject that.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

Brazko said:


> Do anybody think this Man is Dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> I think somebody said earlier it doesn't become that simple when you peel back the layers..


That's absolutely correct. It depends on your point of view. Something most of us see as fairly innocuous, a sneeze, can be deadly to a person with an immune disorder. It's all about perspective.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 10, 2010)

One quick question Doc, how do you feel about the way organized religion (or perhaps Morgen put it better, the faith in organized religion), with emphasis on Christianity because of our location, dumbs down the youth? A good example of this is the theory of evolution. Within the scientific community, it's fact, period. Among the public it remains a controversy specifically because of religious conflicts of interest. Over half the country doesn't accept it as true, verifiable science, when the very medicine they use, animals they keep, and even down to the names of parts of their own bodies (*tail *bone) show signs of descent from a common anscestor. 

Do you see this as _dangerous?_


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> One quick question Doc, how do you feel about the way organized religion (or perhaps Morgen put it better, the faith in organized religion), with emphasis on Christianity because of our location, dumbs down the youth? A good example of this is the theory of evolution. Within the scientific community, it's fact, period. Among the public it remains a controversy specifically because of religious conflicts of interest. Over half the country doesn't accept it as true, verifiable science, when the very medicine they use, animals they keep, and even down to the names of parts of their own bodies (*tail *bone) show signs of descent from a common anscestor.
> 
> Do you see this as _dangerous?_


Again you are seeing things in black and white. I'm just giving you a hypothetical so dont' freak. Why couldn't god have created the earth and life to evolve? Remember the missing link still hasn't been found. Dangerous is a bit of an overstatement I think. Ignorant, perhaps.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> One quick question Doc, how do you feel about the way organized religion (or perhaps Morgen put it better, the faith in organized religion), with emphasis on Christianity because of our location, dumbs down the youth? A good example of this is the theory of evolution. Within the scientific community, it's fact, period. Among the public it remains a controversy specifically because of religious conflicts of interest. Over half the country doesn't accept it as true, verifiable science, when the very medicine they use, animals they keep, and even down to the names of parts of their own bodies (*tail *bone) show signs of descent from a common anscestor.
> 
> Do you see this as _dangerous?_


 Have you seen Bruno? Every time I see a picture of Ron Paul I think of that scene. Freakin' hilarious!


----------



## PadawanBater (Jan 10, 2010)

doc111 said:


> Again you are seeing things in black and white. I'm just giving you a hypothetical so dont' freak. *Why couldn't god have created the earth and life to evolve? Remember the missing link still hasn't been found.* Dangerous is a bit of an overstatement I think. Ignorant, perhaps.


All that is is the god of the gaps argument. "We don't know ____, so God did it". I don't see any reason why a god couldn't have started, designed, established, created evolution... But there is simply no evidence *for it*. That's the thing. I couldn't, even if I wanted to, believe any conscious being is responsible for designing a system so complex, especially given it encompasses *all life on Earth*, and it's *entirely biology based* (when human beings can't even replicate DNA in the lab). I've never seen something *create *another living organism, there is no evidence for such a process in existence. Until I see some evidence, the possibility remains that, just a possibility. 

Elaborate on how it's an overstatement if you would. Essentially what I was saying was that the beliefs are responsible for the information these people learn (or _don't learn, _rather), which reflects, as shown by numerous scientific studies, the way they cast their votes. Also, these same people with these same beliefs make laws and are influenced by whatever religious text they claim to follow, so when the bible says something like "homosexuality is an abomination" - how could you expect *even an honest, "moral" *politician to cast his vote in favor of securing his homosexual constituents civil rights? 

See what I mean? In a lot of different areas, it does become that cut and dry, black and white.



doc111 said:


> Have you seen Bruno? Every time I see a picture of Ron Paul I think of that scene. Freakin' hilarious!


I still haven't seen that yet. I like SBC, he's funny as hell when he plays Ali G! lmao


----------



## shnkrmn (Jan 10, 2010)

here's cut and dry;

God is male. 
All males have a penis. 
. ------------------------ 
. . Therefore God has a penis. 
God is perfect. 
[A perfect being has no useless attributes.] 
God has a penis. 
. ------------------------ 
. . Therefore God must use His penis. 
God is a unique being. 
[A unique being has no others like himself.] 
God uses His penis.
[But not for waste or reproduction.] 
. ------------------------- 
. . Therefore God must masturbate. 


After seeing its ramifications, the notion of God's maleness is a far reaching one for Christianity; and it is, in fact, an even more dramatic discovery than it at first appears. This is because Christians don't assert that God is only sometimes perfect or only sometimes unique. They hold that these divine properties are as eternal as God Himself. This allows us to justify the additional deduction: 

 
God must masturbate if He is perfect and male. 
God is always perfect & male. 
. ----------------------------------------------- 
. . God is always masturbating.​ 
http://www.cretinworld.com/father_phallus.html


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

PadawanBater said:


> All that is is the god of the gaps argument. "We don't know ____, so God did it". I don't see any reason why a god couldn't have started, designed, established, created evolution... But there is simply no evidence *for it*. That's the thing. I couldn't, even if I wanted to, believe any conscious being is responsible for designing a system so complex, especially given it encompasses *all life on Earth*, and it's *entirely biology based* (when human beings can't even replicate DNA in the lab). I've never seen something *create *another living organism, there is no evidence for such a process in existence. Until I see some evidence, the possibility remains that, just a possibility.
> 
> Elaborate on how it's an overstatement if you would. Essentially what I was saying was that the beliefs are responsible for the information these people learn (or _don't learn, _rather), which reflects, as shown by numerous scientific studies, the way they cast their votes. Also, these same people with these same beliefs make laws and are influenced by whatever religious text they claim to follow, so when the bible says something like "homosexuality is an abomination" - how could you expect *even an honest, "moral" *politician to cast his vote in favor of securing his homosexual constituents civil rights?
> 
> ...


In some areas it is black and white but not all. I'm not saying that's what happened I'm just throwing it out there. I hate the creation vs. evolution debate because both sides are so closed off to the possibility of a combination of the 2. And you keep giving examples of the ignorance of Some christians. Like it or not we are a nation which was started by religious refugees. You can't change history (although some try). We are what we are and perhaps we will evolve past our ignorance but remember that our own egoes prevent this as much as religion does. We can only reference our own experience which is unique. Nobody else in all of the world posesses the same body of knowledge and experience as I do. Same goes for you and every other person on this tiny blue orb. Our experiences shape us and guide us in our beliefs and choices we make. We won't always see eye to eye. How boring would the world be if every person marched in lockstep to the same old beat. Our uniqueness gives color and flavor to life and we should cherish it. Beliefs aside we are all rare gems in the vast cosmos. Every human who ever lived and ever will live is rare in the extreme. Even if life is abundant in the cosmos there is probably nothing quite like us. I am not sure what point I was trying to make................


----------



## Brazko (Jan 10, 2010)

I think point well made..

and I did check out Bruno, Ron don't [email protected](k around do he,


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 10, 2010)

doc111 said:


> In some areas it is black and white but not all. I'm not saying that's what happened I'm just throwing it out there. I hate the creation vs. evolution debate because both sides are so closed off to the possibility of a combination of the 2. And you keep giving examples of the ignorance of Some christians. Like it or not we are a nation which was started by religious refugees. You can't change history (although some try). We are what we are and perhaps we will evolve past our ignorance but remember that our own egoes prevent this as much as religion does. We can only reference our own experience which is unique. Nobody else in all of the world posesses the same body of knowledge and experience as I do. Same goes for you and every other person on this tiny blue orb. Our experiences shape us and guide us in our beliefs and choices we make. We won't always see eye to eye. How boring would the world be if every person marched in lockstep to the same old beat. Our uniqueness gives color and flavor to life and we should cherish it. Beliefs aside we are all rare gems in the vast cosmos. Every human who ever lived and ever will live is rare in the extreme. Even if life is abundant in the cosmos there is probably nothing quite like us. I am not sure what point I was trying to make................


You are quite incorrect. Both sides have never been closed off from a combination of the two. There are plenty of scientists that point out there really is no conflict between religion and evolution. It is the creationists that insist the two are incompatible. They soundly reject the science because it conflicts with their beliefs yet there are plenty of scientists such as Ken Miller, biologist and witness for the Plaintiff at the Dover Trial, is a Roman Catholic. He even discusses how he feels there's still plenty of room for God in science during one of his lectures. 
The problem comes when the religious reject things that already have a firm basis in fact. They take this body of knowledge that you discuss and throw it in the toilet because they cannot accept a world that didn't unfold as in the pages of their book of fairy-tales.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> You are quite incorrect. Both sides have never been closed off from a combination of the two. There are plenty of scientists that point out there really is no conflict between religion and evolution. It is the creationists that insist the two are incompatible. They soundly reject the science because it conflicts with their beliefs yet there are plenty of scientists such as Ken Miller, biologist and witness for the Plaintiff at the Dover Trial, is a Roman Catholic. He even discusses how he feels there's still plenty of room for God in science during one of his lectures.
> The problem comes when the religious reject things that already have a firm basis in fact. They take this body of knowledge that you discuss and throw it in the toilet because they cannot accept a world that didn't unfold as in the pages of their book of fairy-tales.


I'm sure there are plenty of examples of scientists who don't accept the melding of science and creation. It's like the big bang vs. steady state debate. How do we know we aren't in a steadily expanding and contracting universe, an existence which pulsates endlessly, has no beginning and no end?


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

Brazko said:


> I think point well made..
> 
> and I did check out Bruno, Ron don't [email protected](k around do he,


He was seriously freaked out and PISSED when he found out what he was up to!


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 10, 2010)

doc111 said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of examples of scientists who don't accept the melding of science and creation. It's like the big bang vs. steady state debate. How do we know we aren't in a steadily expanding and contracting universe, an existence which pulsates endlessly, has no beginning and no end?


There may be but you appeared to frame the disagreement as if both sides are unwavering. Scientists have strong opinions and will let you know it. However, they are not the ones married to dogma.


----------



## doc111 (Jan 10, 2010)

mindphuk said:


> There may be but you appeared to frame the disagreement as if both sides are unwavering. Scientists have strong opinions and will let you know it. However, they are not the ones married to dogma.


My apologies. It wasn't my intent to make it seem as if it were an absolute for either side. I don't think there are many absolutes in the cosmos.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 10, 2010)

The basis of science is the Scientific Method.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

Once it was developed, science was no longer a blend of observation, alchemy, and religion. 

Structure not only increased the effectiveness of research, by stripping away any which lacked evidence it separated the philosophical and religious pursuits which claimed to be scientific.

If there is no evidence for creation it will not be included in a science paper. And in a reputable journal peer-review will not let research with no verifiable data last for long.




doc111 said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of examples of scientists who don't accept the melding of science and creation. It's like the big bang vs. steady state debate. How do we know we aren't in a steadily expanding and contracting universe, an existence which pulsates endlessly, has no beginning and no end?


It's odd you would use Big Bang vs. Steady State. 50 years ago they had already gathered enough new data about the size, shape, age, and movement of objects in the universe to find that the evidence pointed toward the Big Bang. Indeed, the theory may change as new evidence is found still. But it will be _built upon_ the knowledge that came before it.

"God created the universe" is a statement completely devoid of evidence. It can not change with no evidence to build upon. To even make the claim one must first define the god in question. How can you do that if you have no data to work with? The bible lacks anything that could be even considered viable scientific evidence.


----------



## fitch303 (Jan 10, 2010)

If were so dangerous you probably don't want to offend us, just sayin.


----------



## morgentaler (Jan 10, 2010)

fitch303 said:


> If were so dangerous you probably don't want to offend us, just sayin.


Tapeworms are parasites on humanity too. I don't mind offending them.


----------



## Farfenugen (Aug 3, 2011)

All religion ever is, is a way to subjugate the masses. Nothing good ever came from religion, except death, paranoia, righteousness (which in itself is a bad thing), arrogance, greed and corruption, all in the name of some made-up diety or misguided desert wandering hippie with a bad case of sunstroke. Although I tend to like Christmas, not in the biblical sense, but the trees, the gifts, the cheesy films and of course the food. Commercialism, blah blah blah. When ti comes down to it, we're all human whether we have the means to subjugate or not. Thr rich and powerful as well as that guy Jesus (who may or may not be real), all shit the same. And we'll all eventually die some day. And why we're here, why not make the best of it? Well, because of greed. Pure and simple. Greed over wealth, power, going down in history, celebrity worship, having the most things, being able not to labour and toil but to sit back whilst having some young slave suck your cock, cook your meals or do your laundry. And as soon as the other slaves refuse, you'll come up with one way or another in order to control them so that they will cower down and you'll again be able to have your cock sucked, your meals cooked and your socks washed. 

That, in a nutjob shell, is what it's all about. Silly apes with silly ape ways.


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Aug 3, 2011)

Considering Religion alone can account for more deaths than any other thing known to mankind....I think its "safe" to say religion is not "safe" at the very least.

The largest killer to mankind ...NOT something to believe as "safe"

In several religions there are accounts of "god" coming to earth to part take in the OFFING of his own creations.....A very godlike act  Im sorry but there is nothing that say's godly love like killing your own children or just wiping the world out of humans......All of which sounds real "safe"


----------



## VILEPLUME (Aug 3, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> Considering Religion alone can account for more deaths than any other thing known to mankind....I think its "safe" to say religion is not "safe" at the very least.
> 
> The largest killer to mankind ...NOT something to believe as "safe"
> 
> In several religions there are accounts of "god" coming to earth to part take in the OFFING of his own creations.....A very godlike act  Im sorry but there is nothing that say's godly love like killing your own children or just wiping the world out of humans......All of which sounds real "safe"


I am a Christian and I understand the good point you are making. Like how can God love us but Flood the world or burn cities like Sodom and Gomorrah?

I toiled with this question as well, until I found out how Genesis was actually written. When Moses saw the burning bush and was on Mount Sinai writing the ten commandments, he also wrote the book of Genesis in visions from God. Knowing this lead me to believe that Genesis was written allegorical and not literal. An example: Adam and Eve mean "Man and Woman", but we dont know how many "men or woman" were before the ones Moses had written about.

Another point, is a gun alone safe? Or is it only safe if the right person is wielding it?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 3, 2011)

VILEPLUME said:


> I toiled with this question as well, until I found out how Genesis was actually written. When Moses saw the burning bush and was on Mount Sinai writing the ten commandments, he also wrote the book of Genesis in visions from God.


Where do you get your information from as to how it was written? How do you know it's true? 
Genesis as well as the rest of the bible is clearly not written by one person. A single individual would not shift so quickly between different styles of writing. A single person would not contradict himself so often wrt details and names. The Torah (first 5 books) is so obviously a compilation put together by one or more redactors, it's hard for me to believe that anyone that has actually read and studied it would come to any other conclusion.


----------



## VILEPLUME (Aug 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Where do you get your information from as to how it was written? How do you know it's true?
> Genesis as well as the rest of the bible is clearly not written by one person. A single individual would not shift so quickly between different styles of writing. A single person would not contradict himself so often wrt details and names. The Torah (first 5 books) is so obviously a compilation put together by one or more redactors, it's hard for me to believe that anyone that has actually read and studied it would come to any other conclusion.


Well...I guess everyone has there own conclusion. Probably the reason why there are so many denominations in Christianity. Everyone reads the bible differently, I dont think there are 2 Christians alive that believe in the exact same thing. I mean, I like to hit the vape once and awhile and I do not think it is a sin, yet I know plenty of Christians that would disagree with me.

Also what I write I dont expect anyone to change their views overnight if not ever. It is kind of weird how everyone thinks they are right and their view is true, yet everyone believes so drastically different. Sorry, I just hit the vape and it is just coming to me as I write lol.


----------



## Farfenugen (Aug 3, 2011)

I like Genesis very much, although they got better when Phil Collins took over from Peter Gabriel


----------



## shnkrmn (Aug 3, 2011)

Does God ever have a thought that He hasn't had before? 

How can God change his mind, if he is perfect? Wouldn't he be right to begin with? 

If we are made in God's image, what does God do with his penis? Is that where angels fear to tread?


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Aug 3, 2011)

Christianity safe?The crusades,the inquisition ,the Salem witch hunts,burnings at the stake?sounds like a SAFE and fun time I think ill buy in!


----------



## sso (Aug 3, 2011)

religion is about as dangerous as people.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 3, 2011)

Farfenugen said:


> I like Genesis very much, although they got better when Phil Collins took over from Peter Gabriel


You have to be kidding!! Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is way better than any of the albums where Collins was front man.


----------



## RoughOutline (Aug 4, 2011)

Christianity is not safe at all, just look at the past and what is happening now. I don't think Christianity is evil to the core, but it's clear that people use Christianity, just like they use other religions, as a mask for evil. Just look at the amount of paedophiles who abuse young boys in the Catholic church.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 5, 2011)

christianity , is not safe nor any other religion , it is indoctrinating childrens minds , into thinking they have to obey a higher being or face eternity in hell , how can that be safe ?
and actually its the reason we have suicide bombers from islam , if you a taught something everyday from childhood , there is nothing in adulthood that will convince you otherwise ,so no christianity or any other mental brain washing is not safe .


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 6, 2011)

when was islam Christianity?






ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> christianity , is not safe nor any other religion , it is indoctrinating childrens minds , into thinking they have to obey a higher being or face eternity in hell , how can that be safe ?
> and actually its the reason we have suicide bombers from islam , if you a taught something everyday from childhood , there is nothing in adulthood that will convince you otherwise ,so no christianity or any other mental brain washing is not safe .


----------



## 8deez8 (Aug 6, 2011)

People use christianity as a benevolent guise to commit evil. There are also people who pretend to be jewish, and then persecute jews, in order to benefit from the reprecussions. And then there are those who aren't monotheistic whatsoever, who incite wars btween monotheiats such as muslims and out-of-doctrine christians who fall for their trap, which furthers their own "imagine" philosophy to increase support for their one world government. But christ was without sin or fault and that is what christians strive to be, but we all fail. So christianity itself is completely harmless, in fct it has benefitted eerypne here in some way or another. Sry for typos on my phone.


----------



## karri0n (Aug 6, 2011)

8deez8 said:


> People use christianity as a benevolent guise to commit evil. There are also people who pretend to be jewish, and then persecute jews, in order to benefit from the reprecussions. And then there are those who aren't monotheistic whatsoever, who incite wars btween monotheiats such as muslims and out-of-doctrine christians who fall for their trap, which furthers their own "imagine" philosophy to increase support for their one world government. But christ was without sin or fault and that is what christians strive to be, but we all fail. So christianity itself is completely harmless, in fct it has benefitted eerypne here in some way or another. Sry for typos on my phone.


It's true that the actual teachings of Christ are far from harmful, and indeed quite beneficial, and also that the Cristian church is directly and indirectly responsible for several of the good things we have in modern society, but Modern Christianity is, as you said, used for malicious and controlling reasons. This is why in some ways, modern Christianity can be considered dangerous.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> when was islam Christianity?


 i never said it was im just using it as an example of why ANY religion is not safe


----------



## diesel15 (Aug 8, 2011)

A corrupt world, with corrupt people, with corrupt items. Christianty teaches how to be good even in the mist of all this.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 8, 2011)

diesel15 said:


> Another thing that ihad noticed why doesnt anybody ridicule catholics?


Why kick a retard when he's down?


----------



## karri0n (Aug 8, 2011)

diesel15 said:


> *Another thing that ihad noticed why doesnt anybody ridicule catholics?*.



People do. Catholicism is included when people say "christianity"


----------

