Jump to content
heyrabbit

Religious Moderates = Dangerous Idiots

Recommended Posts

I have more respect for fundamentalists/extremists than I do for religious moderates. Fundamentalists actually read the bible and are consistant in their delusional faith which is than I can say for most moderates who - while they appear to be reasonable, unthreatning people - will pretend to be faithful and righteous, denouncing fundamentalists and extremists with phrases, "they don't represent us". But are they any less dangerous? The faith of an extremist isn't any more irrational than the faith of a moderate. I don't differentiate between the two. And do you think that moderates aren't negatively affecting our society just because they aren't flying planes into buildings? It's bloody 2007 and there are restrictions on stem-cell research because our world leaders believe in ghosts. We've mapped the human genome but we're still electing people into positions of social responsibility who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

 

If you subscribe to the bible, you SHOULD hate fags. You should stone virgins to death and you should kill infidels. The Westboro Baptist church - those made infamous for their "god hates fags" signs- are the real Christians. Their beliefs aren't any crazier than those of any other Christian. Most Christians don't hate fags, and they don't even think they should hate fags. Infact, most Christians don't follow the word of god whatsoever. So this leads me to believe that most people are really just closet(pussy) agnostics. They're too afraid to accept the truth and they're too afraid to follow the bible. they follow the bible when it's convenient for them, sometimes. But it's only our eternal soul which is at stake right, so who cares?

 

The Osama Bin Laden's of the world may be the obvious culprits but the moderates are the ones who enable the cultures that breed and accept extremists. Without a broad acceptance of faith, terrorists and fundamentalists would have nothing to stand on.

 

Of course, it's considered disrespectful to ask someone about their faith. But why? Why should I respect someones belief? People don't respect beliefs, and I'm not going to start by respecting stupid beliefs. It's not a matter of respect. Since when did anybody respect someone elses beliefs about history,politics, science etc. If someone says something absurd you naturally question it and ask for reasons. So why is it that religious people are always so reluctant to discuss their beliefs? Is it because it's a personal question? Bullshit. The reason is that the survival of religion completely depends on people not thinking. Because as soon as you start to think about it, it doesn't make sense. believers engage in conformation bias. Anything that doesn't validate their beliefs is rejected. That's why society has developed a taboo towards discussing religion. Because thinking doesn't help validate religious beliefs, it does the opposite.

 

So all of you moderates are dangerous idiots and you're a threat to society. Quit breeding generations of automatons. you should be forced to take a skill testing question before being allowed to give birth. "do you believe in god?".

Edited by heyrabbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you subscribe to the bible, you SHOULD hate fags. You should stone virgins to death and you should kill infidels. The Westboro Baptist church - those made infamous for their "god hates fags" signs- are the real Christians. Their beliefs aren't any crazier than those of any other Christian. Most Christians don't hate fags, and they don't even think they should hate fags. Infact, most Christians don't follow the word of god whatsoever. So this leads me to believe that most people are really just closet(pussy) agnostics. They're too afraid to accept the truth and they're too afraid to follow the bible. they follow the bible when it's convenient for them, sometimes. But it's only our eternal soul which is at stake right, so who cares?

I'm not really going to give my opinion on this, but it was very interesting. I've thought about that exact thing before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic, but...

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm fairly sure that you (in the scheme of christianity) cannot be damned for ignorance. Which is how they explained the whole 'majority of the world population is not christian' thing. So basically, by being a missionary and teaching people The Way, you are actually condemning most of them to an eternity of unimaginable torment. Same thing if you teach your own children about your religion. Funny stuff.

 

If people stopped handing it down to their kids and just made it available as an option, I'm fairly certain that most religion would die out in one generation. And no, it would not contribute to any major moral decay.

Edited by Sparq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting post, but also very wrong. Badly misinformed assertions motivated apparently by fashionable rage. Someone has far more than their fair share of growing up to do.

I'd like to know how you think he is misinformed, and who said being against religion is fashionable? A lot of people are persecuted rather then celebrated for being critical of religion so i don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is a dangerous idiot.

 

To me, there's far too much contradiction in religious texts for any one group to follow them to the word, thus there's no such thing as a "true" Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. Just as an interesting side note, there's an argument that the original version of the bible in Greek or whatever doesn't mention homosexuality once, that true meanings got lost in translation. It was interesting, and I'll dig it up later (it's bookmarked on another computer).

 

My main beef with the argument of this thread is that it appears to assume that religion is the only form of violent extremism, and thus violent extremism can be eliminated by eliminating religion. What about racism? Politics? Nationalism? Environmentalism? Class struggle? People will always find reasons to kill other people. The one we hear about the most right now is religion, I think in part because to some it is trendy to bash religion. I used to think that way. I have friends who've thought that way. Then we stopped listening to shitty punk and metal.

 

Like it or not, religion is a freedom granted in this country, and many others around the world. Once that freedom is taken away, how many others would be taken away in the name of combating violent extremism?

 

Is it really religious moderate tolerance that's breeding religious extremism? I don't consider Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the rest to be bastions of religious tolerance. Canada and the US, because of their moderate positions, are far less conducive to breeding violent religious extremism.

 

It's bloody 2007 and there are restrictions on stem-cell research because our world leaders believe in ghosts. We've mapped the human genome but we're still electing people into positions of social responsibility who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

 

I don't think there's many people who would call the people you describe "religious moderates."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, his entire point is based on a falsehood, here's why.

 

He alleges that anyone who believes in Christian teaching should hate homosexuals, stone women who have pre/extra-marital sex, kill infidels, etc. But that's total nonsense; Christianity as it turns out is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who apparently had the following things to say on such matters: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "Judge not, lest ye be judged" "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." The Apostle Paul also urges people, when confronting "sinners" to try to address them "in all patience and lovingkindness." As we can see, people who would truly follow Jesus teaching, are NOT to hate anyone, not to judge others, not to engage in violence. So what becomes clear is that, ironically, those who are called "fundamentalists" are the ones who completely ignore the fundamental teachings of their religion, in contrast the "moderates" are the ones who actually adhere more closely to it. The "moderates" are closer to being what he called " the real Christians." The religious convictions of the so-called moderates are not any weaker, they're simply conviction about different things. Not that I buy into 100% the beliefs of either the moderates or fundamentalists, but I do know that his assertions are in fact ignorant and demonstrative of rather poor analysis.

 

The notion that "moderates" somehow breeds extremism is also something entirely unprovable. There's no real logic in the idea that the reason extremists exists is because moderates do. If moderate Christians can live in peace with moderate Muslims (and according their teachings as I quote above, it's an obligation of their principles that they do) then how are the moderates the problem? Extremism has been and will be around forever, and in many cases religion has nothing to do with any of it. There's political extremism, hell in the Stalin era in the USSR there was atheist extremism, and millions suffered and died as a result.

 

Then he brings up that deal that there's no reason to respect other people's beliefs because no one in the past ever has so why should he. That's also nonsense, there've been plenty of people throughout history who have respected the beliefs of others, and even if that were not the case, the thing is, by nature, the human race progresses, and naturally progress involves often doing something that hasn't been done before. People's ways of thinking and capacity for thought changes, evolves, etc... so respecting the beliefs of others is in no way some sort of unattainable and impossible thing that people should just abandon.

 

Here comes the need to grow up part. He suggested that people who happen to hold a certain religious belief should not be allowed to breed, in effect, eliminating such a people. Yeah, good thinking there, Adolf Hitler. I think the irony there doesn't even need to be explained.

 

And yes, being anti-religious is quite fashionable. Why else would everyone here just agree to that stuff? Why do so many of everyone's favorite bands bash religion? It's like being one of those punk-wannabes where it's technically a minority of people, but a fashionable one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most dangerous people are those that take the bible/religion too literally, and without context. And then live firmly by that creed, spread it to their children, &/or make political legislation based on it. Or even worse, begin to hate or discriminate while ignoring your religions' own core beliefs of love & compassion.

 

cv1412020301.jpg

 

I was raised Catholic, but much of the church's beliefs and actions are B.S. and go against Jesus' own messages. So many rules, blah blah this, blah blah that.

 

The #1 things that matter in this world are love, compassion, love, empathy, love, love, and more love. Everything else, and all these little rules (no meat on Friday, gays can't marry) are secondary.

Edited by Moonlight_Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It never really escapes me that while the majority of people I knew through high school never actually thought I would be bound for hell, the religion they held onto so tightly unequivocally says that I am. Perhaps I should start calling people on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, his entire point is based on a falsehood, here's why.

 

He alleges that anyone who believes in Christian teaching should hate homosexuals, stone women who have pre/extra-marital sex, kill infidels, etc. But that's total nonsense; Christianity as it turns out is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who apparently had the following things to say on such matters: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "Judge not, lest ye be judged" "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." The Apostle Paul also urges people, when confronting "sinners" to try to address them "in all patience and lovingkindness." As we can see, people who would truly follow Jesus teaching, are NOT to hate anyone, not to judge others, not to engage in violence. So what becomes clear is that, ironically, those who are called "fundamentalists" are the ones who completely ignore the fundamental teachings of their religion, in contrast the "moderates" are the ones who actually adhere more closely to it. The "moderates" are closer to being what he called " the real Christians." The religious convictions of the so-called moderates are not any weaker, they're simply conviction about different things. Not that I buy into 100% the beliefs of either the moderates or fundamentalists, but I do know that his assertions are in fact ignorant and demonstrative of rather poor analysis.

 

The notion that "moderates" somehow breeds extremism is also something entirely unprovable. There's no real logic in the idea that the reason extremists exists is because moderates do. If moderate Christians can live in peace with moderate Muslims (and according their teachings as I quote above, it's an obligation of their principles that they do) then how are the moderates the problem? Extremism has been and will be around forever, and in many cases religion has nothing to do with any of it. There's political extremism, hell in the Stalin era in the USSR there was atheist extremism, and millions suffered and died as a result.

 

Then he brings up that deal that there's no reason to respect other people's beliefs because no one in the past ever has so why should he. That's also nonsense, there've been plenty of people throughout history who have respected the beliefs of others, and even if that were not the case, the thing is, by nature, the human race progresses, and naturally progress involves often doing something that hasn't been done before. People's ways of thinking and capacity for thought changes, evolves, etc... so respecting the beliefs of others is in no way some sort of unattainable and impossible thing that people should just abandon.

 

Here comes the need to grow up part. He suggested that people who happen to hold a certain religious belief should not be allowed to breed, in effect, eliminating such a people. Yeah, good thinking there, Adolf Hitler. I think the irony there doesn't even need to be explained.

 

And yes, being anti-religious is quite fashionable. Why else would everyone here just agree to that stuff? Why do so many of everyone's favorite bands bash religion? It's like being one of those punk-wannabes where it's technically a minority of people, but a fashionable one.

Pretty much summed it all up here. The whole stoning women/gay hating/etc stuff is from the old testament, as opposed to the new, where, you know, Jesus' teachings are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main beef with the argument of this thread is that it appears to assume that religion is the only form of violent extremism, and thus violent extremism can be eliminated by eliminating religion. What about racism? Politics? Nationalism? Environmentalism? Class struggle? People will always find reasons to kill other people. The one we hear about the most right now is religion, I think in part because to some it is trendy to bash religion. I used to think that way. I have friends who've thought that way. Then we stopped listening to shitty punk and metal.

 

You're exactly right. It's not the only form of

violent extremism but it lends credence to all other forms of extremistm which makes it specifically important. All of the things you mentioned are related to religion.These other forms of violence are all supported and affected by religion. Catholics become nationalists. Christians hate fags. Muslims force a separation in class. etc

 

When you have millions of people moulding their live based on a doctrine that teaches that faith is a virtue, what you get is all of the other types of extremism you mentioned above.

 

Belief without evidence predisposes people to violence in a way that

belief based on evidence does not.

 

Another reason why religion is more dangerous than other philosophies is because the concept of god transcend logic. There is no quick and easy way to convince a delusional person that god doesn't exist because everything about god is beyond the laws of nature.If you accept god, you've already conceded to irrational faith and from then on you search for rationalizations to confirm it. You know, why does god let millions of people suffer and die? Why does god only heal people who might have healed on their own anyway? Why doesn't god heal amputees? (God works in mysterious ways) OH, that makes sense.

 

It's no coincidence that nearly every prominent scientist nowadays will regard racism and homophobia as bigotry and ignorance. But why not faith? Well, you can't disprove something that's been designed so that it can't be disproved.

First off, his entire point is based on a falsehood, here's why.

 

He alleges that anyone who believes in Christian teaching should hate homosexuals, stone women who have pre/extra-marital sex, kill infidels, etc. But that's total nonsense; Christianity as it turns out is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who apparently had the following things to say on such matters: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "Judge not, lest ye be judged" "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." The Apostle Paul also urges people, when confronting "sinners" to try to address them "in all patience and lovingkindness." As we can see, people who would truly follow Jesus teaching, are NOT to hate anyone, not to judge others, not to engage in violence. So what becomes clear is that, ironically, those who are called "fundamentalists" are the ones who completely ignore the fundamental teachings of their religion, in contrast the "moderates" are the ones who actually adhere more closely to it. The "moderates" are closer to being what he called " the real Christians." The religious convictions of the so-called moderates are not any weaker, they're simply conviction about different things. Not that I buy into 100% the beliefs of either the moderates or fundamentalists, but I do know that his assertions are in fact ignorant and demonstrative of rather poor analysis.

 

 

 

Congratulations. you've discovered that there're contradictions in the bible! If the validity of its claims weren't suspect before, they should be now. This is in the bible: "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

 

So is this: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

 

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. " (Leviticus 21:9)

 

Who says that the nice verses take precedence over the bad ones? You? That's your subjective opinion and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that you're more right than any fundamentalist. You people cherry-pick the bible ( pick the verses you like and ignore the rest) And if you don't do that, you interpret verses in a self-serving way. There is nothing that needs to be interpreted there. Even if you do interpret it differently, at worst god is a homocidal, megalomaniacal, homophobic asshole -- at best he's slightly homophobic. How can you overlook this little inconsistency that god is supposed to be all-loving and all omniscient, yet he hates fags? Is it okay if god is just a little homophobic? Fundamentalists are truer Christians because anyone who makes an ernest attempt to follow the bible can't help but be a hateful bigot. As for anyone who disregards the hateful verses, you automatically know they're not following the moral code in the bible -- they're following the parts of the bible that agree with their pre-existing sense of morality.

 

Everyone is inherently born as atheists. So what changes their minds? Well, somewhere along the way they were exposed to religion. Not everyone is taught religious doctrine by Osama Bin Ladens; they get it from their moderately religious parents and everyone in their community. It is no coincidence that a great deal of religious people are indoctrinated from an early age by their parents. They're put in religious schools and they're taken to sunday school at ages when they are too young to read and write, nevermind philosophize about the creator of the world. Kids are labelled as Christians, Muslims, and Catholics etc at an early age. Many kids drop the the label but a lot of them remain religious well into adulthood maybe even for the rest of their lives. It's bloody child abuse. God is subjective belief but it is taught as a fact.This is how the delusion is spread from generation to generation.

 

Also, It's stupid to call Stalin's communism atheistic. you're using a secondary predicate. Atheism is true about what I'm not, not about what I am. Calling Stalin's communism atheistic is like describing a restaurant as "a restaurant that does not not sell indian food". It's not only pointless to say that but it's misleading. Communist, fascism and Totalitariansim are ideals based on values which are identitcal to those found in every prominent religion.(self-sacrifice, submission to an unanswerable authority, equality). So I take offensive to you calling communism atheistic. Those are YOUR values, not mine.

 

moonlight graham:

The most dangerous people are those that take the bible/religion too literally, and without context. And then live firmly by that creed, spread it to their children, &/or make political legislation based on it. Or even worse, begin to hate or discriminate while ignoring your religions' own core beliefs of love & compassion.

 

One has to believe in the bible before it matters how one interprets it. People should quit treating the bible as a viable source of information when it's obviously so completely ambiguous and contradictory. The problem is that people treat the bible as something important when it's really not. You shouldn't need a bible to believe in god and you don't need one to substantiate the unlikelihood of god.

 

seanathon:

Pretty much summed it all up here. The whole stoning women/gay hating/etc stuff is from the old testament, as opposed to the new, where, you know, Jesus' teachings are.

 

Since when were Jesus' teachings not in the old testament? Pretty much all of the new testament came from Paul and he never even MET Jesus. Jesus "came to him in a dream" something like four decades after Jesus' death and this is where our knowledge of jesus comes from. Sounds trustworthy to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I be condemned to hell for a disbelief that's the result of Gods actions? If god created me, everything around me, my brain and whatnot, then my disbelief is the direct result of his actions. That's like me building a car and sending it to the junkyard when it doesn't work. You can't be the sole creater of all things and not be responsible for all things. That's just one logical fallacy. I'll get into more if I have to.

I'm no religious expert, certainly, but I'm fairly certain God gave us free will*. Which of course includes believing whatever it is we want to believe.

 

Also, the whole getting into heaven vs. eternal condemnation thing comes down to repentence. As in, after dying, you come face to face with God, and say "oh snaps, oh do exist, my bad!", and are allowed into heaven, regardless of your athestic life you lived on earth.

 

 

 

*assuming you believe in of all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's another issue in there. Omnipotent/omniscient being. Knows all things...including the future, and can do anything. If such a being knows exactly how all things will play out from now to infinity, then that being by definition does not have free will, and as such is not, in fact, omnipotent. Its own actions are set in stone. And so are yours. In this case, your ascension to heaven or condemnation to hell is already determined. Whatever you do is what this being already knows you will do. There is no room for repentence unless the conditions of the world it has created dictate that you will, indeed, repent.

 

So under the omnipotent/omniscient being theory, we are all puppets of a puppet, inextricably locked in to our own respective dooms. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Edited by Sparq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main beef with the argument of this thread is that it appears to assume that religion is the only form of violent extremism, and thus violent extremism can be eliminated by eliminating religion. What about racism? Politics? Nationalism? Environmentalism? Class struggle? People will always find reasons to kill other people. The one we hear about the most right now is religion, I think in part because to some it is trendy to bash religion. I used to think that way. I have friends who've thought that way. Then we stopped listening to shitty punk and metal.

 

You're exactly right. It's not the only form of

violent extremism but it lends credence to all other forms of extremistm which makes it specifically important. All of the things you mentioned are related to religion.These other forms of violence are all supported and affected by religion. Catholics become nationalists. Christians hate fags. Muslims force a separation in class. etc

 

But is it not possible for an atheist to be any of those things as well? Politics, for example, isn't necessarily related to religion. There have always been communists willing to kill and die for their cause. Those people who firebomb SUVs make their decisions because they're scared by the science which shows SUVs contribute to global warming and massive depletion of fossil fuels. Not that I'm using this example to equate science and religion, but I don't think religion is as pervasive as you're making it out to be.

 

I know the role of religion in some conflicts, but I'm pretty sure that if you were an atheist Palestinian in 1948, you'd be pretty pissed off.

Edited by no yu begin wher i end
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says that the nice verses take precedence over the bad ones? You? That's your subjective opinion and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that you're more right than any fundamentalist. You people cherry-pick the bible ( pick the verses you like and ignore the rest) And if you don't do that, you interpret verses in a self-serving way. There is nothing that needs to be interpreted there. Even if you do interpret it differently, at worst god is a homocidal, megalomaniacal, homophobic asshole -- at best he's slightly homophobic. How can you overlook this little inconsistency that god is supposed to be all-loving and all omniscient, yet he hates fags? Is it okay if god is just a little homophobic? Fundamentalists are truer Christians because anyone who makes an ernest attempt to follow the bible can't help but be a hateful bigot. As for anyone who disregards the hateful verses, you automatically know they're not following the moral code in the bible -- they're following the parts of the bible that agree with their pre-existing sense of morality.

 

Again you're totally wrong. In Christianity the Old Testament and New Testament don't have the same purpose and the Old Testament is not intended to be the one that rules the lives of Christians. It's not that complicated, think of it as "Before Jesus it worked like this" (and the point is it didn't work at all) "and now after Jesus it's supposed to work like this...." The idea the God is all knowing, all-loving but hates gays is certainly a contradictory one, but it doesn't have an actual basis in the New Testament, so Christians that don't hate gays in no way go against their own teachings. It's not about picking and choosing which rules apply and which don't. Jesus teachings are clearly radically different from those of the Old Testament... so those who believe only the Old Testament (such as the Jews) are the only ones to whom the Old Testament is a governing scripture. Jesus on te other hand is a figure that appears in one way or another in the New Testament, given that Christians believe that Jesus is basically God himself in human form, it's his New Testament teachings that hold the authority. As a result, the fundamentalists are not in any way truer Christians.

 

Why are you so offended that I associated Stalinism with atheism? Stalin sought destroy religion, and resorted to mass murder in trying to accomplish this. You also seemed to advocate eliminating all religious people thus leaving only atheism, I think you guys would be peas in a pod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no religious expert, certainly, but I'm fairly certain God gave us free will*. Which of course includes believing whatever it is we want to believe.

 

Also, the whole getting into heaven vs. eternal condemnation thing comes down to repentence. As in, after dying, you come face to face with God, and say "oh snaps, oh do exist, my bad!", and are allowed into heaven, regardless of your athestic life you lived on earth.

 

Free will is the biggest nonsensible rationalization in all of religion. Why would a person choose to go to hell? And if I was such a dirty, defiant sinner - which i am- then god created me that way. So why am I being held accountable for daddy's mistake?

Maybe there isan ambiguous system whereby god randomly creates good and bad souls and then subsequently punishes or saves them. Seems a little perverted to me. That's more akin to the likes of abortion, certainly not an act of an all-loving god.

 

There's another issue in there. Omnipotent/omniscient being. Knows all things...including the future, and can do anything. If such a being knows exactly how all things will play out from now to infinity, then that being by definition does not have free will, and as such is not, in fact, omnipotent. Its own actions are set in stone. And so are yours. In this case, your ascension to heaven or condemnation to hell is already determined. Whatever you do is what this being already knows you will do. There is no room for repentence unless the conditions of the world it has created dictate that you will, indeed, repent.

 

So under the omnipotent/omniscient being theory, we are all puppets of a puppet, inextricably locked in to our own respective dooms. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

 

Yup. that's the other major logical fallacy.

 

But is it not possible for an atheist to be any of those things as well? Politics, for example, isn't necessarily related to religion. There have always been communists willing to kill and die for their cause. Those people who firebomb SUVs make their decisions because they're scared by the science which shows SUVs contribute to global warming and massive depletion of fossil fuels. Not that I'm using this example to equate science and religion, but I don't think religion is as pervasive as you're making it out to be.

 

I know the role of religion in some conflicts, but I'm pretty sure that if you were an atheist Palestinian in 1948, you'd be pretty pissed off.

 

Actually politics has always been related to religion with very few exceptions. politics is just what people use to make decisions, so if the majority of a group of people believe in the omniscience and wisdom of bigfoot- the destination of their eternal soul depends upon them doing exactly what bigfoot says - then that's obviously going to be reflected in government by representatives and their dumbass policies.

 

There're always going to be nutjob terrorists and automatons. The majority of reasonable people are not going to go around blowing up SUVs unless they're indocrinated by an idiot, which is what im fundamentally against. Communism/fascism aren't good examples because they're basically religion in the form of political governance. Instead of submitting to jesus you submit to your fellow man or some other asshole.

 

Again you're totally wrong. In Christianity the Old Testament and New Testament don't have the same purpose and the Old Testament is not intended to be the one that rules the lives of Christians. It's not that complicated, think of it as "Before Jesus it worked like this" (and the point is it didn't work at all) "and now after Jesus it's supposed to work like this...." The idea the God is all knowing, all-loving but hates gays is certainly a contradictory one, but it doesn't have an actual basis in the New Testament, so Christians that don't hate gays in no way go against their own teachings. It's not about picking and choosing which rules apply and which don't. Jesus teachings are clearly radically different from those of the Old Testament... so those who believe only the Old Testament (such as the Jews) are the only ones to whom the Old Testament is a governing scripture. Jesus on te other hand is a figure that appears in one way or another in the New Testament, given that Christians believe that Jesus is basically God himself in human form, it's his New Testament teachings that hold the authority. As a result, the fundamentalists are not in any way truer Christians.

 

Why are you so offended that I associated Stalinism with atheism? Stalin sought destroy religion, and resorted to mass murder in trying to accomplish this. You also seemed to advocate eliminating all religious people thus leaving only atheism, I think you guys would be peas in a pod.

 

What am I wrong about?! The god of the old testament is the exact same god of new testament. This just goes to show the lengths people will go to in order to rationalize their faith. Talk about cherry-picking -- you literally have to disregard most of your bible inorder to justify it. Don't you see that is a problem? The absurdities in the old testament somehow don't negate the validity of His word,

instead they are just forgotten in favor of the newest truth. It doesn't make any sense. God decided to create fags and subsequently hate on them in the old testament, but after he magically conceived himself as less of homophobic asshole, it's all good? Even if you do follow the new testament there's tons of hate, killing, antisemitism and homobophia.

 

This is what boggles my mind. All of the abrahamic religions supposedly worship the same god. There are literally dozens of demoninations all claiming to have the correct understanding of the judeo-christian scriptural source. Only one of them can be right - not one of them is more reasonable than the other-and yet millions of people don't find this suspicious. I really don't have a lot of faith in humanity right now... I mean, these myths are common. Throughout history there's been numerous myths about people bein born as the son of god, under a star, performed magic, turned water into wine, healed the wounded, died for our sins and magically ascended into heaven. So what do you say about all the evidence that points to the realization that christianity is just one of many myths created by a primitive tribe trying to make sense of the world?

 

I wasn't being facetious when I said religious people shouldn't breed. When I lead the atheist revolution, you're all toast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it not possible for an atheist to be any of those things as well? Politics, for example, isn't necessarily related to religion. There have always been communists willing to kill and die for their cause. Those people who firebomb SUVs make their decisions because they're scared by the science which shows SUVs contribute to global warming and massive depletion of fossil fuels. Not that I'm using this example to equate science and religion, but I don't think religion is as pervasive as you're making it out to be.

 

I know the role of religion in some conflicts, but I'm pretty sure that if you were an atheist Palestinian in 1948, you'd be pretty pissed off.

 

Actually politics has always been related to religion with very few exceptions. politics is just what people use to make decisions, so if the majority of a group of people believe in the omniscience and wisdom of bigfoot- the destination of their eternal soul depends upon them doing exactly what bigfoot says - then that's obviously going to be reflected in government by representatives and their dumbass policies.

 

There're always going to be nutjob terrorists and automatons. The majority of reasonable people are not going to go around blowing up SUVs unless they're indocrinated by an idiot, which is what im fundamentally against. Communism/fascism aren't good examples because they're basically religion in the form of political governance. Instead of submitting to jesus you submit to your fellow man or some other asshole.

Perhaps then it would be more concise to disown (for lack of a better word) all forms of extremism, and not limit yourself solely to religion? Just because other forms of extremism share attributes of religion doesn't make them religion with another name (although I'll agree with communism, specifically Stalinism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What am I wrong about?! The god of the old testament is the exact same god of new testament. This just goes to show the lengths people will go to in order to rationalize their faith. Talk about cherry-picking -- you literally have to disregard most of your bible inorder to justify it. Don't you see that is a problem? The absurdities in the old testament somehow don't negate the validity of His word,

instead they are just forgotten in favor of the newest truth. It doesn't make any sense. God decided to create fags and subsequently hate on them in the old testament, but after he magically conceived himself as less of homophobic asshole, it's all good? Even if you do follow the new testament there's tons of hate, killing, antisemitism and homobophia.

 

This is what boggles my mind. All of the abrahamic religions supposedly worship the same god. There are literally dozens of demoninations all claiming to have the correct understanding of the judeo-christian scriptural source. Only one of them can be right - not one of them is more reasonable than the other-and yet millions of people don't find this suspicious. I really don't have a lot of faith in humanity right now... I mean, these myths are common. Throughout history there's been numerous myths about people bein born as the son of god, under a star, performed magic, turned water into wine, healed the wounded, died for our sins and magically ascended into heaven. So what do you say about all the evidence that points to the realization that christianity is just one of many myths created by a primitive tribe trying to make sense of the world?

 

I wasn't being facetious when I said religious people shouldn't breed. When I lead the atheist revolution, you're all toast

You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said. To the "justify" a Christian one doesn't "abandon" the Old Testament, one just regards it in a different fashion. For instance the Mormon religion is different from more mainstream Christianity, but they don't regard the Bible as false, they just look at in a different enough way to make it in effect a different religion. Your theory that "moderate" Christians are less of Christians than "Fundamentalists" makes no sense, one could easily make the case that the "Fundies" emphasize the Old Testament more, and the "Moderates" stress the New Testament, in which there is NOT by the way any call to hate homosexuals are engage in any sort of violence. I'm actually not behind any one mainstream religion but your reasons for thinking that the moderates are somehow worse is just ludicrous nonsense, unfounded anger, and ironically as hypocritical as religion tends to be. You say Christians should also totally follow the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, when you observe they contradict, you still sxpect it, and choosing only one as being authoritative and sticking to it, is somehow worse than trying to base your life on contradicting passages? How can you judge people by a standard you don't believe in, by a standard that you see contradicts itself?

 

The other thing that makes no sense is your level of hatred for religion. Without religion, the world wouldn't somehow be a less dangerous and better place. Religion has basically just been the excuse for the evils of people that would probably have taken place anyway. Did the Catholic Church in in Medieval Europe really concern itself with abiding by their own teachings, or did they simply want as much power as they could get? Do you think the war on terror is just about religion? Do Muslim extremists hate America because most Americans believe that Jesus was son of God rather than simply a very powerful prophet? I really doubt it; it definitely has more to do with America's actions in that part of the world. When a group or a nation want to push an agenda, religion is simply an excuse, or a motivating vehicle, and there are countless other things that could fill in the place of religion if religion were to be absent. Just listen to a Bush speech, does he justify the Iraq war by saying he's just doing God's work? No, he says "it's for freedom" or "it's for security" or that it's for the ultimate goal of peace or that it will somehow make the world a better place. Religious politics are getting to be out of fashion so he's found plenty of other ways to excuse the shit he's done and doing. You do away with one intangible justification for actions like "God" and you can easily come up with countless more. Take for instance as mentioned above "freedom" or "peace"... both of these ideals are ones that the USA claims to have and to fight for, the no-longer-existing German Democratic Republic commonly used the slogan "Fuer Frieden und Freiheit" (For Peace and Freedom)... as we can see, we've just come up with 2 secular ideals that can be interpreted in different ways and push people to do injustice in differing forms. The world will never be a better place (which by the way is one of the main reasons people follow religion, they want to believe that there is a better place at least after they die) so why bother with aimless hatred and resentment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps then it would be more concise to disown (for lack of a better word) all forms of extremism, and not limit yourself solely to religion? Just because other forms of extremism share attributes of religion doesn't make them religion with another name (although I'll agree with communism, specifically Stalinism).

Fair enough, but they're ironically close to religion and equally oppressive. I don't like to say, "oh, allforms of extremism is bad" because that's what an apologist would say and I don't even know that that's true. What if people decided to be extremely sensible? That would be pretty extreme in politics today.

The whole purpose of this thread was to get the point across that extremists are not the only dangerous idiots. So I won't pass blame off to the extremists. I'm specifically targetting and critisizing religious moderates because their cultures inhabit breed and enable extremists. The whole purpose of this thread is to get that point across.

 

You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said. To the "justify" a Christian one doesn't "abandon" the Old Testament, one just regards it in a different fashion. For instance the Mormon religion is different from more mainstream Christianity, but they don't regard the Bible as false, they just look at in a different enough way to make it in effect a different religion. Your theory that "moderate" Christians are less of Christians than "Fundamentalists" makes no sense, one could easily make the case that the "Fundies" emphasize the Old Testament more, and the "Moderates" stress the New Testament, in which there is NOT by the way any call to hate homosexuals are engage in any sort of violence. I'm actually not behind any one mainstream religion but your reasons for thinking that the moderates are somehow worse is just ludicrous nonsense, unfounded anger, and ironically as hypocritical as religion tends to be. You say Christians should also totally follow the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, when you observe they contradict, you still sxpect it, and choosing only one as being authoritative and sticking to it, is somehow worse than trying to base your life on contradicting passages? How can you judge people by a standard you don't believe in, by a standard that you see contradicts itself?

 

The other thing that makes no sense is your level of hatred for religion. Without religion, the world wouldn't somehow be a less dangerous and better place. Religion has basically just been the excuse for the evils of people that would probably have taken place anyway. Did the Catholic Church in in Medieval Europe really concern itself with abiding by their own teachings, or did they simply want as much power as they could get? Do you think the war on terror is just about religion? Do Muslim extremists hate America because most Americans believe that Jesus was son of God rather than simply a very powerful prophet? I really doubt it; it definitely has more to do with America's actions in that part of the world. When a group or a nation want to push an agenda, religion is simply an excuse, or a motivating vehicle, and there are countless other things that could fill in the place of religion if religion were to be absent. Just listen to a Bush speech, does he justify the Iraq war by saying he's just doing God's work? No, he says "it's for freedom" or "it's for security" or that it's for the ultimate goal of peace or that it will somehow make the world a better place. Religious politics are getting to be out of fashion so he's found plenty of other ways to excuse the shit he's done and doing. You do away with one intangible justification for actions like "God" and you can easily come up with countless more. Take for instance as mentioned above "freedom" or "peace"... both of these ideals are ones that the USA claims to have and to fight for, the no-longer-existing German Democratic Republic commonly used the slogan "Fuer Frieden und Freiheit" (For Peace and Freedom)... as we can see, we've just come up with 2 secular ideals that can be interpreted in different ways and push people to do injustice in differing forms. The world will never be a better place (which by the way is one of the main reasons people follow religion, they want to believe that there is a better place at least after they die) so why bother with aimless hatred and resentment?

 

It appears to me as though you're passing off the significance of the old testament. When I put it to you that I don't understand how anyone can reconcile the contradiction of god being omiscient and a homophobe, I get ambiguous answers like, " one just regards it in a different fashion" and " they just look at in a different enough way". I don't know what this means. Please elaborate on this. You either accept the bible as being true, partially true, not true at all or you're skeptical of the entire thing. If one believes that some parts are more true than others, what are their reasons for that? There's just no consistency in Christianity or any other religoin.

 

My opinion stands that fundamentalists can be truer Christians than moderates. They accept atleast some of the absurdities in the bible whereas moderates tend to only accept that which suits them. And again, that's very indicative of how their faith operates.

 

Here's a few random bullshit verses in the new testament.

 

Homophobia:

 

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

Romans 1:31-32 "Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

 

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

Christians can't be freethinkers:

 

2nd Corinthians

10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

 

your reasons for thinking that the moderates are somehow worse is just ludicrous nonsense, unfounded anger, and ironically as hypocritical as religion tends to be
Why? Respond the points I made if you would.

 

I didn't say that christians should totally follow the old and new testaments, but if they aren't going to do so I want to know why. They aren't being consistent in any way, shape or form. It's not just a matter of the old and new testament contradicting each other. Both books contradicts themselves.

 

You have no way of knowing whether or not a world without religion would be a better place to live. I suspect that that's true, but I don't have any evidence just as you don't. I do, however, have every reason to believe that religion upsets society. There's nothing complicated or confusing about the fight between the Palestinians and the Israelis. They are fighting over "holy land"; they'll tell you that themselves. There's no real discernible difference between saying you're fighting over holy land or Jack's beanstalk. The fighting doesn't have to happen, but their faith requires it.

You said it yourself that people use religion as an excuse. The point is that there is no excuse more compelling than to do something in the name of the all-powerful, all-loving, perfect father of the existence. Religious doctrine itself is not what's dangerous, its religious faith that has to be feared -- the unshakable conviction that you know what's right because God told you. Of course Bush can't use religion as his public justification for war... The public would have his head. it very well could be that his faith - if not a slight influence on his decisions- could be his entire motivation and justification for war. He believes he has a divine mission, that god wanted him to be president. You can't tell me that his mindset wouldn't drastically different if he weren't completely and utterly delusional.

 

Of course there are secular motivations for war. But religions teach faith as a virtue (belief without evidence is okay) and this very easily influences "secular" governments. The tribalist, unthinking attitude that religions exhibit and require is the exact same phenomenon that's found in Communism, fascism etc. Religion completely restricts the progress of civilization.

 

The world will never be a better place (which by the way is one of the main reasons people follow religion, they want to believe that there is a better place at least after they die) so why bother with aimless hatred and resentment?

I know I said I didn't have much faith in humanity but I've got more hope than that. My hate isn't aimless; its' obviously directed straight at the religious! And I'm doing it because I see much of the worlds population acting childishly and I see them as a complete threat to my safety and the safety of society as a whole. We're far too advanced technologically to be carrying on with this unfounded, primitive nonsense. When will it end? Will we be travelling through the cosmos in the name of Jesus?! I don't give a shit about what people want. In reality that's the main reason why religion exists, so ultimately society is being fucked because people want a god that they don't need. it's time to grow up.I'm sorry that you've given up. I'd like to hope that it can change. People just need to wake up and be honest with themselves.

Edited by heyrabbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you see "fundamentalists" don't accept the inconsistencies, they just accept different parts in the same way that moderates do... they're the ones who accept the backwards violent hateful beliefs, and the "moderates" stress the opposite beliefs. The Fundamentalists don't somehow attempt to follow both because being loving, accepting, non-judgmental, and patient to all and at the same time hate, judge, and behave violently to all those who don't see things the exact same way they do. Universal tolerance and love for all people is totally incompatible with hatred and violence. It's only logical that people chose one or the other. As a result, moderates aren't somehow worse.

 

In regards to the Israelis and the Palestinians, it probably IS more complicated than just fighting for the "Holy Land." Race, politics, class, and just a desire for land (holy or otherwise) probably play just as much of it not more of the role than them disagreeing over which prophet was really the same God's favorite. When looking at Israel in terms of ehtnicity and culture around 3/4 of the population is identified as Jewish, but in religious terms, nearly half of these Jews identify themselves as being secular or even anti-religious, with over 1/3 claiming to take part in some Jewish traditions, but not actively following the precepts of the Jewish faith... leaving less than 1/4 of the Jewish ethnicity as genuinely practicing Judaism and following its teachings. So it would seem that there would be a lot more than simply religion that makes Israel feel so strongly, given that most Israelis aren't actually very devoted Jews. Maybe Shiri could cast some light on the matter given that she's probably got a bit more perpective than either of us.

 

The thing is, people can express a religious-like zeal about anything, and it doesn't matter how secular they are, and it will cause them to go to all sorts of extremes. Going back to the example of communism, it is a secular ideal, but as you said, it generally gets to the point where it's not a religion but analogous to it in many ways... but just about any ideal is subject to that problem. People can regard "freedom" as equally sacrosanct, or their nation, or their race, so in reality the only way the world ever becomes better or safer is if people have no conviction about anything in any way at any time, which is of course impossible. "Freedom" for example means different things to different people... the USA claims it's fighting for freedom in Iraq, and the Iraqi insurgents also seem to play that card. It's not really any different.

 

Do I think Bush has some sort of delusion about his actions serving God in some way, well it's cerrtainly possible, but I think political, economic aims easily played are more significant role with the Iraq mess. Given that according to polls, most Americans are to some extent or another religious people, it's equally likely that his lip-service to a higher power is just to appeal to what is a giant amount of potential political supporters. Do you think, if the USA was something like 95% atheist, he'd ever bring up God in a speech or anything like that? Of course not, it would be political suicide. It goes back to religion being a mere excuse for wrong-doing most of that time, rather than being an actual cause.

 

It also seems to me that atheism tends to breed extremism more than moderate religion. Nothing motivates a people more than knowing that they've an active opposition. When the USA and the USSR became enemies, and America suddenly had a powerful godless enemy to fear, and immediately religion suddenly took a higher prioriy with the government and the public, they threw in "under God" into the pledge of allegiance and recited it in schools daily, all on account of the USSR. It's just common sense, if you attack, then they defend. When you attack religion, you get the applause of those who agree with you, but you also galvanize the religious types and make them redouble their efforts. It works just like patriotism... think of the USA before WW2 and after. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, many people lost faith in America, it was the era in which more people were leaving the nation than entering it, many thousands actually emigrated to the USSR, crude shanty-towns where the homeless/jobless congregated were known by the president's name (Hoovervilles). While Franklin Roosevelt did what he could to improve the situation when he came to power, people only truly regained a hard-core patriotism after they'd ended up going to war in 1941 and it actually lasted essentially to the end up of the war, through the 50's despite Korea, and all the way until the government screwed up real bad in Vietnam. In much the same way, religion having an opponent only increases their conviction and devotion to the cause.

Edited by HoboFactory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.