So Linda is a sanctimonious c*nt who thinks she’s going to have to “act surprised” when the Last Judgement comes. Honey, when you’re stand before the Almighty and the list of your empty, superior bullshit gets read off, you’ll be plenty surprised at the fate that awaits you.
Okay, I don’t believe anyone should mock anyone else’s religious beliefs. That being said, Justin wasn’t “damning God”, he was using God’s name in vain (though even that is iffy ground, as God (proper noun) could just as easily be “god” (plain ol’ noun, and I think Jesus is the one you want to watch out for… grey area here, regardless).
Secondly, if she was really interested in putting Justin on the right path, as opposed to making herself look/feel superior and “holier than thou”, then she would have messaged him instead of condemning him and his friends on a public forum.
And then the whole “I used to drink beer and be a bartender, and was a total slut, and used to steal things, etc.”… this chick basically needs a therapist.
So, as a non-crazy Christian, I may disagree with the way the kiddos handled this one, but Linda was out of line and borderline whacko. I’m curious what her relationship with Justin is. I’m guessing estranged aunt or second cousin.
Linda does sound crazy and self-righteous, but it’s almost as bad for those kids to mock her like that. But yeah, if Linda was actually concerned about Justin and not just seeming like she knows what’s right for everyone, she would have told him all of this in a more personal way.
Why are several people referring to this lady as having a ‘slutty’ background? She said she had ‘multiple sexual partners’, which, last time I checked, wasn’t actually a ‘bad’ thing…? Isn’t ‘slutty Linda’ allowed to do what she likes as long as she doesn’t hurt others?
MasterProp: I think anyone should have the right to mock the beliefs of anyone else. You wanna go and tell Salman Rushdie he made a mistake and all that fall-out was his fault? People need to lighten up. I went on a protest march against the Pope in London and someone had a sign that said ‘if you want us to stop laughing at your beliefs, then stop beliving such funny things’. I think it’s a fair point…
I hate it when idiots refer to people younger than themselves as ‘still kids by the way you talk.’ It is basically equivalent to ‘you don’t agree with me, therefore you aren’t mature.’
Master, I believe you really want to watch out for the tetragrammaton, YHWH. Taking that in vain will fuck you up.
Funny thing, I was a christian till the Bible convinced me that if god exists, he’s a psychotic bitch.
Why is it the minute someone points out how obviously ignorant religious beliefs are that person is in the wrong. This women came to a photo and commented about HER beliefs. Then when it was obviously not what others believed she came back to tell everyone how they are doing wrong and will be punished and blah blah blah. For one if you believe it, that is your choice. When it is debated and even mocked well what do you expected. Especially since most of the time if someone says they do not believe their are usually a bunch of people damning you to hell and practically spitting on you.
Because there is just as much sanctimonious, holier than thou bullshit attitude behind statements like “How obviously ignorant religious beliefs are” as there is in, “You’re going to hell in a hand basket because you said ‘god damn’ when you saw a girls butt.” That being said, I feel as though the people who point out “ignorant” another person’s religious beliefs are is more wrong than the person preaching. Because, if the person is right than they are trying to save you from yourself and acting out of concern for you; even if that comes with strings attached. If the person is wrong, and religious beliefs does equal impaired judgement, reasoning, etc. Than you are fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. And are all only doing it because of a need to impose your views on others. You won’t see me getting up in arms because a child tells me I’m getting a lump of coal for Christmas because Santa saw me be bad. Sometimes people need certain coping mechanisms for the greater good of their psyche. To try to rob them of that just because you want prove your right is not on the same level of wrongness as a good intentioned nosy and annoying neighbor, imho. I mean yeah that kid ranting about coal and naughty or nice lists is annoying and you really want to tune them out but mocking them for trying to help you accomplishes nothing but breeding bad blood.
Also, Linda clearly some kind of older person in this kid’s life who feels somewhat responsible for him, like a neighbor or some kind of aunt. I’m guessing not his mom, but someone of that ilk. Of course they are going to speak up, and not everyone knows how to send messages. Definitely had to educate my parents on that one because they didn’t realize that the things they posted on my pictures that appeared in “their newsfeed” was public. They assumed since it showed up on their page, it was just for them. For all you know, Linda could be the same way.
‘there is just as much sanctimonious, holier than thou bullshit attitude behind statements like “How obviously ignorant religious beliefs are” as there is in, “You’re going to hell in a hand basket because you said ‘god damn’ when you saw a girls butt.”’
No, I think the attitude is ‘smarter than thou,’ not ‘holier.’
I find it interesting, aries, that you believe it is more important to let people be happily deluded than to try to correct them (and no one said religion implies impaired judgment and reasoning skills, just impaired grasps of the facts). Especially when ‘the truth’ is one of the highest tenets of their religion. By the way, this is a public forum, so opposing her is not just for her sake but for anyone else who might come and see this.
SHE came in with her self-righteous ‘have you tried not having fun’ bullshit. THEY didn’t go running into a church saying ‘have you tried thinking?’ If someone wants to start preaching, they can’t complain when their beliefs are mocked.
Aries made the same argument I was trying to make: atheists decrying religion as made up BS and calling those who believe in it “idiots” are the same as a religious person telling them they’re going to hell. It’s all about personal beliefs: who are you to tell me I’m wrong, and vice versa? God is one of those things that can be neither proven nor disproven, so I choose not to involve myself in debates about it.
@Allan: She was implying that she had a slutty background; I was inferring it based upon her phrasing, and based on the way that she said it she at least believes she was behaving in a slutty manner, which is why she regrets it now.
I guess I just don’t understand peoples’ fascination with jumping on the anti-religious bandwagon. I don’t support Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc condemning everyone to hell, but I also don’t support the other side throwing stones either. I’m more of the “live and let live” mindset. Why is that such a bad thing?
Because, MasterProp, the live and let live concept is not acceptable given the circumstances.
With the constant threat of theocratic encroachment on free society in the majority of governments and law-making bodies the world over, it is completely understandable and permissible to actively disenfranchise religious nonsense. You ARE in the minority in wanting to keep your beliefs to yourself. Beliefs are unfounded claims and should be treated as such. Your “relationship” with god is dandy in the confines of your own head, but to ask it to not only be legitimized, but to be kept withheld from stringent criticism is beyond idiotic.
Facts are the revelation. It’s put innumerable pock marks in the stupidity of religious texts. Believing in God is one thing and atheists really can’t disprove that, but belief based in and aroused from religious texts – that’s strong ignorance that can easily be discredited. It was called the Dark Ages for a reason.
Jesus Christ in high heels, guys, these comments were longer than the post…freaking great balls of god. I’m sure I agree with someone and disagree with someone else…but I really couldn’t read them all. So how about just a quick:
Linda’s a moron, shoving religion down someone’s throat (just like when you shove a cock down an unwilling person’s throat) is like rape…and obnoxious. Step off the high horse and pick yourself up a sense of humor on your way down.
Linda is pretty pushy with her beliefs. I too have an older person in my life who believes that it is acceptable to shovel their shit down my throat because they have found god. Yet, it is never acceptable for me to rebuke that person because supposedly they are coming from a position of faith, blah, blah. I’m always treated as the “lost lamb” and it is infuriating. Frankly HE should delete her mangy ass off of his FaceBook page. Or at least block her from being allowed to comment. Linda has a responsibility to respect the beliefs of others regardless of how much she disagrees with them. That road runs both ways, but unfortunately, many religious people jump up on their high horse and feel they have a god given right to be righteous assholes. They do not act that way because they are trying to help anyone, they act that way to so they can feel smug and happy in their sanctimonious little lives because they have nothing else to feel good about.
As Linda is clearly the type of person to condemn those who think differently, I think she got what was coming to her (ie. logic for first graders)
I don’t believe in any of this religious crap – that being said, I’m not badgering every FB friend I have who posts a Bible quote or has their religion listed as “Christian” – Linda needs to mind her own business… I’m guessing she feels guilty for her past actions and is desperately trying to make up for them *just in case* it all really does matter in the end (stifles laughter)…
Last entry by Steve is a direct copy paste from “http://www.27bslash6.com/easter.html” the guy who writes it is an Auzzie guy and really funny. In the original context his whole tirade made me cry it was so funny.
This actually made me sick when I read it. How is this funny in any way? Because I do believe in God, maybe my opinion is bias. However, I do not see how it was necessary for them to be so rude. She did not say anything mean or inappropriate. She is definately free to post whatever she wants, and the other way around…But atleast this lady has some decency to compose herself like an adult, and say what she has to say with some class. You cannot judge her unless you have walked in her shoes. Bottom line. And btw, in NO way was she shoving religion down anyones throat. She never said “You should be a Christian” “Be a Christian and believe in God, or you are going to die” She stated what she believed in. The other party was mocking her, and she was standing up for her God, and herself. It really is unbelieveable to me how ignorant and self centered these posts have been. Its really sickening. Its easy to not believe in God, that way you wont ever have to take responsible and live for someone else besides yourself. I bet none of you have been to a truthful church, and actually tried to look at something from someone elses point of view. If she was shoving religion down their throats, then the rest of them were shoving atheism down her throat. Sounds pretty stupid, huh?
Your bias is definitely showing. Linda tells them that mocking God is a dangerous road to trod, which is obviously a thinly veiled threat of eternal damnation. That I believe is a little more serious than poking fun at her deity. She clearly invited this ridicule by taking an innocent utterance of “god damn” and turning it into a big deal and talking about her deep dark past of professional shoplifting and her road to redemption through the divine light of the Lord. I don’t understand what is up with Christian’s making such a big deal over other people’s souls anyway. Why can’t they just believe in their God and shut up about it? Is it because they are insecure in their own belief and feel the need to draw in more support to their particular religion so they can be more secure in their belief? As if whichever religion has the most followers wins. It’s all very silly if you ask me.
Also your assertion that no one here has probably ever been to a truthful church very presumptious. I went to church until I was twelve, when I was old enough to realize my parents were wasting my time. I won’t say I’m an athiest, I believe there is more to this universe than we humans can comprehend, but that being said I also don’t believe that a religion crafted by humans can provide answers either. Personally I have no real problem with religious people if they keep to themselves, but I don’t like the way they shove it down their childrens throats. You shouldn’t be allowed to teach religion to kids until they are fourteen and at least have some rudimentary ability of deductive reasoning. Let’s see how many people still believe then.
@44 No one should be able teach religion to their kids until they are fourteen?
That is the most ridiculous statement. Of course you should raise your kids according to your moral beliefs and not just state rules but why you are making them. That way when the kid is old enough they can question things for which the answers you provided are unacceptable to them. They all do it eventually. But until they get to that state they need someone to teach them to be self absorbed, selfish, people who act on impulse alone. Until they are old enough to form their own opinion it’s a parent’s job to guide them the best way THEY can which means teaching the kid how to be ethical. People’s ethics stem from different sources, for some religious people it’s their beliefs.
Religious arguments aside, my favorite part is when she’s telling them how she isn’t a square and tries to talk like she’s done things. “I’ve done it all. Drugs and multiple sex partners” hahaha…classic. Apart from that the religious argument is just dull and serious, such things should be avoided in humorous conversation.
“Its easy to not believe in God, that way you wont ever have to take responsible and live for someone else besides yourself.”
This is a big pile of wtf. You think atheists live selfish lives caring only for themselves, completely free from responsibility? So my parents, who don’t believe in god, don’t live for me and my brother, or each other, they don’t take responsibility for us? Of course they do. I think it’s probably more important that we all take responsibility for and care for the other human beings around us than living for your favourite story-book character.
The reason why it’s easy to not believe in god is because it doesn’t make sense. Not because it feels good to abandon moral responsibility. Sometimes it’s hard to follow a healthy diet – that requires sacrifices of a sort, and a responsible, conscientious approach to life. But it’s easy to believe that eating and exercising properly is what’s best for your health, because IT MAKES SENSE.
Religious beliefs aren’t really the same things as moral beliefs, in my opinion. Morality and ethics are evolved behaviour, which we have developed because we are social mammals. You can tell your child that stealing/lying/bullying is wrong, and you can justify it perfectly logically without ever mentioning anything supernatural. Any guidelines for living that have a logical reason (most often ‘don’t do it because it hurts others / do it because it helps others’) is morality in my book. It makes sense to behave that way if you’re going to get on in a group and be a successful social mammal. What you can’t explain to your child without calling in the supernatural are things like ‘you mustn’t have sex before you get married, you mustn’t masturbate, you mustn’t have sexual feelings towards a member of the same sex’. Most ‘morality’ that needs religion to prop it up centres round sex – most of these messages I would consider amoral, if not immoral.
Those of you conflating ethics, morality, and personal responsibility with belief are seriously making the case worse for yourselves – especially in the eyes of people who have half a brain.
I’d argue, sweetpea, that believing in God (more so following one of the Judaic gods) is antithetical to being responsible and living for others. If it seriously takes someone watching you and accounting for your actions to make you do good, then you’re not actually being ethically responsible or charitable. You are acting under coercion. Altruism is, by definition, selfless concern for others. Good acts done to be in God’s good graces or to earn your blessings are not selfless. They are not exempt from the rule.
Christianity and its ilk celebrates congratulatory self-service and an undeserved sense of pride. It is the person who sacrifices himself for the good of others WITHOUT regard for the consequences that makes him morally upstanding. Your perceived superiority comes dripping through your words and it’s pretty embarrassing, especially given the topic at hand. Stop while you’re ahead.
You are telling me that when you were 12, you were completely capable of making a decision on if God exists or not? Thats completely ignorant. You probably weren’t completely sure where babies came from when you were 12 much less the complete understanding of God. Making a big deal over people’s souls? I think its actually very sad that you believe what you do. Do you understand the true meaning of eternity? I will have you know…I am completely secure in my beliefs and apparently the lady in that posting is as well. Why else would she be standing ALONE in what she believes in. I think that takes some guts and SECURITY in what she feels is right. She never once tried to draw anyone into her “religion” Apparently, the person she was posting the comment for had some type of relationship with this woman. If you read the post, it says “I can’t believe you have grown that far away from Him” So somewhere along the line, he was involved with God.
Responsibility for yourself meaning, when you leave this earth, its easy to think you wont ever have to answer for the sins you have committed. Its easy to live in “the now”. It has nothing to do with morals. You can live on this earth and never do a bad thing in your life, and still go to hell. Being saved is the only way to get to Heaven. Meaning, believing Jesus Christ died on the cross for you, and accepting him as your Savior. Also, you can be an alcoholic and be saved, and still go to Heaven. But at the same time, if you were saved, you would believe through God, you can be saved from that. So you are right, religious beliefs are not the same as moral beliefs. But if you are living in the right path of God, then you would want to live with good morals.
Would you like to know what is embarrassing? It’s that you have completely misconstrued my words. Please read above. Thanks
I completely agree with silfurkex. Morality has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I just wrote an essay about that for school yesterday, about how atheists are always discriminated against because ignorant people think they’re immoral since they lead god-less lives.
Linda is wacko, and I think deserved the backlash not for being Christian, but for being so up-in-people’s-faces about it. In general, though, I tend to agree with MasterProp’s take on things… it’s not like your average, moderate Christian/Muslim/Hindu is a constant threat to secular democracy.
Hey sweetpea, if you’re going to go on about god in such a supercilious, condescending fashion, I propose a test of your faith. Kill yourself. Then, if you end up in heaven or hell after judgement, you will know you were right. If you end up in a hole in the ground, we (athiests, those of us with a functioning brain) will be right. Either way, Lamebook will be spared your nonsensical jibber jabber.
@Benningtons…I don’t think I really need to say much here. Its quite clear you can’t hold a mature conversation. You poor, poor thing. You may have a functioning brain, that won’t save you from hell sweetie. Lol…you are a waste of breath.
@jsbarajas1993..”Atheists are always discriminated against” Really? Honestly? You mean to tell me you got through an entire essay explaining the sad lives atheists have because they are discriminated against? You really shouldnt use the term ignorant..you obviously dont know the definition.
So even if I am the most selfless, giving, loving person on the earth who risks my own life to save others I’m going to go to hell because I don’t say that I believe in God? Yet if someone says they believe in him they can get away with a life of crappy and selfish decisions? If God is the forgiving and devoted higher being he’s always portrayed as supposedly being why wouldn’t he overlook my one area of ignorance and reward me for a life of good?
“You can live on this earth and never do a bad thing in your life, and still go to hell”
You are the worst kind of Christian. My way or the highway right? So if Mother Theresa wasn’t Christian and still did all the things she did she’d be getting ass-raped by a foot long flaming demon penis right now? Get your head checked because those are some seriously immoral values you are preaching. Condemning perfectly good people to eternal damnation. Seriously, where do you get off?
No, sweetpea, I understood you loud and clear. And since you clarified, I now know your pedestal is carved from bullshit.
Linda got chastised not because she was a Christian (typical persecution complex to embody the worship of a persecuted martyr) but because she cast judgment on these people’s friend. This has nothing to do with her personal beliefs, but the beliefs she made public and USED to devalue another person’s being. The fact that the beliefs are the same is incidental – the fact that she was offensive, patronizing, and derisive is completely telling: her sense of entitlement granted to her by the ancient texts of cave dwelling neanderthals is insurmountable. Her Christianity isn’t offensive. It is her lack of tact, tolerance, and compassion that make her a complete twat.
Being saved is the only way to get to Heaven. I’m sure it is because Heaven is just as much conjecture as salvation. Invented directions to get to an invented destination does not sound deluded at all. In fact, without using the circular reasoning of excusing the Bible for this “knowledge,” you have nothing to base this opinion on. If you can’t see how self-righteous and condescending you are, then you clearly don’t understand why you can’t even get a foot in with reasonable people.
Your trite, awful, snide, and debasing religious beliefs excuse every abominable sin on Earth. You have to live with your sins PERIOD. It is convenient that you can murder and rape children but then become a believer in Christianity and ask for forgiveness and it’s as gone as your sanity. If you are living in the right path of God, everything is forgivable and your consequences are diminished by remembering that you’ll get to spend infinity in the magic sky-mall. Your notion of god and salvation are an absolution of your responsibilities, not an acceptance.
This stupid, unreasonable thinking is why atheists get defensive. It permeates society and grants wishful thinking a pass into the world of reality where we have to deal with REAL PROBLEMS that you prescribe magic solutions to. Your beliefs are a disservice to millions of years of civilization and critical thought. Your beliefs are a roadblock to progress.
Your area of ignorance? Did you not read the entire post? Yes, you can be saved..meaning accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, and be a prostitute/drug addict/alcoholic etc, if you know what you are saying, and you believe what you say when you do so. Why would God want to have someone in Heaven that doesn’t believe in Him? Why would you go to into a Heaven that you don’t believe in? God is forgiving, you are correct, but you were given this life because of Him. You can give money to a homeless man everyday of your life, take care of a sick relative, be the best person you can be, and go to hell. But like I said, why wouldnt you want to be all of those things? I am a much more thoughtful, caring and kind person when I allowed God in my life. God is not going to be in someones life that doesnt want Him there. Thats my belief, my “religion” if thats what you want to call it. I chose this life for myself. Its not really about following a religion for me. Its about the relationship I have with him. Never in my life have I tried to make someone believe in what I believe. I have only spoken what I believe when I think it is necessary. If you heard someone bashing your spouse, children, father, or mother..wouldnt you feel it as your right to stand up for them? I am not asking for anyone to convert to my religion. I have situations in my life that I can only explain because of God. Its the feeling I have when I talk to Him. I know He is there.
“You may have a functioning brain, that won’t save you from hell sweetie. Lol…you are a waste of breath.”
Annnnnd nailed. You care not for your fellow humans. You don’t give two shits about the actual danger of hell upon someone’s soul. As long as you go to heaven, you don’t give a god damn. And that, in a nutshell, is Christianity.
rogueepidemic: very, very well said. I wish I could be bothered being that eloquent.
sweetpea: “I have situations in my life that I can only explain because of God. Its the feeling I have when I talk to Him. I know He is there.”
Are you even reading what type? It seems to me, that you are the worst kind of in-denial god-botherer. This is really quite amusing, watching you flail and get all up in arms over your persecution complex. Makes me a touch sad though, that there really are people this horrifically naive and deluded in the world.
If it were a possibility, then yes I would be more than happy to hear it. But it’s not. Isn’t it kind of a funny coincidence that this idea of heaven of god is like a celestial version of the partiarchal system that we have here on earth? Isn’t it so nice and convenient that this divine system that should be beyond our comprehension just so happens to be constructed in the same heirarchal fashion that we just so happened to use as a system of governance well all these religious idealogies were being formed?
Any sort of critical thinking will render any organized religion non-sensical. You can sit there and say things like “my religion, if you want to call it that. It’s not really about following a religion for me” Yet you consistently refer to a singular God and refer to that God as him so it’s pretty doubtless that you adhere to the basic judeo-christian prinicipals. Honestly I’d just stop right now if I were you because I respected your opinion a lot more three posts ago.
Atheism and Christianity are two sides to the same coin. Both have fanatics behind them who get really mad when you tell them that they are wrong. And both groups feel like there is NO WAY they could ever be wrong. They’re really just two big groups of irritating self-righteous blow hards.
I remember when my best friend as a kid told me my soul was eternally damned to hell because I didn’t believe in god or that Jesus died for my sins. I was 5. I think that was the moment I decided I couldn’t believe in a God. At least not the ones that so many people have pledged themselves to. I’m agnostic. If there is a God and he/she does not like who I am or what I have done, well okay that’s fine and dandy. I’m going to be the best person I can be and will live by the rules and morals that an atheist father and a southern baptist mother brought me up with. Believing or not believing will not change me, who I am, how I act and the way in which I treat others, and if that’s not enough for your, or anyone else’s god, well shit, I think I’ll be just fine with that.
Nopers, they are not two sides of the same coin. One asserts a belief in something without any proof and the other denies belief in such things. Atheism doesn’t propose a belief in anything. It is only an absence of belief.
You’re essentially calling each other stupid then trying to argue WHY the other person is stupid going off how YOU have lived your life. It doesn’t work like that, so can we go back to lamebook being funny and/or lame now?
Is lamebook putting these kind of posts up in a bid to increase their comment numbers, seeing how they’ve dropped since the ‘regulars’ stopped commenting? Cause if so, it’s working.
Look, I believe in God, and know he is in my life. Yaddad yadda yadda. But this is NOT the place for this discussion. I really wish LB had a personal message system for times like this. We don’t want to have to see this. I’m sure most can agree on that.
4. I agree with a lot of what’s been said by the non-religious camp, but most commenters on here (from both sides) are arguing like this is the first time a religious debate has ever been brought up and it’ll lead to a resolution, like all these centuries of religious war/ conflict never had leaders that brought up your same points. Seriously, world peace is not going to happen tonight on an internet joke site, let’s quit this polar-opposite-views debate and get back to the butt.
Hypocritcally after that ^ said: rogue for the win, I couldn’t have put it better myself
Those who live in glass castles shouldn’t throw stones. Didn’t you and word get into an argument not to long about who had the right to post what. I believe you were on the side of, “don’t like it, don’t read it, I’ll post whatever I want here and if you dislike it so much than keep it yourself and don’t read. I have just as much a right to be here as everyone else.” And she was on the side of, “use the site the way it’s intended to be used! The comment section is discuss the post and to have light hearted, fun discussions! If you want somethign more take it to a place that is built for that!”
@sweetpea and rogueepidemic
You guys are exactly what I was talking about in my first post. You’re both really smug and think you know the answer when thousands of scholars, scientists, and priests, all agree that the issue can’t be solved using current methods of analysis available to us.
A) The reason I choose to believe is because science, operating under the theory of paradigms, has yet to do anything to prove that God doesn’t exist. Since it can’t disprove or prove he exists there is a possibility that he does.
B) Science has however proven that just like most manmade things, it is imperfect and that they can do get things wrong everyday. I have a feeling that the current theory of evolution is going to get just as gutted as the sun revolving around the earth and indeed there is a lot of scientific headway into things such as this.
C) God not being bound to these rules has no such imperfections, by the nature of him being God.
D) Since I believe there is a God, I of course should believe there is only one. Some being that is all powerful, all knowing, and doesn’t adhere to the rules of science would not need “help” in creating the earth. If they did, they wouldn’t be any of those and in order for theory of God to work he has to be.
E) Now then, of the three main monotheisitc religions, two of them impose limiations on things such as food supplies. If God was all knowing and all powerful, then why would a pig have some kind of spiritual significance. Especially since we are all made in his image, according to all three. Also since God is all knowing, he should have some kind of forgiveness mechanism for any kind of sin at all that should be easy to do and something everyoen can apply equally and easily. It shouldn’t require travel or anything like that because the whole creation would be Gods, why would a single building or place hold more significance than others by God’s decree. Christianity is the only one that satisfies these requirements.
Live and let live. Atheists think they’re enlightening poor, stupid, naive Christians. Christians think they’re saving the eternal souls of poor, lost, misguided atheists. Heaven forbid we could have an educated, intelligent Christian who is capable of making their own decisions on the existence of a higher power – or an upstanding, moral atheist who can also make their own decisions on the existence of a higher power or lack thereof.
As for the post itself…
Linda and Tim are huge, giant, dripping tools. Linda has an overwhelming martyr complex, with her public message and “Ridicule me if you want!” crap. Christ, woman. You don’t have to have THAT much intelligence to realize that lecturing a guy in front of his friends is really not the way to make him see your point on eternal salvation. (Or, she didn’t ever care about “saving” him in the first place and just wanted to look holy.) And Tim…Tim just sounds like an angry teenage goth trying to impress his friends. Oooh, firing potshots at someone you think is long gone. King of cool, right there.
Aries, you’re being disingenuous. I’m not making a claim. I am not saying God doesn’t exist. I am not saying he exists. I am explaining why organized religion is a hindrance to modern thought.
Don’t create a false dichotomy. I have never and will never propose the eradication of creative thought, such as the supernatural. But I will fight to the bone to keep pretend solutions from being considered as answers for real questions.
You are completely wrong about science and that’s why you have no problem spouting nonsense about the “failures” of science. Science is just the mode of testing and retesting. Science and religion are incompatible because science CHANGES as new evidence arises. Religion does not. Also, there are no holes in the theory of evolution. That site you posted is a prime example of why you are disingenuous. Christian apologist sites love posting that link without knowing, of course, that it has been so thoroughly refuted that only a Google search will reveal to you the nonsense you are espousing. 150 years of solid evidence and research aren’t going to be torn apart by an amateur article that contains no scientific fact.
Also, does science need to disprove to you that a flock of geese constructed of diamonds and saliva excreted dust and alien jizz billions of years ago to create the Big Bang? Why not? Clearly if science can’t refute it, there could be some potential legitimacy to it. Or perhaps a few ancient nomads should have written a book about it first.
Scientists never stated that the sun revolved around the Earth. It was accepted until the tools became available to study and THEN scientists made their claim. You are so willfully ignorant of the facts that you only read what supports your presupposition. Do what most intelligent people do and reserve your comments for something that you’re educated about.
The ontological argument of a perfect creator and the monotheistic premise have been so rigorously torn to pieces that I can’t take you seriously if you say that you have researched the subject. Read a book.
That last bit about food is goddamned silly that it hurt.
I have not ONCE stated that the issue of God is solvable. I have stated that the issue of unfounded belief in debunked texts IS solvable. You are just grasping at straws now – quite literally with these straw-man arguments lying about.
Rogueepidemic – One could argue that organized religion is a hindrance to modern thought – and on the other side, one could argue that science has always been a massive and horrible hindrance to the proper teachings of God.
Not that I believe either claim, but the Church has existed just as far back as the scientific method – both serve their respective roles and purposes in any given society, and it’s rather ignorant to argue that “modern thought” is hindered by either, seeing as history has progressed along on its merry way with both present.
Oh, by the way, religion has changed, just as science has – last time I checked, your everyday church doesn’t stone adulterers or enforce ritual sacrifices. There’s even this wonderful thing called the Unitarian church, which (gasp!) supports gay marriage and pro-choice, among other things. It also belongs under the category of organized religion. How about that?
You are absolutely claming that God doesn’t exist when you that belief is something other than science is jut creativity and can’t be looked at as REAL. You’re the one being disingenuous. You claim you only care about disbunking specific texts and then go on and on about how science is always right (HA!) and religion never changes. (Double HA!) In fact, Science itself is built upon TRIAL AND ERROR! Also, you should learn the meaning of the word disingenuous. You claim that particular articles has been disproved without looking and seeing that it’s sort of a living document that has been changed to adapt to current scientific understanding. A whole section of it was taken out.
I was simply explaining that people who arrive at a certain religion do so because of believing in the existence of a God. You’re trying to separate the question of God from religion, but you cannot as the religion itself stems from a belief in God. Also, you’re absolutely wrong about religion never changing. Christianity itself has reinterpreted the Good Book so many times and so many sub-sects have evolved that it’s ludicrous to claim otherwise. Ever heard of the Protestant Reformation? You’re the one that needs to read a book.
Also, yes you’re idea about the flock of geese is akin to the spaghetti monster idea but it doesn’t hold true as there is historical proof to prove that all these things came after the Earth was formed, using your logic these things would also have the ability to reason. They don’t.
Scientists absolutely stated the sun revolved around the Earth. They based this on tests they conducted by observing star patterns. Observation is part of the scientific process and given the tools they had at the time, it was a perfectly scientific explanation. You seem to hold science in great esteem, but you don’t get to pick and choose what is science. Conducting scientific research and tests using the tools available at the time is scientific research. Just because it’s later proven false doesn’t mean that it was conducted scientifically. Science doesn’t equal=whatever is right, unconditionally.
Also, Monotheism and the idea of a perfect creator cannot be proven or disproven. As you have said yourself earlier. You’re being disingenous and contradicting yourself all over the place.
You can claim it’s silly all you want, but I think it’s silly to think that God would put us on this Earth and then assign arbitrary rules about we can and cannot eat when in all three major monotheistic religions he did no such thing when we were in the Garden of Eden. There was only one thing we weren’t supposed to eat, and there was a reason behind it.
You have absolutely inferred that you think the issue of God is solvable by using phrases like, “disingenuous, creativity, or thought patterns i don’t want this to be considered a real thing, etc.”
Also the Observation Theory of Paradigms is a valid, scientifically quantifiable and legitimate theory that shows why Science is a not as perfect as some would have you believe. I didn’t say science wasn’t good, I just said it was imperfect. Everything on this Earth is imperfect though. You can say what makes sense to you but you’re absolutely trying to censor others by trying to make me see the world the same way. I gave a perfectly reasonable, non Biblical based argument on why I believed to prove a point. You helped me prove it even further. You’re just as bad as the bible beaters.
“I think it’s silly to think that God would put us on this Earth and then assign arbitrary rules about we can and cannot eat when in all three major monotheistic religions he did no such thing when we were in the Garden of Eden. There was only one thing we weren’t supposed to eat, and there was a reason behind it.”
… BUT you don’t think it’s silly to believe that God magically created the infinite universe, got lonely, then stuck a naked dude and a naked chick to bone in a giant garden/play-pen with a satanic snake and an apple tree?
“Now, I know you’re brand new and you don’t know anything… but you can’t leave. And don’t talk to that snake, I don’t know how he keeps sneaking in here – dammit. Also, you can’t eat THAT. Just trust me on this.”
Just saying, if you’re trying to point out the ridiculousness in all of this lets just step back and take a look at the big picture.
rogueepidemic, I love you. And I agree with everything you have said. I was getting all pumped up to blast sweetpea16 out of the water, but you’ve already done that. And with such eloquence!
I’m not an atheist. I admit I don’t know if there is a God or not and I’m ok with that. I’m a rationalist. Organized religion is completely irrational. It boggles my mind that so many people can just turn their minds off and follow it like little sheep.
Your defense of Christianity – the “perfect” God; the omnipotent, omniscient God – lies in describing how many times the Bible (“the living document”) has changed!? Are you even reading your own words?
The scientific method predates fucking humanity. Your form a thought. You test the procedure of that thought. You base future decisions from your research. Science isn’t imperfect. Scientists are. Luckily there are millions of them to check each others’ work. I don’t ask you to see the same way. I ask you to stop acting as if make-believe is a legitimate alternative because it NEVER IS in any aspect of our lives. The Observation Theory of Paradigms only shows the limits of language, not science. You seriously, seriously have no clue what you are talking about.
Science changes based on evidential research. Religion changes based on pressure from decent human beings who have outgrown the archaic teachings of their predecessors. The question of God IS separate from religion. Believing in a god does not denote some specific tenets of rules or beliefs. It just IS. You believe that the world was created by an all-knowing God. Cool. You believe that perfectly normal human beings will burn for eternity for not being able to use the senses given to them to see and accept an all-elusive triune God!? Not even close to acceptable. A perfect God wouldn’t even require worship, but I digress. Any person with a modicum of curiosity has already discovered that the truth does not lie in that book.
I did not say monotheism can be disproven. I was replying to your absolutely appalling logic that because you believe in God, you naturally believe in a monotheistic one. Just nonsense one after the other.
You have already proven to anyone that your arguments only lie in the magisterial and “what-ifs” of the world rather than fact. The absolute fact is, you are an atheist but refuse to admit it. You are an atheist about every other goddamned religion but the ONE that you so happen to have CHOSEN. All other people of other religions will have to burn forever. That kind of nonsensical hatred, bigotry, salient narcissism, abject stupidity, and complete disregard for anything factual is what makes you lose before you even began. The fact that people can so fervently defend Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. and not see their own bullshit is telling of how potent the mind-numbing ignorance can be. I honestly do not give a shit what you choose to believe or what ignorance you want to perpetuate to other deluded adults. But you keep your violent, misogynistic, hate-filled words out of a child’s heads and out of governance. Ruin your own lives with this perpetual allergy to critical thought. I have no problem with your belief and your right to do so. I have EVERY problem with the way you conduct your blatant misrepresentation of facts and your shamelessly uninformed idea of science.
And the reason behind not being able to eat the apple? Because it was the tree of knowledge. What an awesome allegory to the very God of Christianity asking his creation not to chase knowledge – because, lord god almighty forbid, we should ever find out the truth. And you’re doing a fantastic extension of that job by masking the truth, creating lies, and deceiving well-meaning people. You should be ashamed, but since God will forgive you for all these sins, why should you give a shit? You have already shown before that you delight in the burning of that poor stranger’s soul. You have been revealed.
@aries…I read the first couple of sentences and get what the whole was probably about. Yes, me and word did get into that not too long ago, but I realize it’s better to just shut up and accept that others’ have their views, and not make it long and drawn out. After I said what I wanted to get off my chest, I apologized and haven’t looked back on it.
I only mean, that I hope this doesn’t turn into a quarrel like ours, yet instead of stopping, continues on forever. Saffer makes an obvious common sense point… religious wars and debates will not be solves in one night. Why try to do it on an internet site meant to have fun and laughs?
Well damn. I’m glad I took off when I did now, because *that* conversation went abso-freakin’-lutely nowhere.
Makes me glad I’m neither a hardline Christian nor a hardcore Atheist. Both sets of uber-fanatics have shown their asses. That being said…
I just noticed the first comment on the pic… poor David looks *extremely* insecure with his sexuality. “Let’s see the whole ass! If it’s a girl, I mean…” If Justin had posted an ass-shot of a dude, he’d have a bit more ‘splainin’ to do than David. As would the dude with the tight pants and massively feminine buttcheeks. Whichever, it’s pretty awesome that he has to justify wanting to see more of this particular derriere.
(“Oh God, if it’s a man’s ass I’m gonna look so gay, crap, I better say something here about that…”)
Thank ya wandr. Glad the post came off the way I meant tit to and made sense. It was one of those “makes sense in my mind, but will it on paper?” Moments. But seriously, I always think it’s interesting that HUGE debates like this sprout up on Lamebook of all places…
I didn’t say that my belief in God relies on the fact that religion has changed, I was only pointing out that you are wrong, religion has changed.
How can the scientific method predate humanity? Human beings are the only ones capable of rational though, it came from human beings. I was just pointing out that your claim that science never stated the sun revolved around the Earth was false. It was an absolutely scientific claim.
Observation Theory of Paradigms has everything to do with science and is not something that only applies to speech. It applies to all thought patterns and thus affects everything that stems from human though, science included. A good example is all the information that was held to be true when people though the Sun revolved around the Earth. They built from what they had already accepted to be true. In fact one needs to only google the phrase and the top 5 links attempt to show how science and the observation theory of paradigms are linked. In fact, the human eye takes in 500 million bits of information per second but the brain only process about 400-500 bits of information. That is a lot of information that we aren’t seeing. Since the observation is flawed, anything that follows it will be flawed as well. Since most scientists are educated in the same manner and operating under the same thought patterns many of them will focus in on the same information and back up what another person has said or look for information that proves the opposite. Since Science starts with observation, it in and of itself must be flawed; not just the scientists.
Religion changes based on evidential research as well. A good example of this is the sun thing, once again. Religion is slower to change, sure but most people do not hold that to be true anymore and different interpretations of the same text have been proffered.
You ask that people hold religions but then don’t act on them. To not teach their children morality and not pick people who they feel are best to lead. You are absolutely trying to force your opinions on others, which is why I said you’re as bad as a bible leader. Also, please note I have not once called you a name or talked about the eternal damnation of souls. You are placing words in my mouth, please don’t.
Also, as I said before you can’t talk about religion without talking about God. The fact that you are trying to separate them shows that you just trying to push your view on others by separating what makes religion reasonable from religion. You can talk about God without religion, but you cannot talk about religion without God. I agree, the stories of the bible are ridiculous, if there is no God. It’s only with God that they make any sense whatsoever.
There is nothing hate filled about religion. It’s individuals that are hate filled. Why would you care about hell if you don’t believe in it? Who cares what I think and what my kids think if you believe that what I say has no iota of truth to it? I certainly don’t give a damn when someone who is Islamic yells that I am in trouble for not wearing pants. I don’t care if some child comes running up to me and yelling that I’m getting a lump of coal for Christmas. If you are secure in what you believe you won’t see any of it as hate filled, you’ll see it as misguided but love filled. These people are telling you these things because they want you to see their truth, so that you can live a better life. Just as you are trying attempting to make me seem ignorant by screaming at the top of your lungs that what I believe is nonsense and that I should see your truth.
All I’m saying to you, and the reason I don’t yell about eternal damnation or vote for someone just because they are a Christian is that the language you are using and the way you trying to force your beliefs on me is just as bad as if I were to get on here and start quoting the Bible about you going to hell. I only pointed out my beliefs to show you that my belief in the Bible stems from what I have learned and is thus rational, it does not come from the Bible itself. I believe in the Bible and am a Christian because for me, that is the one true religion. For me, that is the only thing that makes sense. You clearly place value on something else and then make the rational choice to not pick religion. It doesn’t support what you believe. We are both clearly rational people and we both made our decisions based on what we felt was best. To say that my belief stems only from the Bible is a fallacy.
Also, you demand that I do not vote for who I think is best and to no raise any theoretical children I may have on what i think is right. Why? Because what I believe is wrong and all these other negative adjectives you place on it. While what you believe is right, and thus the only right course of action. Who does that sound like to you? A bible beater. The fact of the matter is, everyone should raise their kids to the best of their capabilities. Everyone should teach their kids right from wrong and offer better explanations than because I said so. Everyone should also vote for whoever the hell they think will best lead the country. To demand otherwise from people of religion because you want them to vote the way you believe is the worst kind of intolerance and only highlights your own hypocrisy. Just accept that you absolutely don’t support freedom of religion. Just accept that you absolutely don’t support people’s rights to believe. Because if you did, you would expect them to have all the things that go with it including raising their kids the way the see fit and voting for who they think is best.
I’m done now. It’s obvious that I’m not going to get you to see that I’m not mocking atheism and I’m not trying to get anyone to convert. That I was only trying to point out that both sides contain perfectly rational people and not just ignorant people who made their decisions based off something idiotic. I only brought up my own religion to give that context. TO show that, even if you disagree with my reasoning it was still reason that led me to the Bible. I honestly don’t care if you believe or not because all we can do as Christians is defend ourselves and offer advice on people seeking us out. You can’t force people to believe, and shouldn’t try to. The same way your line of thinking sounds dangerously close to censorship and taking away people’s constitutional rights. Making it your life’s mention to eradicate people’s belief in religion is the same thing as making it your life’s mission to tell everyone that doesn’t believe that is going to hell. You’re both trying to wipe out the other person’s thought patterns. Which history has proven time and time again is just the worse kind of world to live in. That, that is why we should just live and let live.
Again, aries, you misrepresent the facts. I have not stated that I want you to not have the freedom to believe or do with your life what you will. Only when your beliefs infringe on the freedom of others do I have a problem. You seem to think that I don’t like freedom of religion. I absolutely do. I just do not think putting the fear of hell into minors is anything but child abuse. You will disagree and that’s fine. I don’t advocate your rights being stripped away and you think that just because I find your beliefs completely irrational and useless that I don’t think you should be allowed to have them. Your straw-man arguments are tiresome.
You clearly misunderstand science. You clearly misunderstand atheism. You clearly misunderstand my stance. I will not debate someone who propagates lies.
I am not propagating lies, you claim teaching kids where your morality comes from and your heritage and cultural beliefs is child abuse. I’m saying that it isn’t. And yes, religion is a part of culture.
You say people should keep it out of government and not vote for people based on religious beliefs. I’m saying they should vote for whoever they think is best.
Freedom of Religion isn’t just the right to believe in a religion, everyone has that no matter what country you live in. Freedom of religion is being able to act on that religion. To pass on inheritances and culture, to vote for candidates in office who you feel is best and will support your needs wherever they may come from. What you are talking about is not freedom of religion, it’s freedom from religion.
I have made no arguments about what atheism is, and thus it’s rather presumptuous to say that I misunderstand atheism. I do not misunderstand science. The only thing I have said on the matter is that it cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and that it isn’t perfect. I don’t misunderstand your stance, I’m just pointing out that your tone, your venom, your mission to make sure that people can’t vote they way they want to or raise their children the way they want to is just as bad as when a religious person does it. Obviously we disagree on that point, but that is what you have said time and again by using the language that you have. I’m saying that I find that as bad as a bible thumper because they think the same way, on the other extreme end of the spectrum. You yourself said it’s bad to live and let live, in no uncertain terms.
And a misunderstanding is not the same thing as a lie. A lie is a willful misrepresentation of the truth. Once again, you claim one thing and use language to mean another. If your stance is not that people shouldn’t be allowed to base their votes or raise their kids with religious beliefs, than I apologize. But then that makes me think you throw out words that you do not know the meaning of or implications of, most communication is nonverbal. Calling raising children with a religion child abuse and then saying but you should have the freedom to believe what you want to is grasping at straws. If someone one truly had the freedom to believe than they should be able to pass that culture on to others. They should be able to talk how they want to talk. Raise their kids how they want to raise their kids and vote how they want to vote. Anything else is not true freedom.
Well then, you continue telling your children that their skin will melt and burn for eternity if they can’t accept a “loving” God who refuses to let himself be known.
And I’ll continue categorizing that as child abuse. There’s a huge difference between me saying that you should be free to believe what you want and letting you fill an impressionable child’s mind with fear.
You’re done. You’ve proven yourself incapable of understanding anything outside of your tinted view of existence – one that once welcomed government sanctioned witch burnings, sharia law, and crusades. You clearly know nothing of the history of cultures, governments, and religion to hold your own here. Your delusions cloud your objectivity so I’m finished fending off your fabrications. Imprison your mind somewhere else.
You did not seriously compare bringing up children in a church community to the crusades, did you? Seriously! You really think that a parent protecting their children from hell(a danger they very much believe in) by teaching them how to avoid it (similar to way you teach kids not to touch a fire, or walk into an open manhole because it will hurt them) is the same as the fucking crusades. You honestly think that I know nothing of the way religion has been abused just because I think abuse of something doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing itself is a bad thing? I mean they are plenty of legitimate reasons to own guns, to have governments, to put people in leadership positions, etc and those things have all been abused too. All the fucking time. With grave consequences, that doesn’t those things in and of themselves are bad things. It’s people who are fucked up, not religions. You’re clearly a nut job if you honestly equate protecting a kid from a perceived danger is the same thing as genocide, witch burnings, sharia law and crusades none of which any sane Christian supports and none of which is supported biblically.
Farmhousebrekfis: I wouldn’t classify anyone as a slut and wonder why people feel the need to do so… especially in America- a country with a massive, throbbing porn industry… it’s such hypocrisy to let society dictate to various people what is and isn’t permissable based on an unspoken and unequitable set of rules, especially if you’re going to be going round the World lecturing the Chinese and Iranians on ‘freedom’…
I think it is a serious issue because unfair limitations placed on females in society is something that is indicative of intolerant, often (dare I say it) religiously-led societies…?
OMFG! (sorry, Baby Jesus) no. 29 for the enormous win… have my babies?
No. 35- your arguments make little sense, though I have heard them before (unfortunately). You make a perfectly reasonable argument that a ‘God’ in some sense could exist, then fuck it all up by saying that therefore he logically probably is the guy with a beard that features in the Bible. Presumably if you were Indian it would be Krishna, etc. etc. Can you not see how religion is man-made? It’s so OBVIOUS…
AeriesDragon… you can argue (wrongly) that atheism and religion are just different, but equally valid opposing points of view… but I don’t think you should be bringing up the ‘sun revolves around Earth’ argument. The reason why there was so much controversy once science discovered that previous thought was wrong was because religious authorities felt that this POV threatened the concept that God created Earth (and us) as the centre of everything. They then proceeded to massacre, bully and oppress some of the greatest thinkers of the age (for a change) e.g. Galileo (my thanks to the Vatican yet again for blessing humanity with that episode).
Look at history- religion and those that follow it have constantly oppressed and sought to silence dissent. See how the love of God leads to the hatred of your fellow man so easily (though not in every case, of course)? Don’t quote something that so completely blows your position out of the water, you utter moron…
NB: Aries- it has been proven that children below a certain age (approx. 4) simply cannot differentiate between truth and lie.
It therefore follows that to indoctrinate a child from birth in something for which there is no evidence is tantamount to child abuse, regardless of how noble the motives of the parents/carers/teachers/madrassa leader nutcases/jesuit sadists are… particularly if the indoctrination involves threats of eternal torture and lonliness if disobeyed. Sick stuff to teach children.
‘It is people that are fucked up, not religions’ – Aries
Hmm. There’s a famous quote by a Scotsman called Hulme – one of the greatest moral philosophers in history. He says that good people will generally do good things, and wicked people will generally do wicked things… but for a good person to do wicked things requires religion.
His point is that religion sometimes leads people to do the most horrific things because it is a construct set up to absolve the ‘normal’, humanist, non-sociopathic urges most humans have (as social creatures). Religion is one of a very select list of things that acts like a magnifying glass- leading humans to the grossest excesses of wicked action. Want an example? Examine the matter-of-fact way in which Joshua and the Israelites commit genocide against other nations, and rape the young women. In a book many in the Western World uphold as a paragon of morality. I mysefl was taught the stories from a young age, and told the actions were justified because God said so. Can anyone else smell that…??
Religion is dangerous. In the right hands it is innocuous and leads to a fairly decent lifestyle. In the wrong circumstances it easily leads to terrible actions and events. Let’s stop teaching it to our kids for a generation or so and see what happens? Deal?
Give me a fucking break! Have you read the bible? Genocide, rape, witch burning, child murder on an altar because a voice from heaven tells you it’s right… these are ALL things that PERFECTLY SANE christians have held as (ahem) gospel historically… direct qoute from your bible: ‘you shalt not permit a witch to live’. Do you believe this nonsense or not? Make your mind up time, and bear in mind that apparently if you give the wrong answer you’re guna get tortured eternally, so best write a first draft before hitting send, ya?
the point is that religion is set up dangerously. Of course most christians don’t burn witches- but in the right conditions, people who believe this stuff find it far easier to commit monstrous acts because they base their lives on systems that require/demand blind obedience and repress discerning, sensible, rational debate. I just hope you never truly believe that God wants you to burn any of your children…
@ AlanDente The new testament which is the big difference between the Jewish religion and the Christian one teaches people “Love thy neighbor,” and “Thou shalt not kill,” is one of the ten commandments. The old testament is undoubtedly more violent than the New One but that’s the entire reason Jesus came, according to the Bible. He was the fulfillment of the law and thus the only blood that needed to be shed ever again. You can twist anything to be dangerous, hell you can kill a guy with a couple of crayons if you do it right, but that doesn’t make the item itself dangerous. I reiterate, Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion. Of course, with as with just about anything there are people who can twist to suit their own selfish needs and who use it incorrectly. And yes, I agree religion can be dangerous. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile or necessary. That doesn’t mean it should be avoided. Most good things in life involve risk, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take it.
And while certain atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, there are countless others that did not involve religion and instances where religion ends oppression. People in large numbers with a lot of power regardless of the circumstances are inherently dangerous. But just because people abuse the trust of others to further their own agenda (and anyone who thinks, say the crusades for example wasn’t about power and land) that doesn’t make the thing itself bad. It is not child abuse to teach someone a child right from wrong. If you believe that your child will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity if they die without getting baptized then it would be irresponsible to not do so the sake of a social experiment. You’re idea that teaching a child religion is wrong because they can’t see it as lie illustrates your belief that it is a lie. To the religious parent, it is the absolute truth. I think a responsible parent will protect their young children from harm the best that they can, and all the ways they know how to do so and to ask them to do otherwise is unreasonable. You’re asking people to pretend they are atheists, pretend that they don’t see hell as a danger to their child. I agree that constantly going on and on about hell can be dangerous to psyche, but if it’s taught in a manner so that the child just grows up with the same respect they give fire, pot holes, and other dangerous things then it doesn’t harm them. Many atheists grew up in religious households and they turned out just fine and many cast off their parents have at age where reason developed because they find that they don’t believe the same thing. Sure it may be tough, but the best things in life often are. Everyone is socialized in different ways regardless, and it’s only when you get old enough to develop reason that you begin to question it. Until then you need someone to guide you. If you don’t think you’ve been socialized in some other way, I dare you to compare any two country’s cultures. Culture itself can lead to very dangerous patterns but no one would argue that you shouldn’t teach your kid how to navigate that.
I didn’t say that religious fanatics weren’t dangerous. In fact, I said the exact opposite and said that bible thumper are just as bad as when an atheist tries to censure people’s religion and take away their freedoms. Censorship is censorship. While many wars have been fought over religion, that is mostly just convenience. And if it wasn’t that, it would be something else. There isn’t a country on this earth without some bloody period. Heck, the Japanese who are mostly ethnically and religiously the same and have one of the most homogeneous societies on the planet still managed to have some of the brutal wars on the planet and oppressed people over stupid stuff like one side lives on the Northern end of the country, or that person does a dirty job, or that person has a different last name. People back then found some way to rally a bunch of people together and fight because that was the natural progression of human kind. It was necessary for some groups to take over by peace or by force and regroup into large nations in order to consolidate power. This because a bunch of different villages where everyone can only keep what they protect along with expanding populations that need more and more land can’t be sustained without consolidating power. Since human beings, like all animals, can be violent by nature they naturally picked some random rallying force and used it to jockey for that power. As socities needs grew, so did unrest. As well as certain governments powers grew, they grew more and more unacceptable as power became concentrated in smaller and smaller groups of people then eventually power was redistributed. Which is also led to violence. That is basic break down of almost all wars when you strip them down to the barest bones. To blame it all on religion is easy, because it is one of those things like skin color, or eye and hair color or job or geographical areathat a lot of people can identify with easily. But just like I’m sure you wouldn’t advocate for everyone being the same culture, or having the same job, or looking the same, or living in the same area to promote peace and anyone who wasn’t to keep to themselves and not be in the public spectrum. You also shouldn’t expect everyone to have the same belief systems. It’s not going to happen and it’s dangerous to rally around anything else. Religiously backed or not.
Wow. More words doesn’t equal a better argument. Thank God (sic) I’m at work and have time to waste.
The point is that children should be allowed to develop their own ideals. People who indoctrinate their children are not acting fairly, they are treating their children without respect. The fact that they do not recognise that this is what they are doing is sad, but does not absolve the guilt.
Obviously, everyone is free to teach their children whatever they like, but that doesn’t make it right to indoctrinate. We should be above that. Unfortunately, most religion by it’s nature insidiously presses parents into maltreating their offspring in this way.
Of course all cultures and backgrounds shape the upbringing of children. I am simply proposing that we draw the line at teaching something as FACT to naive, innocent children when the teachings are by nature unprovable. I think it’s sad that people can’t stick to teaching children things we KNOW to be true. Why not leave grey-area philosophy until they grow up and can think for themselves?
I also think it’s revealing when advocates of religion say ‘oh well, let them get to a certain age and then they can make their own minds up’ safe in the knowledge that the first 12 years or so will be open season to programme the children with whatever nonsense they like. People who advocate Islamic teachings are VERY into that argument. Surprisingly, the vast majority of children brainwashed from birth end up ‘choosing’ to continue… I can tell you from experience that to break away and take the ‘option’ of non-belief after a childhood of indoctrination (laden with threats of torture, being cast out, apostate etc.) is one of the most horrifying experiences a young person can go through.
Religious leaders and promoters aren’t stupid- they know that the earlier you get to a child, the less chance there is of them (shock, horror) thinking for themselves. Why do you think all major religions instruct followers to indoctrinate children from birth? It’s not tough, is it?
NB: If your religion is true, and valuable, then your children will warm to it anyway. Why the need to frantically drum it into them from birth, if it is indeed the living Word of God? Your arguments defeat themselves. But then again, you’re the one who is happy to believe in things for which there is no evidence so I guess the point is moot.
No one owns a child, or a child’s mind. It may seem like a minor point (excuse the pun) but even in countries like the UK and the USA there are factions which are trying to shoehorn religious nonsense into the science classroom. It’s a matter of reason against irrationality, and is arguably one of the most important struggles of today.
ps, to say that the New Testament superceded the Old is a cop-out of monumental proportions. That entire book, all 66 books, is YOUR holy text as a Christian. Don’t try and worm out of the horrible things in it. You’re the one who chooses to believe it.
Besides which, Jesus and His teachings say nothing that humanism can’t say. Your New Testament, and the lovely apostle Paul (the one who was prone to episodes of epilepsy and various mental disorder) came out with such horrible classics as ‘On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Lovely stuff… be kind to people you hate, because ultimately your kindness will kick them square in the balls over and over again. Is that morality? Go away and read Voltaire, Camus, Spinoza, then come and talk to me…
The reason it is so pressing to be people who believe in heaven and hell largely rests on the possibility that the child won’t make it to an older age. We all hope and pray and believe that children will, but certain things are beyond our control. Any one of us could die five minutes from now. So it’s important to save the child’s soul just in case the unthinkable does happen.
as for the teachings of Jesus superceding the Old Testament, It isn’t a copuout, it’s in the bible. In Paul’s letter to Galatia. The Old Testament is spoken of as a history because it’s important to understand where we come from to understand how greatly Jesus sacrificed for us. To understand why even though Christianity stems from Judaism, Christians should believe that Christianity is the better choice. And to preemptively stop people from bickering over ritualistic differences, or different interpretations of this word or that word. Catholics and Protestants initially completely ignored it, but as I said it isn’t the religion that is bad it is individual people.
Also, I don’t see what is so bad about the enemy thing. It’s the same kind of logic as living well is the best revenge. It’s saying that your kindness will make them realize that they were wrong and have acted horribly. Which will make them feel like crap, and thus inflict on them the say thing they inflicted on you. That things have their own way of working things out, so stay kind. Stay true to your faith. Don’t let anyone compromise your faith just for the sake of revenge. If they continue on a path of hatred eventually it will cause bad things to happen to them. I don’t see what is so morally bad about that. Would you prefer someone be cruel to the person. Or that they ignore their feelings and try desperately to suppress them and blindly love everyone because God told them too. Or perhaps ignore them completely even if they are dying of hunger? Of course not, it’s saying to rise above their attacks and by doing so they’ll get pay back far more than if you stooped to their level.
Children also can’t develop their own ideals because they lack reason and judgement. This is why they aren’t held accountable for their actions to a certain age. But if you don’t teach them right from wrong the best way you know until they are 18 and old enough to make their own decisions than they will probably make bad choices. Sure some will make good ones, but human beings are naturally pretty selfish. It’s later we learn to be better, through socialization. Also, once again you call it nonsense. It shows you are programming your kid to think of religion as unprovable, superstitious nonsense. What do you think that is going to socialize them to think. The only way to be completely neutral is not to teach about morality at all. But immoral people don’t tend to be the greatest people in a society. It’s not just programming your kid. It’s teaching them, guiding them. Making think about someone other than themselves, teaching them there are consequences for their actions. What you think those consequences are may vary from person to person. But the concept of consequences is necessary for child development.
Holy shit guys. I’m pretty neutral about this whole thing, but I’m gonna have to call bullshit on the “giving your children a religious upbringing = child abuse” argument. I mean really? You have to reach pretty far to make that argument anywhere near logical, and you’re not reaching far enough.
You really think that taking your child to church, teaching them about your religious background, raising them with the same values, and protecting them from what you believe is eternal damnation is right up there with abuse? Here, let me turn it around. “When you die, it’s all over. You become nothing. Your whole life was meaningless because once you’re dead, you’re dead. You’ll never get to play with your toys again. You’ll never get to see your loved ones again. It’ll be nothing but an eternity of miserable darkness.” How fucking much do you think THAT would scare a child? I could call that child abuse if I wanted to.
Or how about taking religion out of it altogether? “If you don’t eat your vegetables, you won’t get dessert.” “If you don’t drink your milk, you’ll get brittle bones that will all break.” “If you play rough indoors and break something, you’ll get a time out.” “If you mouth off, I’ll spank you.” “If you talk to strangers, they’ll kidnap you.” “If you don’t do your homework, you’ll flunk out of school, never get into college, never get a job, and end up homeless.” “If you have unprotected sex, you can get pregnant or an STD.” “If you kill another person, you will have to go to jail forever. Or they might even kill you.”
Child abuse? No.
Don’t ever wrongfully accuse someone of child abuse unless they are actually intentionally physically or emotionally harming their child. It’s an extremely serious accusation that you’re placing on innocent people. You absolute imbecile.
Now, enough with all this bullshit. It’s not entertaining anymore, it’s just sad.
THANK YOU! That’s what I’ve been trying to say Alan this whole time! Only I’m sitting at home with a injured leg from a fall down the stairs and on pain medication, so I couldn’t do it without these long spiels like you did. Plus, I foolishly tried to show a personal example from my personal life and they took that as open season permission to mock my personal beliefs even though I’ve tried very hard not to mock their own.
Not a problem ariesdragon, I was just pointing out a MAJOR dumbass statement on rogue’s part, and after this I will return to lurking. The best way to debate with people is to remember that all you can do is present and defend your side. You can’t change their mind, so don’t try. And the hardest part is to remember DON’T GET MAD. They want you to get mad, so don’t give them the satisfaction. They’ll say and do anything to try and set you off, but just stand your ground, and defend your views while carefully making sure not to attack the other side. They’ll hypocritically pounce on your every word if you strike. Remain on the defensive, and stay calm, and eventually they’ll get bored, or the argument will just die.
@ariesdragon123, without retreading the whole thing I’m surprised no one has yet addressed your argument that religion must revolve around one god. That’s ridiculous. There are many religions that worship several gods and no gods at all. You sound like someone I know so I’m half-expecting you to call those pagan religions.
As for equating instilling religion in minors to child abuse, I’m not sure that I would call it that. I would call it brainwashing and programming. Or politics. You argue that you are teaching them your view of morality, but morality and religion are not the same thing. Morality does not require a belief in any religion or political affiliation. This was touched upon already in earlier posts, but rather than refute it you just skipped over those arguments and restated your opinion.
I wanted to stay out of this,I really did but looks like that’s not going to happen.Pols,I’m not out to agree with the others and say that teaching children about religion is child abuse but your comment does really make sense.First off,good parents whether religious or not don’t tell their children they’re just going to die and that’s the end of it.No one I know has ever or will ever do that to a child so that is a weak argument.Secondly,heaven and hell are merely fabrications and I don’t care who you are,nobody and I repeat NOBODY can say without a shred of doubt where somebody goes when they die and saying otherwise is completely ludicrous; that will always remain a mystery no matter what anyone says whereas “if you have unprotected sex” or “you don’t do your homework” you may very well get an STD or flunk out of school.These things have actually been PROVEN and is in a child’s best interest to know.Done,peace!
Oh my. I came back just to check, but I simply cannot resist…
So this Jesus guy, who comes back in The New Testament (supposedly the only Testament you subscribe to) is chock full of redemption and love? The holy, self-less, peace-loving savior of all humanity and sinners who has the power to erase all the yucky tough stuff that happened in the first draft of the Holy Book? He’s come to save us all with his unconditional love and divinity?? Hmmm.
Methinks someone needs to do a little bible study.
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)
“I am come to send fire on earth.” (Luke 12:49)
“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” (Luke 12:51)
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my deciple.” (Luke 14:26)
(Really Jesus? I know thats how they do enrollment in the CIA, but damn.)
Not only does he regularly contradict himself and fails to follow his own advice on a regular basis, he is also incredibly full of himself over the course of the Gospels. (“A greater man than Soloman is here” and “I have overcome the world,” and “I am the light of the world” etc.) Not to mention he is VERY unforgiving of his own deciples, particularly Peter and the oft-vilified Judas. WWJD indeed…
But my favorite part of your little book HAS to be the joyful and heart-warming final chapter, the Book of Revelations – sure to leave your heart light and your mind at ease about the rest of the scripture you live your life based on… It is, of course, John’s vision of the coming apocaplyse and the end of the world. It starts off with a psychotic bang, including no less than the moon itself turning to blood, hordes of scorpion-tailed locusts shaped like horses but with the faces of men (FUN!) and alot of crazy shit that even God couldn’t explain. Then of course it continues with the destruction of time itself, the torture of all humanity, the wrath of God etc. Lots about God sitting on his throne and watching his angels go apeshit on the unfortunate humans below.
Then a bomb gets dropped on us readers (SPOILER ALERT!) that only 144,000 souls throughout the history of time will be saved. Really. It is a very specific number… and “whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Revelations 20:13) Yeah, I’ll see you there.
Christ’s last words: “Surely I come quickly.” (Revelations 22:20) Take your time big guy, really.
In conclusion, Aries, I don’t know how Christians are willingly able to overlook/accept all this shit but if you want to then thats your perogative. But IF you’re going to believe in the Bible, at least believe in ALL of it and have the balls to defend it for what it is — a violent, twisted, inconsistant mind fuck with a lot of plot holes, a strange protagonist, and one hell of an ending for our species.
Choosing the parts of scripture that benefit your agenda and your lifestyle is CHEATING and makes you a hypocrite.
Geez, I hope you’re not a woman… That’s a whole other tirade. Bible ain’t so friendly to us females, don’t ya know?
I normally come to Lamebook for the ridiculousness and never bother with a posting a comment, but felt the need to register and interject a moment.
“But IF you’re going to believe in the Bible, at least believe in ALL of it and have the balls to defend it for what it is — a violent, twisted, inconsistant mind fuck with a lot of plot holes, a strange protagonist, and one hell of an ending for our species. ”
Well. Fucking. Said.
Along with the 144,000 getting in, I keep wondering why hardcore Bible-thumpers keep trying to recruit. If I know and truly believe the Bible, and only 144,000 people are getting in, why would I try to sell my ticket?
Belief in God =/= believing the Bible is the end all, be all word of God. It is a collection of smaller books written by an assortment of men, and put together into a single tome 1000 years after Jesus died. So, though I don’t accept it as the straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth word of God, I do have to point out that the Bible does state that the Old Testament is null and void. That was the whole reason for Jesus dying on the cross. Which makes it even funnier for me when Christians use Leviticus to point out that God hates the gays. If you’re a true Christian, you would know Leviticus is there purely for history, and should have no bearing on your current faith. Silly, silly hypoctrits.
Also, people on here want to blame all Christians for the evil things that *some* Christians have done through the years. I’ll argue that doing something in the name of God, or in the name of Christianity, does not make you a Christian. Thus, people who go against the essence of Christianity to supposedly protect it, are they themselves destroying what it means. If I said I was a doctor, does that automatically make me a doctor? Then why do you accept someone who claims to be Christian at face value?
The essence of Christianity is this: love is the most important thing. Love, and all things associated with it. Compassion, empathy, charity, these are but a few.
That being said, I am a Christian myself, but I don’t attend church, because most churches rules run counter to my own philosophy. For instance:
Christians want to come on hear and spout off about “if you don’t believe, you’re going to hell”. Who are you to make that judgement? Only God gets to decide that kind of business, so back off.
As for teaching religion equals child abuse? I’m torn here. Teaching your children the basic dogma of your religion (ie love = awesome, some history, basic tenets, etc) is okay. Westboro church folk, taking their kids to soldiers’ funerals to shout “God killed your son for being a fag”? Yeah, that’s child abuse.
I had to post because there seems to be a lot of bickering, and I’m not getting why ya’ll just can’t accept that you hold different belief systems, and those belief systems do not intersect in this regard.
So atheists: you are not smarter than Christians based soley on your religious affiliation, or lack thereof.
Christians: you are not better than the atheists based soley upon your belief in God.
I don’t know if you were addressing my post right above yours, and while I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, there are a couple of things I really don’t.
My main point was that the NEW Testament and the whole “Jesus = Salvation” ideology really blows my mind, as I mentioned above. I realize that most atheists, agnostics, etc. typically use the OLD Testament to undermine Christianity, and Christians love to cry foul about it but I say… no need. Got enough from the “relevant” parts of the Bible to convince me of everything I need.
And secondly, I really don’t understand when Christians say that the Bible is just a “guide” or that they “don’t really take it at face value.” If you don’t take it as absolute truth, then what the hell do you base your religion on if not your Bible — your fallible and human minister? Does God send you visions instructing you on what is right and wrong? Do you make up your own ideologies??
(Alternately, how can anyone take the Bible – which was written by men, for men, to serve their political purposes during different periods in history, is clearly outdated, can be found in many different versions, which has little or no historical fact, etc. – as truth to anything??)
Again, either believe it or don’t. Just don’t claim to believe SOME — whatever is the most convenient or the simplest to understand. It trivializes your entire religion and makes your devotion to God suspect at best.
Just because you don’t believe something to be true doesn’t mean someone else believes that it is.
“good parents whether religious or not don’t tell their children they’re just going to die and that’s the end of it.No one I know has ever or will ever do that to a child so that is a weak argument.”
Then what do you say when the child asks where he will go when he dies?
“Choosing the parts of scripture that benefit your agenda and your lifestyle is CHEATING and makes you a hypocrite.”
Then why did you only quote the verses that mentioned violent/bad stuff? Why didn’t you quote the ones about love and peace? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love.” You can’t pretend like these verses don’t exist just because there are some verses that say bad things, because that’s choosing parts of scripture that benefit your agenda and your lifestyle and it’s CHEATING and makes you a hypocrite.
People, this argument should not be about whether or not God exists, or whether or not the bible is whatever you want to say it is, this argument should only be about whether raising your child with a religious background is child abuse or not. I believe that it is not. Done.
A child shouldn’t normally ask what happens when somebody dies because they’re children; they’re much too young and lively to be able to comprehend death and to be honest, if a child did ask such a question, there’s something wrong. Furthermore filling they’re heads with potential lies and false information is certainty not the correct response. Telling a child that they’re going to burn in hell for all eternity if they don’t obey an invisible entity is just as bad, if not worse, than telling them their lives just simply cease.
And you think GOOD parents tell their children they’re just going to die? I don’t think so.I’m pretty sure that’s not an opinion of mine. Everyone can agree on that.
Adaht, tip of the cap to you. You made me rofl. Hitchins is wrong, women can be funny… Also, dontcha just love how Jesus came to send not peace, but a sword- but then told off that guy in the garden for getting his sword out? If I was a disciple, I would have slapped him out of sheer frustration.
Polsvoice, you made me chuckle with your comments, especially the ‘I’m pretty neutral about this whole thing, but…’
As well as ‘Or the argument will just die’. WILL it just die though? Or will it have to stand before God and give an account of its actions after death? Lol?
Your advice to Aries is interesting, and actually very typical of the kind of mindset that many non-religious and moderately religious people are worried about in the modern World- specifically that you should stick to your guns at all costs and ignore anything that challenges your firmly-held and unshakeable viewpoint. People peddle this approach at every major flashpoint in the World today e.g. Palestine, Iraq
When you say ‘you can’t change their mind’ you actually tar me, and others, with your own brush. I’m perfectly happy to have MY mind changed- show me Jesus in the clouds, or with a sword of fire or sitting at the Father’s right hand (which is also His own right hand, strangely enough) and I will accept the new evidence and adapt my opinions. The problem I have with many fundamentalist religious types is that they are not willing to EVER revise their opinions because many religions specifically warn against this type of open-mindedness.
I think the best way to debate is to start from a position whereby you accept that at some point you might be shown to be wrong. Show me a Christian that will openly admit that any kind of evidence or argument will cause them to stop believing in Jesus. There’s a description for them- ‘brand new non-Christians’.
If my kids asked me what happens after death, I’d tell them that we don’t know, but that there’s no need to worry and that I’ll love and protect them as much as I can. Then maybe ice cream and a hug. Please note! No mention of lakes of fire!!
If there’s nothing after death, then it’s not an eternity of miserable darkness, is it? It’s a lack of anything. There’s no mind there to be lonely and scared for eternity. You’re thinking of the bible again there, aren’t you? Confused yourself again somewhat, haven’t you?
‘you’ll never get to play with your toys again’ doesn’t really compare with ‘demons will torture you, but you will never ever die, the torment will be eternal’, does it? You’ve totally missed the point- warning of STDs etc. is not child abuse because it’s provable beyond doubt that it’s a risk. Telling your kids that if they don’t follow the rulebook they will suffer torture etc. is tantamount to emotional abuse, because there is the threat of a horrible outcome, which can only be prevented by unattainable obedience.
I have spoken to a child psychologist, raised a Baptist, who fully endorses this theory, based on the mental anguish she has observed over years of practice and hundreds of cases. But hey, I guess she must be an imbecile as well, being as she doesn’t agree with you. And Jesus.
As a final note, if I want to accuse someone of something I will go ahead and do it. I’m not even slightly worried or cowed by your pathetic demand/threat. Now go ‘spank’ your children for ‘mouthing off’. And this is VERY entertaining actually, I call it Baptist-baiting…
adaht: As for your questions to me, here I go: 1. I just got through saying the Bible was *not* infallible, it was written by men. Part of the texts were thrown out, others were included, in a manner which, for all I know, was completely arbitrary. Why would I claim the Bible in its entirety as the principles by which I live my life? Anyone who follows the Bible, word for word, without any discretion, is a fool. I also read the Qu’ran, Tao Te Ching, several buddhist works, all sorts of “religious” texts, and usually take something from each of them to use in my life. Why does religion have to be so strict in your mind? Why can’t it be fluid? It’s about finding your *own* path to God. You mock religion for being rigid, and you mock it for being fluid. How exactly would it need to be for you to accept it? I’m not trying to be an ass, just genuinely curious.
2. I kind of answered this question in the above answer, but will add just a bit more: I already said I didn’t attend church, so no, I do not base my beliefs on the teachings of a minister (I tried several churches, but was put off my the focus on hell and money, which doesn’t ring true with my interpretation of God). Do I get visions from God? No, but I do pray, and sometimes get answers in the form of feelings. It’s hard to explain, so I’ll just leave it at that. I have had prayers answered in real ways, ways that *could* be explained as mere coincidences, but they were too specific for me to accept it as such. It’s called faith, and it’s okay for you not to have faith in God, but I do. Once again, something that can’t be explained, so it would be silly to try. And like I mentioned, it’s also based on my own independent religious studies.
3. I don’t believe that which is “most convenient or simplest to understand”. I believe that which I feel to be true. When I say religion, what I mean is faith, and it’s different for every person, or it should be anyways. Blind devotion to anything is ignorance parading as passion. Same with politics. I’m a Democrat, but does that mean I have to have the same exact opinions as every other Democrat? Should I believe everything Democratic leadership tells me is true, or should I research it on my own? Same with religion, but with more abstract themes.
And for the record, it wasn’t intended as a response to your post, it just happened to follow it. It was more a response to the general thread. If you interpreted anything as a personal attack, I apologize.
adaht: Actually, I do want to comment on one thing from your post prior to my initial one:
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my deciple.” (Luke 14:26)
(Really Jesus? I know thats how they do enrollment in the CIA, but damn.)
My grandpa (agnostic at best, and the only other Democrat besides myself in pretty much my entire immediate and secondary family) said it best:
“My family is my first priority over everything else. If God is so powerful, he can take care of himself.”
And I fully agree. That whole bit was, without a doubt in my mind, one of the parts put in the Bible for political reasons only, to keep people loyal to church above all else. This one is part of my religious principles based on logic: God wouldn’t set things up to have families be the primary social/protection group, then claim they were secondary to himself. Make sure your family has what they need first and foremost. Then if you have some left over, take care of your neighbor, part of the human family. Then take care of the living, non-human creatures of the world, because as stewards of the Earth it is our duty. Our focus shouldn’t be on funding churches, because God can take care of himself. If God *really* thinks he should come before your families needs, then he is more akin to Satan than a benevolent being.
You know, when my grandparents died, I asked what happened to them. Just because a child asks what happens to someone when they die doesn’t mean something is wrong.
When I said I am neutral, it means that I will not take sides on the “There is/is not a God” argument. I will only take sides on the argument about whether or not raising your child with religious background is child abuse.
Why does it worry you that a Christian won’t change their mind? It doesn’t look like the atheists on this page have any intention of changing their minds either.
The arguments you present are valid, but the way in which you present them are wrong. No Christian on this page ever once called you a filthy immoral heathen atheist, but you keep accusing Christians of filling their children’s heads with fear and lies and reduce their supreme deity to an “imaginary” being. God is not imaginary to Christians – they believe he is real, and they believe what they are saying is true.
You ask them to show you Jesus in the clouds when you know that they can’t, any more than you can show them that there is no God or Gods. You keep demanding evidence, when Christians don’t care about evidence, they care about faith. They don’t feel the need to prove anything to anyone. The problem with this debate, is that neither side IS right or wrong. That’s why it will never end. But once again, this is about child abuse, not the debatable existence of a god or gods.
Since I never really read the comments on LB posts until recently, I’ve been going back through the comment sections of older posts (with the intention of getting all the way to the beginning), and I found what I believe is the only exception to my “raising children with religion is not child abuse” argument. Guess who it was?
@MasterProp, if that’s how you derive your belief structure then you aren’t really a Christian. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of one Jesus Christ. His teachings are outlined in the bible. Since you yourself don’t know which books and passages are authentic and which are not, you either have to trust it all or branch out into a new derivative Christian religion that focuses only on which parts of the bible you believe in. I guess you could say that still makes you a Christian, but I dunno… Macintosh is derived from Xerox Alto, but that doesn’t mean it’s still a Xerox Alto. Or maybe it does. I dunno, I just don’t get how all the sects of Christianity still consider themselves Christian if they only partially believe.
By the way, I don’t mean to be picking on the religious folks or anything. I’m fully agnostic and don’t pretend to have the answers, so when others claim they do I tend to get snarky. To me, the hard-line atheists are in the same boat as the religious zealots. None of you know for sure. When we were kids our parents told us Santa brought us presents. When we got a little older and wiser we found out it was our parents after all. As adults, some think there is a higher purpose, some meaning to all this. Others think otherwise. We’re still kids, only now you believe in the existence or nonexistence of gods.
None of you know for sure, but you’re all going to find out one day. Why not wait until then and stop trying to change everyone’s mind?
thehater: A Christian is someone who tries to live their life according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Literally, pertaining to Christ. The Bible was not written by Jesus, in fact it was written long after his death, so in what way would following the Bible be a requisite for Christianity? The Bible is a collection of men’s transcriptions of oral traditions. You ever play a game of Telephone? Well, multiply that by millions of people, hundreds of years, and hundreds of languages. That’s the Bible.
So, the parts of the Bible pertaining to Jesus Christ (the only real record we have about him) are the parts I follow, and I do so for the reasons states above.
Christian = trying to live your life as Jesus Christ lived his (Christ-like).
Christian =/= following the Bible verbatim, b/c Jesus had nothing to do with it’s direct creation.
Believing that you have to follow the Bible and church doctrine/dogma just means that you’re buying into the church’s propaganda.
You claim to be open minded, but you are not. Unless God were to do something contrary to the belief system to serve your narrow definition only, you will not believe he is there. I can’t make God do anything, so trying to demand from me to do would be as narrow minded as me asking you take me up into outer space, drive me around the entire universe, go into parallel universes, etc etc to prove god doesn’t exist and then and only then would I modify my opinion. It’s not true open mindedness it’s false. You demand the impossible because you don’t really have any more intention of changing your mind than I do. Having any open mind would be for you to look at the evidence that I give as parts of my faith not in a “oh, this is going to be rich,” way but in a “let’s see what she has to say, this may or may not shed new light,” way. You don’t do that, so you can’t really say you have any more of an open mind than I do. In fact, you’re probably more close minded than me because not only are you closed minded, but obstinately so. Not only do you refuse to budge, but you refuse to let anyone else be seen as reasonable and shoot down any other idea with venom and insult. I haven’t once called you a heathen, I didn’t call other religions pagan, and I didn’t say anyone on here was going to hell. You put my words in my mouth, I never said them.
Faith, by the way, is not about conclusive evidence. There is no conclusive evidence about the big bang, is it child abuse to teach a child about that. Heck, even filling kids heads with outright lies about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter bunny would be child abuse under your narrow and ridiculous definition. And no, having one person on your side who has specifically went through religious abuse and thus would of course be inclined to think it is that does not count as proof of anything. Most psychologists will absolutely tell you that religion =/= child abuse. Sure there are people who will abuse the faith, but when something is being abused it’s not that things fault. Any more than everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually a Christian. The polygamist sect of the Mormon church for example claims to be Christians but their beliefs are so radically different most other branches do not recognize them as such.
as for Luke 14:26, if you noticed Jesus specifically choose some of the worst of the worst people to be his disciple. In fact, his most outspoke disciple, Paul, was a persecutor of Christians and just a generally nasty guy. Because what Jesus was doing was going to alienate his followers from the general society, he obviously needed people who were wiling to give up everything. This was not intended to be the cost of being a Christian, merely giving you an idea of how costly a thing it was to be one of the 12 disciples. These guys were in very real danger, and if they didn’t publicly disavow everything they owned it would have surely been used against them. This passage was never intended for general Christian followers, but it was the cost of being a disciple. It’s even under the chapter heading, the cost of being a disciple. I hate when people try to quote the bible out of context to make themselves seem right and advance their own agenda. Which is exactly what you were doing, when it is something you claim to hate. I agree that is a pretty high cost to being a disciple, one I myself would hate to have been in the position to pay. But sometimes sacrifice is necessary. Think about WWII, Hitler was someone that we needed to take out. He was someone with whom war was unavoidable. It’s incredibly sad, the cost of war. Or the cost of the freedoms of the united states. There was a lot of bloodshed over that. But some wars are justifiable. Jesus didn’t ask them to kill anyone, they just had to give up contact with them. They had to be people willing to drop everything.
Once again, this passage is Jesus prepping his disciples for the journey ahead of them.
Right before that passage
Matthew 10:16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves
Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, FLEE to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes
SO obviously, it s a proverbial sword. He is asking them to kill anyone in the name of God, but to let people know of the consequences of hell and to not let even family members sway them from their faith. Indeed, he warns that some of the family members may be torn because some people in the family are Christians and some aren’t. But, that is to be expected. Anytime a new ideology rises to prominence, their will be divisions. Don’t focus on that, focus on your own eternal salvation is what he is telling them. Focus on saving souls.
Also, Jesus is saying with the fire and division thing that he is here to make things simple and make a clear divide between saved and unsaved once and for all. And it’s not that Jesus wants them to all to go to hell, in fact he says just the opposite and laments the souls he cannot save. But Hell is not a peaceful place and he has made it so that you will be able to get into heaven. The rest is regrettable, but inevitable. And again, he is not advocating Christians to be violent. He is talking about Hell and himself. I’ll say it again, followers of Christ, i.e Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion. With the idea being that have faith in God and continue to be good and you will be eternally rewarded.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Not Peace but Division
49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
Also, that passage is not saying that only 144,000 people will be saved. Right after that it talks about the great, countless multitude in the white robes who are also saved. This 144,000 is a specific number from a specific area, but they aren’t the only ones.
Honestly, I think anyone who tries to pick and choose lines and twist them out of context from another person’s religion just to mess with them is just as bad as someone picking and choosing lines out of context to further their own agenda. You’re both doing the same thing. You can claim all you want that you’re not but the more you try to deny it, the more you’re doing it. Oh, and I definitely do know my personal religious beliefs better than you do. So you can quit trying to act as if I don’t. That is what makes them MY beliefs. Again, I haven’t tried to convert a single person here. I haven’t called you half the names you called me. You call for a civil, reasonable, rational debate but you don’t really want that. You just want to try to bully someone to make yourself feel superior. It’s not going to work.
Teaching a child a religion is NOT child abuse. People who mock other people’s religious beliefs and do their best to silence them and take away their right to act on their beliefs are all the same. Whether you be a bible beater or an atheists who demands that anyone of religious faith be banned from politics and child rearing. You may do it for totally different reasons, but the end results are the same. Live and Let Live.
@MasterProp, right, that’s what I actually meant. All anyone knows about Jesus Christ is what the bible says about him. So would one follow everything in the bible that directly pertains to him, or pick and choose? What if there are two passages that directly pertain to him and his ways, yet conflict with each other?
Also, does one follow ONLY what Christ would teach? In other words, there are good philosophies in many religions, Buddhism being a good example. If the way one lives their life resembles Buddhist and Christian philosophies, are they still solely Christian? I don’t understand the basic human need to belong. Why does one have to call himself a Christian or an Atheist? Why not just take bits and pieces of what feels right and call it being a good person?
Ghandi said, “God has no religion.” Does the Christian belief structure dictate that he is currently rotting in hell?
God is the judge and jury on Ghandi and everyone else’s soul. I don’t know the final resting place, and I won’t hazard a guess because that would be judging. And I don’t want to be judged by Ghandi’s standard, I want to be judged by my own personal conversation with God.
Matthew 7: 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
That’s actually one of the reasons I feel bad for the I’m perfect and everyone around me is a sinner crowd. They are setting some pretty impossible standards. I hope they measure up to them. Yeah, even the Bible teaches people to treat others how you would want to be treated, even in things such as preaching.
Oh my friend, I wish I had the time to research my answers as you clearly did in your response to me. I have so much to say but I must bite my lip for the moment, as I am sitting in Starbucks being a sinner and updating my iTunes. Also, I have a date tonight, so I’m afraid I must rush off.
But I shall return, alas! Thinkest not that thou hast the upper hand, for I shall leave you with this…
You say I posted out of context, and that may be. I can’t sit here and type everything about a passage. Don’t accuse me of not knowing my references though, because I can almost promise that my biblical knowledge supercedes yours at any given moment. My point was that Jesus was not necessarily written as the loving character is percieved to be. He IS quoted as saying all of those things and many more that would be surprising to most Christians if they actually ready the Bible.
The Bible is famously inconsistant. From an academic and scholarly perspective, there are many contradictions and many, many things that make no sense chronologically or intellectually. Christianity asking people to follow its teachings to me is monumentally absurd and utterly void of logic.
I already knew about those passages and did not just research them. I simply copy and pasted the whole thing to give context to prove that the passages you quoted do not contradict the teachings of Christ. I haven’t bothered to memorize the whole thing word for word so sometimes I have to do that. Like I said, you can interpret them how you wish, but do not presume I need to do Bible study or don’t know my own faith. I’ve argued with preachers at my school screeching that everyone of us is going to hell, including the Christians. And he knew the verses inside and out. But it’s not enough to be able to spout of a couple of lines in a verse, you have to be able to understand what it is trying to say. And that is where all the controversy, different sub-sects, arguing, etc comes from. I’m not saying that my way is the 100% correct interpretation, all I’m saying is you can’t really try to turn the Bible on a Christian who does know their faith and you shouldn’t take things out of context to support your own agenda. None of the things you quoted were shocking to me, or contradictory in nature to anything I had said about Jesus before, for example. The Bible does sometimes make full use of metaphors and similes, and therefore not every word should necessarily be applied to our every day lives. At least, that is what I believe. Somethings were directed directly at contemporaries of Jesus, for example. As I said before, do not tell me I don’t know my own faith because I’m pretty sure I know what I personally believe better than anyone.
I don’t think it’s utterly absurd or devoid of logic at all. There may be some things that make people uncomfortable but God never promised that everyone would be happy 100% of the time, or that there wouldn’t be adversities, and hardships out there. All he promised was that it would be worth it through eternal salvation.
@Aries, I didn’t really read your post because it contained bible quotes. I’m more interested in what MasterProp has to say because he doesn’t require a bible to carry on a conversation about religion. If you would have read my post more carefully you’d see that what I’m asking really has nothing to do with Christianity specifically. You could replace the word Christian with the word Muslim and my points and questions are the same. The reason for this is I believe most religions are basically the same. Sure they have different deities and such, but the idea is the same. If you want to discuss this in a more generalized manner, feel free. If not, then I’ll just continue with MasterProp if he/she so desires.
My response was in direct response to your question. You asked and I qoute, “Ghandi said, ‘God has no religion.’ Does the Christian belief structure dictate that he is currently rotting in hell?”
I had to bring in Christian belief structure to answer that question, because you asked me to do so. The only other post of mine that contained bible quotes were the ones in which adaht spouted off some bible quotes to say that Jesus was violent than I listed off the complete quote to show that those quotes did not mean that Jesus was advocating Christians to be violent. Other than that I have not used the Bible. Feel free to disagree with me all you want but don’t say that I require a bible to carry on a conversation about religion when I have only done so when someone else did so first or asked a specific question about the belief structure. If you would like me not answer questions specific to my belief structure, please don’t ask those kinds of questions. Otherwise, all your doing is throwing out phrases to make yourself look good and demanding I not contradict you. Of which kind of conversation, I also would not want to take part in.
In fact, I have said over and over again how irritating it is that some other posters were attacking my personal beliefs when I was trying to keep things pretty general for the most part. The only reason they got brought into play in the first place is because rogue said that no one rational could believe in religion and I was saying, I have a perfectly rational reason to not just believe in God but a specific faith. IF you don’t agree with me, that is fine. But that doesn’t mean I’m any of the nasty names that rogue was trying to say I was, nor did it mean that I was trying to tell lies. Of which, he also accused me of. I encourage you to go back and read my post and you will see that is all I was doing.
Oh Aries… I didn’t mean to offend you, and if I have then I’m sorry, but this is the internet. Sometimes you will meet people who say things you don’t like- I don’t like the way you keep misrepresenting what I’ve said, for example.
I’ve pointed out that to teach these things to children is wrong- and to prove this, I’ve tried to show the illogical nature of acting as though a belief system is ‘real’ enough to scare children with. If this results in you feeling that your beliefs have been mocked, then that’s life. At least you can console yourself with knowing that if you ever treat me with kindness, you’re increasing my hot-ember on head quotient.
I’ve made it clear that if you can show me evidence to back up your claims then I’m prepared to change my views. Yet you say that I am not prepared to change my views in any eventuality. I guess you know me better than I know myself.
The burden of proof is on the person making extraordinary claims. It is not an extraordinary claim to say there’s no evidence for God. You claim the unsupportable and unprovable.
You’re not worth arguing with because every time someone makes a point to you, you disregard it, or misrepresent it, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly. I can call you a Waaambulance if you need one. In the meantime, a matchstick might be useful as a splint for your trembling lower-lip.
@Aries, no you actually didn’t answer my question. The bible quote you posted doesn’t say whether or not Ghandi goes to hell, it just says that you have no place to judge people. Also, that particular question was rhetorical because according to the bible he is in hell since he doesn’t believe in the Christian god. Why give an unrelated answer to the easy question, but pass over the others?
Finally, why do you put words in other people’s mouths? 1) I didn’t ask you anything. The start of my post said, “@MasterProp.” 2. I never demanded anything of you. I said I didn’t fully read your post (i actually stopped after the irrelevant quote), and that I was more interested in MasterProp’s line of discussion. You seem to do this a lot as evidenced by Alan’s points above.
I didn’t say that you asked me personally, I simply didn’t see the @masterprop and were asking everyone on the board in general. At any rate I was simply saying that that you asked a question about the Christian belief structure and i said you cant answer that question without bringing in the bible. Also, this is the internet. It’s pretty easy to make a mistake about whether or not the question is rhetorical because their is no tone of voice. You may have meant it at a rhetorical question but you can’t really say that others should of interpreted it as such as that is kind of impossible to do on the internet. You yourself have commented on other peoples direct questions to other people in the thread though, so I don’t know what you’re getting so bent out of shape over, tbh. I didn’t insert words in your mouth.
you did demand though that if I wanted to speak to you, I shouldn’t use bible quotes. As though having one in there to answer a question about the Christian belief struct in specific so bad. You also inferred that I couldn’t carry on a conversation without using the bible in the post. At which I merely pointed out that the only bible quoutes I have used were in direct response to a question about the Christian belief structure in specific or to adaht posting them first. THat is not putting words in your mouth, that is what you said. Again, if you meant it a different way that is fine. It’s the internet so things nonphysical things don’t get communicated and that can cause people to take things in a way which you don’t mean. But I didn’t put words in your mouth.
I wasn’t referring to you I was referring to Rogue for the most part, who didn’t use Christian beliefs in general but my in specific, and even claimed that I would drown my own kids or other some such nonsense if I thought God told me to do so, which I wouldn’t ever do because I know God wouldn’t ask such a You and have both kept trying to make things personal by calling people liars. You didn’t talk about the psychological effects that believing in hell has, you just repeated over and over that you believed it was child abuse. I didn’t misrepresent your views, I just pointed out over and over again that you can’t compare teaching a child a religion to things like the crusades or child abuse. That, that is a dangerous viewpoint and if you honestly think that a Christian shouldn’t be allowed to rear their child the way they want (or to vote the way they want as you also seemed to oppose religious decisions being used to determine government) than you don’t really believe in Freedom of Religion. I tried to show you that Freedom of Religion isn’t just the right to believe inside your own head, which everyone in the world has because as of yet there is no such thing as thought police. Freedom of Religion means being able to act on that religion. Which means you should be able to say what you want, raise your child the way you want, vote on what you want,etc. You tried to prove your point by over and over again saying the Christianity is abuse because it isn’t real.So scaring the child with nonsense and illogical things is child abuse. To Which I pointed out that was closed minded because for all you know it is real and if a parent sees a threat as real it would be irresponsible of them not to protect their child from it.
At any rate, I never said your posts were all that insulting. You kept it more general for the most part, it was rogue that kept mocking my personal beliefs in general. I didn’t even mention you in that post. I said you aren’t really prepared to change your views because you want me to actually make God do something. I said it would be like me only believing that core of the earth is molten only if you actually take me to the center of the Earth. I was just pointing out that demanding the impossible is not true openmindednesss and obstinately refusing to view evidence people do have as anything other than a joke is also not open mindness. I admitted that I was equally closed to the view of there being no God because nothing that you could feasibly could produce right now could convince me. You claim that the burden of proof is on the person with the more outrageous claim, which means it is me. All I’m trying to show you is that is not true open mindedness because you are not open to possibility that your claim is the ridiculous one. I know that the concept of God is impossible to prove, but you don’t seem to realize that your claim is equally impossible. And that what you will accept as evidence is equally as impossible to obtain. That you don’t realize that makes you a smidge more close minded than me on this subject.
I keep asking you if I got the views right, but you don’t really want to take it so far as to say you don’t support Freedom of Religion or taking away the right of a parent to raise their kid as they want. Or to vote the way the want. You just want it considered child abuse to raise the kid they want, which is saying the exact same thing. At least, I hope you mean it that way and don’t mean it should be considered child abuse but those parents should just be allowed to abuse the kid all they want. Just because you don’t want to say the name of these views doesn’t mean you don’t hold them.
People really need to stop considering atheism an assertion that there are no Gods. Atheism is only a lack of belief. It is not to say that there is no such thing as a God, but that there is not sufficient evidence to confide in one. No atheists I know suggest something as stupid and asinine as a belief that nothing is there. An atheist can most certainly be a deist.
Also, agnosticism is not the neutral position. Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.
Aries, you keep lying and it’s getting in the way of progress. Cut it out. Nobody is saying they want your rights taken away. Nobody says you can’t vote the way you want either. Muzzle your victim complex. You are not 100% sure that hell exists – you can’t be. The very thing your child deserves is the truth. Your child needs to be told that what they believe is up to them and they can discover their path on their own. That’s what any atheist will tell their child, rather than instill nihilism, fear of hell, or any belief that is not innate to human nature. It isn’t so hard to tell your child that you don’t know the answer to some questions. If they ask you what happens after you die, saying “I don’t know” will hurt nothing but your pride. And if that’s enough to not give your kid the whole freedom of personal choice, then it is you who is infringing on their freedom. Freedom of religion is alive and well. It also is clearly understood and reiterated that that freedom is allowed as long as it does not infringe on someone else’s life and way of living because that is their freedom. You have no right to support religious decisions being used in governmental decisions because a government is supposed to represent and protect ALL. It would be blatant discrimination to make laws respecting Christian belief structures over others. To suggest that religion has a place in law-making really reveals how little you care for the freedom of others. I’d argue that your child is more than a possession that has to subscribe to your way of life, but that’s a whole other argument. I did not compare the teaching of hell to the crusades. I have no problem with you teaching the other nonsense that Christianity envelops. I only have a problem with the one that promises torture to a non-compliant being. I brought the crusades up as a remark about your unthinking belief. Religion did not cause it, but it would not have happened without it. You are free to tell your child about the fear of eternal damnation of a loving, caring god – as free as I am to criticize you for handing your kid emotional baggage that’s weight will crush their spirit and make their decisions for them before their logical and rational mind develops.
You will most likely train your kid in the same unthinking, unquestioning mode of thought you continually exhibit, but that won’t be to the benefit of your child’s freedom. It will be about yours.
Again, you lie. Here, take this for example: “You claim that the burden of proof is on the person with the more outrageous claim, which means it is me. All I’m trying to show you is that is not true open mindedness because you are not open to possibility that your claim is the ridiculous one. I know that the concept of God is impossible to prove, but you don’t seem to realize that your claim is equally impossible. And that what you will accept as evidence is equally as impossible to obtain. That you don’t realize that makes you a smidge more close minded than me on this subject.”
His answer is that HE DOES NOT KNOW. His stance is neutral in that he makes no claims about the supernatural. How do you not understand this by now? Seriously? It doesn’t get any more open minded than that. He is asking and willing to accept any evidence you can show that proves the truth of your claims and you haven’t. You say his claim is equally impossible. What claim? The claim that he finds God to be an unknown entity? That he no less accepts your proposition than anyone else’s? You are fighting to be on equal footing and that is what is impossible. Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have no such thing. So your defense is that he must be AT LEAST as close-minded as you? Kudos.
You’re clearly throwing straw-men left and right without any regard for the truth. You continue to play this pathetic victim card and misrepresent our positions.
Pol, you said: “You really think that taking your child to church, teaching them about your religious background, raising them with the same values, and protecting them from what you believe is eternal damnation is right up there with abuse? Here, let me turn it around. “When you die, it’s all over. You become nothing. Your whole life was meaningless because once you’re dead, you’re dead. You’ll never get to play with your toys again. You’ll never get to see your loved ones again. It’ll be nothing but an eternity of miserable darkness.” How fucking much do you think THAT would scare a child? I could call that child abuse if I wanted to.
Or how about taking religion out of it altogether? “If you don’t eat your vegetables, you won’t get dessert.” “If you don’t drink your milk, you’ll get brittle bones that will all break.” “If you play rough indoors and break something, you’ll get a time out.” “If you mouth off, I’ll spank you.” “If you talk to strangers, they’ll kidnap you.” “If you don’t do your homework, you’ll flunk out of school, never get into college, never get a job, and end up homeless.” “If you have unprotected sex, you can get pregnant or an STD.” “If you kill another person, you will have to go to jail forever. Or they might even kill you.”
Child abuse? No.”
You would have a point if you weren’t so wrong.The second paragraph is fine because those are truths your child should know. The first one is so fucking ignorant that I can’t believe you’ve gotten away with it for this long. That does not represent anyone’s opinion but a nihilist’s. No atheist finds life meaningless and if you think religion gives your life meaning, well then I just have to feel sorry for you. No non-religious person in their right mind would tell their kid this because it isn’t the truth, just as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam isn’t either. Saying that you don’t know hurts nobody. The fact that someone thinks they have to know or that they actually think they do know is so sad. And it’s even sadder that you know nothing about the position you are rebutting.
What I have been trying to get through to you is that a religious person who brings their kids up in that religion believes that they absolutely do know that there is hell, that there is a God, and that their religion is the right one. They absolutely do 100% think that if they don’t protect their kid, it could have eternal consequences of their soul. Even the ones that think, well it could be false, also are more inclined to believe their religion is true than not. If not they would probably be agnostic theists. In fact, those in the religion that think that way would absolutely argue that if they are right about Hell, do not teach it to their kid, and their child dies not knowing right they have doomed them to far worse consequences than if there isn’t actually a Hell and nothing happens after you die. It is not child abuse to raise your kid with your religious beliefs. Claiming it is and trying to take that right away from children is not freedom of religion. Children being minors enjoy more freedoms than adults in some areas and much less freedom in others. They should listen to their parents and look to them for guidance. Children don’t have the capacity to understand the consequences of their decisions and as such are inherently pretty self centered and will do all matter of stupid things and make bad decisions if parents do not teach them and guide them. Not all children, but most of them. That is why parents must have the right to teach to their kids the best way they know how. They must be able to teach them their culture, of which religion is included, and all of the things that, that entails. It is every parents right to raise their kids how they want, to take that away from religious people and tell them they can’t teach their kids their religion is not freedom of religion.
What you are arguing for is freedom from religion. And that has a place as well. Religion shouldn’t be taught in schools, or made into the only law. And right now, it is not such here in the US or any of the western developed worlds nor many Asian countries. However, if a religious person chooses to base their vote on their religion than they SHOULD have the right do that. If a society collectively votes to have two forms of law, one religious and one not and try people in religious courts if they are in that religion than they should be able to do that too. So long as it the consent and will of the people. The problem with current religious legal systems is that most of them are not willed that way by the people. The western political systems are not the only good ones. You are so bias against religion you honestly can’t think of a good example of religion playing a role in politics. But the women in Liberia would disagree wholeheartedly. Christians and Muslims united together to end a war there. They overthrew a dictator. You however are absolutely against this rogue, as you specifically said,
“Because, MasterProp, the live and let live concept is not acceptable given the circumstances.
With the constant threat of theocratic encroachment on free society in the majority of governments and law-making bodies the world over, it is completely understandable and permissible to actively disenfranchise religious nonsense”
I am not putting words in your mouth. Disenfranchising a religion, making it so that people can’t use religion to base their votes and such on, and making teaching their children about their religion except in a way that you pick and choose is NOT religious freedom. There is a fine line between religious freedom and the right of freedom from religion and you cross it by demanding that people of a religious persuasion must just keep it to themselves. That flys in the face of things like free speech, the right to raise your child how you see fit, the right to participate in government, etc. That is not religious freedom. I can say what I want, your right is not to believe it. But to say I don’t have the right to say it, or teach it to my theoretical children is not religious freedom. It is saying that all children must be brought up as atheists and not just atheism but your personal brand of atheism as you also seem to think that teaching your kid nothing happens when you die is equally as bad. I can absolutely see an atheist teaching their kid that, if they are of the complete lack of belief persuasion. And I’ve seen that spun as a positive as well and produce perfectly lovely children. Ones who were taught that nothing happens, this is the only life that counts, so make it matter. Be good. Otherwise you are just wasting your precious little time here on earth. It is not child abuse to teach your kid your belief system. Religion, the belief in hell, etc is not bad. People who abuse it are, but that is different. The thing in and of itself is not bad and it is not child abuse to teach it to them. YOu are condemning billions of innocent people when you say stuff like this.
As for Alan, this is what i was responding to, this specific quote:
“When you say ‘you can’t change their mind’ you actually tar me, and others, with your own brush. I’m perfectly happy to have MY mind changed- show me Jesus in the clouds, or with a sword of fire or sitting at the Father’s right hand (which is also His own right hand, strangely enough) and I will accept the new evidence and adapt my opinions”
To which I said:
“I can’t make God do anything, so trying to demand from me to do would be as narrow minded as me asking you take me up into outer space, drive me around the entire universe, go into parallel universes, etc etc to prove god doesn’t exist and then and only then would I modify my opinion. It’s not true open mindedness it’s false. You demand the impossible because you don’t really have any more intention of changing your mind than I do”
I’m saying that being closeminded has nothing to do with religion vs non religion but in what it would take to change your mind and how open you are to the possibility that the other side has valid view points. If the only way for you to believe in the same God as I do is if I make him do something like give you a secret sneak peek of his face before he returns to Earth than you aren’t really open up to that possibility. You can claim that you are, but demanding the impossible is not true open mindedness. That’s like saying, “I’ll be open to the possibility of evolution when pigs fly.” Well technically flying pigs would be a step in the evolutionary ladder for that species but you are demanding the impossible so you’re not really being open-minded.
I couldn’t make up these view points if I tried and I am not putting words in your mouth. I just quoted you exactly where I got your stance from, and it is pretty clear cut. If you are offended by your own words, than maybe you should either a) revise your opinion or b)realize that you have been saying things you didn’t necessarily mean in the heat of the moment because you are letting yourself get so worked up that you are have begun contradicting everything I say just for the sake of contradiction or C) your accidentally letting slip nasty opinions towards me because you don’t like what I have to say. Things you don’t really believe but you’re saying anyway because you so vehemently disagree with me. Perhaps it’s some kind of combination of the three. I don’t know. All I do know is that I have not misrepresented your positions and they are not straw man arguments. I have been directly responding to things you have said. If you don’t like the responses and are wondering where I am getting it from, then reread your own posts.
Other things you have said attacking me in specific and which prove I don’t have a victim complex you really have been offensive include:
You are completely wrong about science and that’s why you have no problem spouting nonsense
That last bit about food is goddamned silly that it hurt.
You have already proven to anyone that your arguments only lie in the magisterial and “what-ifs” of the world rather than fact. The absolute fact is, you are an atheist but refuse to admit it.
That kind of nonsensical hatred, bigotry, salient narcissism, abject stupidity, and complete disregard for anything factual is what makes you lose before you even began
You have already shown before that you delight in the burning of that poor stranger’s soul. You have been revealed.
You saying that teaching kids my religion is child abuse
I just do not think putting the fear of hell into minors is anything but child abuse.
But you keep your violent, misogynistic, hate-filled words out of a child’s heads and out of governance. Ruin your own lives with this perpetual allergy to critical thought.
I was replying to your absolutely appalling logic that because you believe in God, you naturally believe in a monotheistic one. Just nonsense one after the other.
Comparison to the crusades
Well then, you continue telling your children that their skin will melt and burn for eternity if they can’t accept a “loving” God who refuses to let himself be known…..And I’ll continue categorizing that as child abuse.You’re done. You’ve proven yourself incapable of understanding anything outside of your tinted view of existence – one that once welcomed government sanctioned witch burnings, sharia law, and crusades. You clearly know nothing of the history of cultures, governments, and religion to hold your own here. Your delusions cloud your objectivity so I’m finished fending off your fabrications. Imprison your mind somewhere else
I will give you this one though, I thought you said the following considering the other things you did but this was Alan’s snide remark.
I just hope you never truly believe that God wants you to burn any of your children…
More proof though that you guys have definitely made things unnecessarily super personal. You can say I have a victim complex all you want. Heck, perhaps you’re so used to Christians calling you heathens that you automatically say these kinds of things. But I don’t have one, and you guys have made all manner of personal attacks. Maybe you didn’t mean to be quite as personal as you have been and are just using the same arguments you always use. I don’t know, I don’t particularly care. All I said was that it was annoying, that doesn’t give me a victim complex. Also, you can stop with the quit putting words in my mouth nonsense now because I used quotes to prove that I clearly did not. It was you doing that because perhaps you didn’t even realize that you had said that.
Aries, do you agree that if the majority of the people voted that it was okay to stone women in public for wanting a divorce from an abusive husband, then it should be so?
Religion does not belong in law. Disenfranchisement does not mean to disallow you from voting with your belief system. It is to disallow a government that represents all people to hold a law that only represents some. I apologize if my words seem harsh, but it is clearly offensive for anyone to suggest that their beliefs, if in the majority, should decide the rights of everyone.
Also note that I was a Christian for 20 years. That’s not something easily forgotten. Trust me when I tell you that I know what you are talking about and where you are coming from and that I disagree with it completely. It is not to say that I dislike you or find all of your attributes invalid. I just do not find your religion convincing or supportable.
Aries… the remark about burning children was not meant to be snide, it was rhetorical- that means I wanted to show you how amazing it is to teach children stories like the will-he-won’t-he sacrifice of Isaac, by turning it round and looking at it for what it is. I know the bible, and teachings. Everything in it is meant to be part of a narrative, culminating in Jesus. You can say using such extreme examples are misrepresentations, and cherry-picking, but the entire mythology works that way- I know, I’ve studied it at length for years.
I can tell you’re not the kind to get into child sacrifice, I wouldn’t accuse you of that
I think it’s funny that when I ask for proof of your God you say it’s arrogant for me to ask the impossible. The bible expressly states that miraculous events are possible, and seem to have happened all the time in Judea circa 30AD. All I’m asking for is one example from thousands of so-called miracles. We could even stage this in a massive arena and economise by showing thousands of agnostics at once, to maximise this display of truth.
Pigs flying being a step in the evolutionary ladder? Um… …
OOOHHHHH so it’s all about how BIG a lie is? I’m going to have to call bullshit. Lies are lies. If I told my mom a little lie, I’d be punished just as bad as if I’d told her a big lie. So if someone raising their kids with their religious views is child abuse, then so is teaching your kids about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and cooties.
Obviously this would only work in smaller societies, and religion is not an excuse for stoning. That is abuse of the religion, and I’ve said over and over I’m opposed to that. But there are positive examples of religion and law coexisting peacefully, proving that it’s not religion in and of itself that is the problem. I also said the way it is working now is obviously bad in most societies, because people suck. I’m thinking more along lines of some of the smaller bands of people, still living off the land and hunting like in ancient times with village elders, etc. I’ve met an anthropologist who had this kind of experience and he definitely said it was more peaceful when it works. Also there are positive examples of religion and law coexisting and democracy has led to plenty of injustices and a sort of mob rule mentality. Look at France for example, barring religious head wear from being worn in public because non religious people should be free to not have to look at it. The argument being, they can believe what they want and practice what they want in their own homes. That is not religious freedom.
By the way Disenfranchisement from the dictionary:
disenfranchisedpast participle, past tense of dis·en·fran·chise (Verb)
1. Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
2. Deprived of power; marginalized.
So when you say you want to disenfranchise people of religions then you are saying you want to take away their power to vote. If you don’t want people thinking you advocating that position I suggest you stop using that word.
You don’t accept miracles though as proof, even ones that defy any current scientific explanation. Your demand is that I make God appear, which is impossible. I can’t make God do anything, and he wouldn’t appear just to make people believe in Him. He wouldn’t be God if I could make him do anything. That is not faith. And I also didn’t say that pigs flying is the next step in the evolutionary ladder, I’m saying if they were to just sprout wings and start flying that would be a step. I also said it was probably completely impossible so demanding that as the only proof I would accept, is not really being open minded. I also didn’t say it was arrogant, just close minded. You can be close minded on certain subjects and still be a non arrogant, open minded person in general. As I said before it’s not that you don’t believe in any religion that makes you close minded on the subject, as it’s not about what you believe that determines that. It’s how open you are to proof to another person’s viewpoint and evidence of their of view point and the only proof you will accept is impossible to obtain, therefore you’re not really open minded on the subject.
I am open-minded. I will accept there’s a God when I see some quantifiable proof. To date, there is none.
If God is God, then by definition He can show Himself, or make Himself known. He’s also omniscient, so knows that I am typing this / always knew I would. You keep saying it’s asking the impossible- that is simply and very obviously not the case. With God, all things are possible. Maybe He’s busy today, huh?
I resent being told I’m closed-minded, when I have told you that I will change any opinion on anything if new evidence comes to light.
Is there anything that could happen or any scientific discovery that could make you decide your belief in Jesus and God is incorrect?
Are you saying that pigs sprouting wings wouldn’t be a mutation? Admittedly not a very feasible one, but thats the point of the analogy.
The chance is so astronomical that although technically possible is highly improbable as to be labeled impossible. For example, time skipping backwards which is actually technically physically possible.
You can research on your own things like the paranormal or real miracles there are plenty of things out there science can’t explain yet and some people believe they’ll never be able to explain. The definition of a miracle being something that can’t be explained by science, won’t be able to be explained by science, and is positive. You can choose to believe that last part if you will but we wouldn’t need scientists if we knew everything there is to know so nothing I said is complete rubbish.
All I’m saying is what you deem as proof is much to high and that is what preventing you from seeing any validity in other persons viewpoints. Being stubbornly unreceptive to others different ideas is the definition of close minded. If you only accept one thing as proof and are unwilling to accept anything else than your own idea of what proof is, then you are close minded by it’s definition. You didn’t even greet the concept of miracles as anything but “complete rubbish,” the fact that you qualified what I had to say before seeing it as rubbish proves my point. It’s not possible for me to force to God do anything, that it what faith is about. God wants people to have faith in him so even though he knows your going to say you need him to come down to believe, that simply isn’t a good enough imperative to show himself physically to you.
You say there are “plenty of things” “out there” that science can’t explain, but when asked to produce a single one you demand that Alan do the research himself? That’s not really much of an argument. “The paranormal” and “real miracles” are just other words for miracles, so when you offer those as examples you’re just engaging in tautology.
And for the record, time skipping backwards? What the fuck?
Actually, time skipping backwards is so highly improbable as to be easily labeled impossible but it is actually possible for time to go backwards. As for the miracles thing, if you go back there are several times Alan, rogue, adaht, and myself encourage people to research things on their own. I disagree with the paranormal being synonymous with miracles, and many people say some things are everyday miracles that aren’t really miracles at all. There is a difference between real miracles and everyday miracles. People might say an everyday miracles is a child’s smile or some such nonsense. Other people will cite unprovable personal examples, to which also would be no point in citing. Let’s just leave it at a real miracle is something positive, that cannot be explained by current science and will not be able to be explained by science in the foreseeable future. If it later is explained by science then it turns out that thing wasn’t a miracle after all. I don’t really want to go into it because I don’t want it turn into another 100+ comment post about what constitutes a miracle and what doesn’t. Right now, this is supposed to be about whether religion is child abuse and inherently bad or if it’s individual followers that are bad and thus not child abuse. It’s also about whether religion has a place in politics or not. And for some reason we also took it to a place where we debate what constitutes close mindedness when it comes to beliefs. Don’t need to make things even more all over the place by debating about the particulars of miracles. It’s irrelevant to the conversation.
Pol, if you want to stay in a world of black and white, that’s fine. But to lie about skipping school and to lie about getting a girl pregnant have very definable consequences, as do telling your kid about the tooth fairy and telling them that they could burn in hell. If you can’t see the difference, then you are deluded.
Aries, I did not say to disenfranchise people. I said to disenfranchise religion. You continually misconstrue my words. Whether it’s purposeful or not, it’s not progressing the conversation. You are basing your arguments on things you thought I said, not things I said. It should not have the say in a vote. It should not be the basis of a vote. If a law explicitly protects Christian interests and not Muslim ones, then that is not freedom of religion. If a law respects religion over non-belief, then that is not freedom of religion. If a law respects non-belief over belief, then that is not freedom of religion. I do not wish to strip the rights away of any voter, but I will not tolerate religion to determine the laws that protect me.
Miracles are, by definition, acts that break the laws of nature. Proof requires evidence. Suggesting they happened is not proof. Time skipping backwards is only possible in theory. There is no applicable way to interject that into an example of miracles. Just like God is possible in theory doesn’t make it worth putting faith in until evidence can be extracted.
It is not abuse of religion to commit acts such as stoning when it is explicitly stated and condoned in the Bible. It is exactly a manifestation of the Bible. Also, the law in France didn’t have anything to do with non-religious people looking at it. It followed an incident in court where someone in a head scarf had to testify and nobody could read the reactions or inflection of the person. It is also an act of oppression on women and in the interest of women’s rights, they disallowed it. I don’t necessarily agree with the law, but it has more complex reasons than you stated.
Your proof is not proof, Aries. You have provided no proof whatsoever. We are not using parameters that are original unto ourselves. We are asking you to give us observable examples of your God in action that are unique to your God. It is also a cop-out to say that God won’t show his face just because you demand it of him. A God that willingly chooses to make it ambiguous that he exists and then chooses to send you to hell because you can’t use any of the senses he gave you to believe he exists? If your God exists, he is a malevolent tyrant that is unworthy of worship in the first place. As a Christian for 20 years I sought his existence and asked him to bless me with insight to have him be revealed to me and it never happened. Not one inkling of anything. No evidence. Not even an ambiguous sign. You keep suggesting we are unreceptive to your ideas, not willing to see your point, and close-minded. You are lying and you are disingenuous. Consistently we have both asked for the proof and you have provided nothing. Nothing. We are to the point where we’re open-minded enough for our brain to fall out but have given us nothing to ponder on. You have given us subjective opinion and circular reasoning. Anything quantifiable will do. Faith is not evidence. It is belief in spite of a lack of evidence. To believe in anything in this world, people need to have a good reason to make it beneficial to their being. So far you have failed. We’re not asking for things on our terms. We’re asking for things in terms that we all use to determine everything in our lives.
The same reasons you give for not believing in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism are the same reasons we discard everything. We give no exception to a belief unless it has been proven to be true. The fact that nobody has been able to provide evidence for thousands of years says a lot about your faith.
Aries, miracles are not irrelevant to the conversation. A miracle that could be shown to not have any natural excuse or explanation of occurring would be evidence for a supernatural being. You’d have to get even more specific for it to be supporting evidence for YOUR god, but right now, you can’t even prove that SOME god exists.
I don’t argue that people are inherently good or bad. I know that religion is not bad and does not make people bad at all. But to say it does not aid in the excuse of doing bad is terribly misleading. As much as religion has the power to create cultures of charity, care for the downtrodden, and help for the least of these, it also creates the environment to commit horrible atrocities and aid in the abuse of millions. It is a catalyst of catalysts, the only difference being is that if you can convince fellow subscribers of something by using scripture, then it isn’t necessarily good either. I don’t have any need to paint religion as evil or good. I let its track record speak for itself. Hell is an example of ONE religion (a concept that even some people don’t even subscribe to, in part) that I find abhorrent. I don’t have a problem with anyone telling a kid about a heaven because there’s nothing hurtful there. It’s might be a lie, but there’s no harm to come of it. Hell is a place that instills crippling fear, especially in the mind of an undeveloped human being. You can NEVER be 100% sure that it exists, even with all of your faith. It’s a real shame that you find it necessary to describe that fear and pain to a child to get them to have faith. It’s child abuse, plain and simple.
Actually roguee, I would disagree that the concept of heaven is necessarily positive. I’d equate it with the concept of the stork delivering children–an easy answer to a difficult question from a child. The metaphysical concept of “heaven” causes people to devalue the precious, unbelievably finite time they have alive. “Heaven” is the best friend of the king and the slave-holder: it creates a sort of mental laudanum for the oppressed, letting them find solace in an afterlife instead of affecting change in their own lives. Poor people and stupid people are the most rabid Christians–why bother to improve yourself or your station in life when Jesus is waiting on the other side of death? Never mind the fact that the only person Jesus ever promised salvation to was the criminal being crucified next to him.
We weren’t debating whether or not God exists though, as pretty everyone on here as stated ad nauseum. As you said, they don’t even prove that they came from a Christian God and there is a ton of debate even within the Christianity community on what constitutes a miracle. Heck, even when selecting the Pope, Catholics debate on how many number of miracles that person is said to have performed and what counts and what does not. Also, proving God through miracles wouldn’t prove the existence of Hell. Which I fully admitted is neither provable or unprovable. And just as I didn’t ask for a science lesson on what points in the link I posted you find so wrong, I’m not going to sit here and cloud up the point of the matter with the concept of miracles.
What I will say is that you don’t have to describe physical pain to a child to describe Hell. That you don’t have to instill in them anything more than the same healthy respect that they would give fire, pot holes, electricity, sex etc to teach them about Hell. Just like you don’t have to show them slide shows of diseased penises to talk about STDs. (Which I can personally vouch for as going way to far, and this one done in a public school that encouraged safe sex over abstinence mind you.) Yes you can go to far, yes you can religously abuse people. But what is so wrong by saying, “If you’re a good person and you believe in Christ you can go to heaven. You don’t want to go to Hell, it’s not a very nice place. Thats where bad people go. But don’t worry about it too much, God is all forgiving. He will forgive any sin, and all sins are equal so don’t worry that any problem is too big for him and you to solve together. As long as you believe, you are going to be okay. He loves you just the same as everyone else. All people are equal and all people sin so don’t stress over it too much. Just know that you’ll always have someone to watch over you, you’ll always have someone you can pray too. Keep a close relationship with God and he will be there for you.” What is child abuse about that? That is how my parents alleviated my fears about Hell when I was a small child. It’s also how they taught my brother not to hate gay people or to yell at them that they are going to Hell. In fact, it brought my family closer together and brought comfort during times of trouble. I wasn’t being abused, I grew up in a plenty loving household. I have family members who don’t believe and they were not ostracized as well. Teaching a child about Hell doesn’t automatically mean child abuse. Like with all things, a lot of it is about individual people. You can absolutely abuse a child with religion, but that doesn’t mean that teaching a child about Hell is going to cripple them.
I’ll give you a miracle. My aunt surviving cancer is a miracle. My best friend being alive AND able to walk after a car wreck that should have killed him is a miracle. My nephew being carried to term when doctors were positive that his mother could not even have children is a miracle. My sister finding the courage to leave her abusive boyfriend is a miracle. Fuck, my waking up this morning after drinking until I couldn’t talk last night is a miracle.
And skullmandible, don’t make me go all angry-drunk on you. It has been PROVEN that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and cooties are not real. It has NOT been proven that hell is not real.
The same could be said of you. You have given no proof to the (non)existence of God. You offer nothing quantifiable. No examples. And you haven’t been demanding “just anything,” you’ve been demanding to see his face. You can’t strip a religion of it’s right to vote, when you disenfranchise a religion you are disenfranchising it’s followers. It’s followers are people no matter which way you slice. You can call it all concepts all you want, but the fact of the matter is when you talk about disenfranchisement you’re talking about people. As the word specifically means take away the right to vote. Churches do NOT vote. People do. And if a person decides that they want to vote for a candidate based solely on religion, there are more than welcome to do so. It’s a free country. If you want to vote for the better looking candidate, you should do that too. No one should be disenfranchised. Individuals may base their votes on whatever they want, usually as a collective people will choose to better person for the job. Though it is obvious that is not always the case. That isn’t Freedom.
Also, I didn’t say that people don’t use religion as an excuse to do bad. I just said that just because someone claims they are a just following the faith doesn’t mean they actually are and regardless if they are or not just because someone abuses something doesn’t make it bad. People have fought wars over last names, geographical location, people have enslaved people for things like skin color. Past wars is not a good excuse to disenfranchise anyone. In fact, it’s a natural progression for society and all of the developed countries basically followed the same pattern. They started as hunter gatherers, then became farmers. Once they became farmers the concept of property came to be important and clans were formed. Than villages. than cities. then states and countries. In all the between periods? War/battles over who was in charge. Everyone used a variety of different excuses, but the end result was usually the same. Just because religion provides for an easy in group/out group mentality that is at the root of most injustices, it doesn’t make it abusive in and of itself. It’s just easy the same way last names, skin color, geographic location, governmental structure (communism vs democracy) etc are also easy.
By the way, Christianity doesn’t support the stoning of women. I mean does the infamous “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” not make that clear enough. Neither does the Quran, I can’t quote specific verses but most Muslim scholars will show you that as well. Don’t believe the hype that tyrants that run those countries espouse, Islam is not a religion that supports stoning women for no reason and actually says that you can’t have less than four reliable witness and substantial proof of a crime before you can use capital punishment for any crime. These guys twist the religion and abuse it to keep their followers down, but Islam itself is not the religion they claim it is any more than Christianity is the religion that the kings of yesteryear tried to claim it was. That is just a new spin on the divine right of kings. It doesn’t mean that is has anything to do with the religion itself. As I said before, it’s the people that suck.
But once again, just because something is abused does not make the thing that is abused a bad thing. Any substance on this earth is poisonous in high enough concentrations, even water but even the biggest idiot in the world wouldn’t seriously propose a ban on water.
It is not a cop out to say I can’t make God do anything. It is fact. If God were answerable to me, than he wouldn’t be all powerful. That goes against the whole concept of God. Also, God demands faith. Faith means that you aren’t going to get to use your five senses to see Him. That goes with any creator theory out there really, not just Christianity. If you could make God do something, than he wouldn’t be all powerful. If he isn’t all powerful, then he wouldn’t be God in the monotheistic sense of the word. That is just a fact. Just because you don’t like the idea of it, doesn’t mean it isn’t so and doesn’t mean it’s a cop out to state them.
And I said before, it’s not that you ask for proof. It’s what you’ll accept as proof that is the problem. The only things you’ll accept as proof are impossible to obtain, any more than you can recreate the big bang or fly me around every universe there is to prove it’s existence.
Oh, and fyi: It wasn’t a court case that got hijabs banned in France. The French president started a campaign because he found it personally offensive and many people jumped on the band wagon to “protect the children,” from being scared when they see a person in a niqab. Then the ban was passed through the French parliament.
The time skipping thing had nothing to do with miracles, I was just pointing out why I used the words probably impossible because Alan said something has to either be possible or impossible. To which I pointed out something that is non faith/religiously based that is also probably impossible.
Aries: It is possible to examine evidence scientifically, take readings, and formulate ‘theories’ of how the Universe began which fit best with the findings. That is what science really is when you boil it down (with theoretical sciences extending from this). It’s a lot of people in labs, painstakingly running and re-running experiments which to most would seem baffling, and which occupy years of their lives, looking for patterns in the readouts. If readings have been taken that suggest that time can very occasionally vary in direction, then that is a scientific conclusion taken from readings. And remains a scientific possibility until disproven in some way.
If you woke up, blind and in an unfamiliar place, what would you do? You would slowly use what senses you had available to you to work out what was around you. You would find things that could be defined, and build a ‘most reliable’ picture of what was going on from that. Science is ‘fumbling in the dark’, in a logical, thorough way. It’s not much, but it’s better than choosing to lie face down, thinking ‘I hope someone, somewhere, knows I’m here and will look after me’.
Problems with theories are regularly discovered. Theories are regularly thrown out. This is how it works. At no point during this process do we hit stumbling blocks that cause thorough, peer reviewed scientists to stop and say ‘the whole system requires a God, in order to work’. And at no point does someone sensible publish a paper and say ‘there’s no real evidence I can provide for my results, but the lead scientist on the project says that’s not the point, and that faith from the scientific community is what’s required’.
You say: ‘It’s what you’ll accept as proof that is the problem’.
That’s ridiculous, and I think you don’t really understand how ideas like ‘proof’ work. Saying ‘my cat should have died when he was hit at 100MPH by a runaway steamtrain but he didn’t so he must have 9 lives’ is the same as saying ‘I don’t know what caused something, so there’s probably a God’ OR ‘someone I knew was ill, doctors don’t know why they got better, so it must be God’. It’s un-testable, unsound reasoning.
It is VERY interesting to note that the Christian God (at least) is very, very short-tempered with those that choose to ‘test Him’, or try to request some form of proof.
I’m still waiting for a real example of a non-dubious, scientifically verifiable miracle. You said there are lots- be a dear and fetch me one?
@Pols none of those things are miracles. They all have scientific backing.
Also, a lack of proof that something DOESN’T exist isn’t proof that it DOES exist. It’s called, actually, an “appeal to ignorance” fallacy. You can’t make the claim that something exists and then ask me to disprove it–when you’ve presented literally zero proof on your side.
our very existence is a miracle. You can say the big bang theory, yada yada yada, to explain how the Earth was formed. But you can’t explain where the stars come from, or dark matter. Heck, science can’t even explain what that even actually is. These things shouldn’t exist because they don’t appear to have a discernible origin point. They came from nothing as far as we know. They were just always there as far as science can tell. And you know what else, the big bang theory was not formed out tests. It’s an untestable theory, and so by your logic unsound. Sometimes you have to infer things from what you do know. Saying that a person who should be dead as far as science can tell, but some how is still alive and well isn’t a miracle is also not true by your own admittance of the term. What about the guy who fell 47 stories and lived. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llrT-2gN2lI
Of course I’ve presented zero proof. I know that I can’t prove the existence of Heaven or Hell, so I’m not going to try. You take comfort in this, just as I take comfort in knowing that you can’t prove the non-existence of Heaven or Hell either.
If you don’t want to be a Christian, that’s fine. Don’t tell other people that they’re stupid for being Christians. Don’t tell other people that they worship imaginary beings and believe in nonsense. Don’t tell other people that religion is an easy cop-out from real life problems. It makes you look like an insufferably smug bag of douche.
@Aries, why lie to a kid? You say you’d tell him that if you’re good and believe in Sweet Jesus he’ll go to heaven and that hell is a bad place. But you don’t know. You BELIEVE. You THINK god and hell exist, and you don’t really know, but no one is going tell you otherwise. That’s what a belief really is. Back to my original question to MP, why not leave the god part out of the lesson? Why not just teach them to be a good person? Why make it an ultimatum? As a few others have already said, if someone is only being good to get into heaven or stay out of hell, they’re not really being good. They’re just being obedient. There’s a big difference.
@Pol, glad to hear about your aunt, but that’s not a miracle any more than getting over a bad cold. And really? Waking up? God damn.
@Aries, one item of proof that there are no deities is that no one has seen or heard one ever. On the other hand, proof that there may be one or more deities is the fact that science has failed to explain life and/or the universe. Again, no one knows so you all should just stop pretending you do.
@Alan, science is a joke, especially these days. Scientists THEORIZE about this and that. They guess. Even better, they just make shit up. Oh, a black hole is this and the big bang is that. As if the title SCIENTIST makes their imagination any better than a 5 year-old’s. How many times have their theories been disproved? No, the arrogance of science is what makes strengthens the religious zealots beliefs. Both sides are a detriment to humanity.
By the way, I probably should have said this sooner, but I’m god. And no, I’m not going to prove it to you all. You have all gotten my message completely wrong. I’m not going to explain it to you either. You’ll just have to have faith that I’m god and you’re all wrong about your beliefs. Look within yourselves and you might get it. And if you don’t I’m going to fill your mouth with your mothers’ feces. But since I’m a nice god I’ll leave you with a tooth brush and some Colgate. Maybe a little Listerine. Now go! Figure out the mystery that is Me!
First off, a lie is the willful misrepresentation of the truth. It’s not a lie but a mistake if the person doesn’t know what they are lying. So let’s all stop to lying to kids bs because religious parents are not lying to their kids.
Also, I’ve said this before: If someone truly believes in Hell, than they are going to protect their kid from it. They want to make sure the kids soul is saved so if something happens to the kid and they die, they’ll go to heaven. Also, all parent’s not just religious ones should want what is best for their kids. If a person is religious, and truly believes other lifestyles aren’t as good they are going to bring their kid up in a religious lifestyle. So that they can give their kids the best life possible. Rational people when presented with two options pick the one that brings the most benefit. If a person who believes in religion has kids, they are going to be presented with two options. A)Raise the kid with no religious beliefs. Or B) Raise the kid with their religious beliefs. Option A means that the kid won’t fear Hell, but they may end up going there if the parent is correct. Option B means the kid’s soul is saved from an eternity of torture, but the kid may fear Hell. It could also mean they wasted time being afraid. Option A could possibly mean the kid may suffer for all eternity, but they’ll won’t worry about Hell while they are here. Option B could possibly mean that the kid may be a little afraid of Hell for a few years while they are here, but they will have eternal bliss. What rational parent would pick option A given those circumstances? You obviously don’t believe in Hell so the probability it exists in so low as not to justify the risk of teaching the kid about religion. But for people who do believe in it, the stakes are far too high to risk NOT teaching their kid about religion. Both parents have the kids best interests at heart, and both are doing what they can to protect their kid from perceived dangers. Neither is being abusive because that maybe it does/maybe it doesn’t works both ways. Besides, it’s possible to teach kids about all manner of scary subjects without crippling them with fear. Chances are, not every stranger they meet on the street is going to to turn into a pedophile because they are just to beautiful to resist. At the same time, there is a good enough chance that they will meet a pedophile as to teach children not to talk to strangers.
@Aries, withholding the truth is lying. If you say these things as if they are factual, yet withhold the truth that you don’t know, then you are lying. I’m not talking about child abuse at all here. Just that you shouldn’t lie to your kids about such life-defining things.
When my children are old enough to ask, I will tell them truthfully and factually that no one knows. If they choose to buy into a particular religion that’s fine, but I will tell them the truth: Since no one knows why base your life and moral structure on it? Do what’s right because it’s the right thing to do, not because you fear the consequences or crave the rewards.
P.S: It’s really hard to read gigantic streams of text like that without losing interest. Paragraphs exist for a reason… at least I believe they do. :p
Religious parents aren’t withholding the truth, they do believe they are telling the truth. They do believe that they know! This whole conversation has been about whether or not you think it’s child abuse. Teaching a kid a religion is not lying. It’s not child abuse. That’s like saying you have teach them doubt every single little thing almost.
“You shouldn’t talk to strangers, statistics show that most more than likely you won’t meet a pedophile, but you never know. You know, statistically speaking you CAN’T be what you want to be. You might be able to, I don’t know. But statistically speaking ain’t gonna happen kid so might as start learning how to clean windows! You don’t have to do well in school right now, colleges only look at high school grades! Some of this might be important in high school and some of it they’ll reteach enough where you don’t have to learn it know, what is important? I don’t know!”
There is very little reason to teach kids about everything all at once. If a small child asks where babies come from, it’s not a lie to withhold the particulars of how to have sex. In fact, teaching kids about things they aren’t ready for yet instead of prepping them to be ready for them by giving them information at it’s most basic form can do a lot of harm. If you start admitting that electricity isn’t as dangerous as the kiddy plugs make them seem, the kid could electrocute himself.
If you start talking about statistically speaking most kids won’t be kidnapped, maybe the kid will take a chance with the nice stranger offering them candy to get in their car. Kids don’t need to know all the graphic details. Kids don’t need to know anything more than hell exists (if you as parent believe that it does). Or that it’s not a good idea to talk to strangers. Or that they should wait until they can be safe and ready to have sex (instead of showing them pictures of diseased penises.) Or to stay away from power cords and fire to the smaller ones. Obviously the concept of hell is a lot more complex than “bad people go there,” and what the concept of what makes a person bad vs good or what is morality etc are far more
complicated than a kids mind needs can process. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be aware of it, that doesn’t mean you can’t protect them from it. Trivializing dangers by saying, “well it MIGHT happen, I don’t know,” doesn’t protect the kid. Which is the aim of any good parent.
Pol “Of course I’ve presented zero proof. I know that I can’t prove the existence of Heaven or Hell, so I’m not going to try. You take comfort in this, just as I take comfort in knowing that you can’t prove the non-existence of Heaven or Hell either.”
You can’t prove the non-existence of something. You’re completely bereft of common sense. Nobody cares about proving heaven and hell don’t exist because they don’t. I’m not going to take the time to prove to you that 200 feet tall men exist, because it should be naturally obvious that if there is no evidence for it, then it most likely doesn’t exist. When you believe that they do and it’s an integral part of your faith, it is up to you to show the proof. If you can’t, then it is obvious you chose to believe in something that you have no reason to – except out of an emotional response.
Aries, you’re a liar about the hijabs. Research. And, again:
You CANNOT prove something’s non-existence. The burden of proof is on the one making claims.
I will say it again, if you don’t want to be a christian, fine. DON’T TELL CHRISTIANS THAT THEY ARE DELUDED. Don’t accuse them of lying to and abusing their children. Don’t tell them their God doesn’t exist. Don’t tell them they believe in bullshit. You didn’t come here for any reason other than to piss off whatever christians might be here, and I gotta tell ya, it’s not helping your case for “atheists can be very moral, very good people.” All you’re doing now is making yourself look like a douchebag. If you want to continue this argument with ariesdragon, do it like an adult and quit resorting to ad hominem when you run out of intelligent stuff to say.
You can prove something’s not existence. Just like I can prove that people can’t fly. “The burden of proof is on the one making claims.” Okay then, since most of the world believes in religion and religious structures are the old ones the burden of proof is on the atheists prove their claim if they really expect everyone to change their ways of life. You are the ones making the claim that religion should now be disenfranchised. Your the one saying that science has now disproved all the major religions. So show me your proof. I’m the one saying live and let live and let society continue the way it is, I’m not making any new claim, you are.
Hahaha The Hater = douchebag! Pol, the clue is in the name, no? What he said about science being bad, misleading, guessing about black holes was stupid. What a doucheface, eh? Oh wait, you’re all about the God-offense stuff. Sorry…
I actually think the Hater is being a little unfair. I mean, xtians clearly are deluded, but no more deluded then plenty of people all over the World that believe things for which there is no evidence… you’re only as bad as all them. It’s easy to say ‘live and let live’, but deluded people won’t leave clear-thinking people alone. Centuries of religious, hocus-pocus nonsense has proven this.
Religious types are always insisting that they don’t want to foist their views on others, right up until the next inquisition. We trusted you to live and let live before, and you always have to go and spoil it by killing muslims and various non-believers, and bullying Jews! Your time has gone, and I’ll fight to ensure it doesn’t come back…
As an aside, I know plenty of christians who do not tell their kids things they can’t prove- I know religious people who adopt the humanist approach and leave it to their kids to make up their own minds when older. At least that’s progress- even if they are still deluding themselves, they’re not lying to their kids.
It’s not evil to be deluded to the point of misleading your own offspring, but it does make you look silly.
Aries, your argument re: proving the non-existence of religion is funny. Logical argument and rational debate have certain principles, one of which being the idea of where the burden of proof lies. It’s not up to anyone to disprove the existence of God, or the existence of the magic jelly monster who lives at the bottom of the deep blue sea… your inability to grasp basic ideas like this is pretty awkward.
Your assertion that the majority of people believe in God so the burden of proof is on non-believers is so stupid I laughed out loud when I read it.
Anyway, who wants to talk about that girl’s butt at the top of the page? I’d give it a 6 out of 10 if I’m honest. Looks like she eats too many steak sandwiches to me…
@Alan, exactly. People all over the whole god damn world are deluded. Believing their political party is the only one that’s any good. Believing that “if it’s on the intertubes it must be duh troof!” Conspiracy theorists. And of course the deity zealots. A veritable buffet of stupidity.
@Pol, if you want to be a deity zealot fine. Don’t tell everyone else, not the atheists, agnostics, or anyone in any other religion that they’re deluded or even wrong. Don’t tell them that there is some deity judging them. Don’t tell them to accept the words in the collection of bad fiction you call the bible.
@Aries, why do you keep telling people what the conversation is about? You’re not the debate police are you? We can drift around and sidetrack all we want. In fact, the child abuse topic is a side track from the original topic of that chick’s ass. Being a deity zealot does not make you the boss of me.
And you clearly skimmed or didn’t try to absorb my points. If you don’t know something, yet make claims about it as if you did, you’re lying. You’re lying because while you believe, you don’t know. If you tell you kids, “I THINK there’s a god and you’ll get to go to happy land if you’re good,” that’s ok. If you state the above as FACT, well then you’re a liar.
@All, I have to say I do like this chick’s ass. I don’t like bony chicks or flat asses. I give it one thumb up. Wait, that didn’t come out right…
Wait! Before Aries gets another poorly-punctuated massive paragraph in, I just wanna interject!
I didn’t mean the girl’s ass is bad because it’s a little fuller- I mean it generally looks a little unhealthy, like she’s stuffed in the jeans but would sprawl everywhere once out of them. Like how San Fran has sprawled, ya know? And, like San Fran, the problem will get worse as it ages.
I was not saying that it’s up to atheists to disprove God, I was saying it was up to them to prove why religion should be disenfranchised. And pointing out since he is the one making a claim, or why brining up a child with a religion should be considered child abuse. As the majority of the world does believe in some form of religion or another, he should be the one to provide the proof.
Since this is Pol’s position directly from his mouth:
“With the constant threat of theocratic encroachment on free society in the majority of governments and law-making bodies the world over, it is completely understandable and permissible to actively disenfranchise religious nonsense
Facts are the revelation. It’s put innumerable pock marks in the stupidity of religious texts. Believing in God is one thing and atheists really can’t disprove that, but belief based in and aroused from religious texts – that’s strong ignorance that can easily be discredited.
I am explaining why organized religion is a hindrance to modern thought.”
He is the one saying we should change centuries old thought patterns and ways of life by marginalizing religion and taking away the right to vote from it’s followers because science has easily proven that religious texts are wrong. So it’s up to him to prove it. He keeps demanding proof from me but I am not the one making the claim that all religious people should give that up, or that anything should change. He is the one doing so, so the burden of proof is on him. It’s one the one prosecuting religious people and religion as an institution in the lamebook world court so to speak. You’re inability to grasp basic ideas like this is pretty awkward.
I didn’t say you couldn’t side bar, I was saying I wasn’t going to get into a huge long sidebar about miracles. I was also saying that even if you call me a zealot (which if you reread my posts you will see I only use the bible when responding to very specific questions, have said bible beaters are annoying, and have even had an argument with a fire and brimstone priest about the same kind of condemnation on the other extreme end of the spectrum) that my posts are addressing a specific issue. The issue here is whether or not it’s child abuse to raise your kid with a religion. Or whether the religious should be disenfranchised. So keep that in mind when you respond to specific things I’m saying, because even if you aren’t going to address that, that is what I’m addressing specifically. Thats what all these posts have been about. You can’t just go about calling people child abusers, it can easily ruin a person’s life. You don’t just put that label on people because you don’t like what they are saying.
Leaving information out of something is not a lie. It’s called streamlining and is a necessary skill for communication. No one needs to need to hear about the Chiquita banana plantations when they ask about the price of a banana.
It’s not lying to your kid not to mention the fact that chances are the random strangers out on the street aren’t going to hurt them and may even be nice when you tell them not to talk to strangers. It’s not lying to your kid not to mention that chances are that they won’t get electrocuted when you tell them to stay away from power cords. It’s not lying to your kid to tell them that they probably won’t burn anything down when you tell them to stay away from matches. It’s also not lying to your kid to teach them about your religion without going into a big huge philosophical spiel about how there may be no God, etc etc. If you believe there is a God, and you are trying to protect them from danger, you’re going to tell them what they need to know to stay away from the danger. There is no reason to fill their minds with info that may make them doubt the dangers of strangers, guns, fires, electrical outlets, or Hell. When they are old enough to learn more, then you can teach them how to plug in a cord. How to light a match. And they can decide for themselves if religion is right for them too. Until they reach that age when they are able to process it, the information is irrelevant. Thus it’s not a lie to omit it.
@Aries, also see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie. Specifically 1.b and 2. Yes, preaching to children is lying. You’re not omitting details, you telling them something is true when you don’t know whether it is or not. Accept it. Or file a complaint with Merriam-Webster.
You are not misleading the child by preaching. It is okay to omit details when talking to people. They do not need to know every detail of everything in your knowledge to get what is important.
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive?
Believing that you are telling the truth automatically means you are not intending to deceive, which means it isn’t a lie.
Also, the oxford English dictionary, dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, etc all say that lie involves intent. The Law of the United States says that it involves intent. The latest definition of the word provided by Merriam Webster and the 4 of the 5 past editions all say it involves intent. So apparently someone already took it up with Merriam Webster and made sure they added that in there. Just because you find an old(inaccurate according to every other dictionary) definition in one dictionary doesn’t mean that is the definition of the word. Otherwise, Merriam Webster themselves would not have felt the need to modify it.
Preaching is not lying,accept it. Or file a complaint with the oxford English dictionary, dictionary.com, the freedictionary, the united states government, and Merriam Webster.
Aries, you are quite possibly one of the most unthinking people I’ve had the displeasure of communicating with.
First small note: the ban on head scarves is immaterial to whether Sarkozy liked it or not – it did not pass law without legal consideration and liking it or not doesn’t pass in such an advanced legal system. Parliament used the exact reasoning I gave you to pass it into a law. This is indicative to how you pass of all of your other information: you pick and choose the bits that you intend on making your point without paying attention to the parts that are factual. You are continuing your habit of being disingenuous and a liar.
The problem with your ignorant stance is that you are making shit up again. I don’t give a shit if you are a Christian. I am not looking to change your mind. I am looking to have you interject fact into your argument and you don’t. I can consider the teaching of hell child abuse all I want, I have no intent on changing your illusory logic. You still do not understand atheism and you keep demanding proof for our “claims.” WE MAKE NO CLAIMS. Atheism is a rejection of your claims. For you to support your claims, you must have evidence for doing so. Faith and belief are not evidence. People can make shit up about the origins of the universe all day, but nobody will believe it until evidence pops up. It takes the fear and tradition and ignorance of ancient belief systems to sucker in families and keep passing it down. Claims require evidence. Rejections of claims do not – that is a neutral position that everyone starts at.
If you can’t understand the difference between “disenfranchising religious nonsense” and “taking your rights away,” you understand nothing. If you can’t accept and understand that the public sector has to be equally represented, then you’re a totalitarian nut. If you want to continue thinking that the majority has it right, then you can continue being a sheep. How did slavery occur again?
So tell me: if I earnestly believed with all of my heart that if my child didn’t say they had faith in Satan, that he would be raped and whipped and tortured and burned, that it would be okay to tell them? That it would be okay to make sure they stay obedient to the book of Satan and worship the king of blood and witchcraft and force my child to be brought up that way just because I wanted them to? It’s child abuse. And the fact that you can’t see it makes me hope that your child will be able to forgive their mother for being so careless with their emotional innocence.
You think like a child and you reason like a child. It’s impossible for you to concede to the simple fact that you believe what you believe because you don’t consider the evidence. You only have faith and that kind of blind devotion is enough for you. It’s your life and your body and you can be as stupid and careless with it as you want. But your stupidity and carelessness should not and will not have any effect on how everyone else lives their lives.
Pols: Wow, I’m glad you brought that up, Pols, seeing as no religious apologists EVER mention that. Oh no, wait, they do. Constantly. And every time the position is refuted by logical argument, the same individuals put their fingers in their ears and go ‘lalalala’ then make the same point next time. It’s like when moronic creationists insist over and over that there are no ‘missing link’ fossils when plenty exist. It’s just deliberate stupidity on your part. It’s amusing the way you phrase it as if you are landing a killer blow.
But seeing as you’ve raised the point, I’ll try and help you out. Hitler and Stalin were not evil BECAUSE they were atheists. Let’s start with the easy one- Hitler, who was a confirmed, baptised Roman Catholic Christian, and who used the power of church collaboration in Nazi Germany and even created his own pseudo-christian cult. Doesn’t sound much like an atheist to me. He is extensively quoted as stating his hatred of atheism. You need to do some research. The church claim that anyone baptised into it remain under God unless they request to leave or are booted out by someone vastly more moral, like the pedo-sheltering pope. Hitler never left and he was certainly never excommunicated! Hitler was a type of Christian. Except in your World, in which he must have been an atheist because you want him to have been one.
Stalin did not believe in God. But to say that this is what led him to commit great acts of evil is like saying that Hitler and Stalin did what they did because they both had moustaches. There’s no logical progression from atheism to genocide. On the other hand, there is a well-documented, well-trodden path from religious belief to all manner of genocide, murder, rape and sanctioned child abuse.
AT NO POINT did Stalin ever claim to be doing what he did ‘because there’s no God’. How many people do evil things ‘Because it’s what God wants’? Answer: approx. 1 million billion (give or take 5) (nb: that figure’s called hyperbole, it’s sort of a joke to make the point).
Man, I kinda expect that when this topic gets debated, the others taking part will at least be up-to-date with the debate. Then again, when you’re arguing from the losing side, I guess redundant, poorly thought out arguments are better than none, huh?
Religious hatred, murder and everything else is not evil from the past. It continues today. Charlatans in the USA use religion to further their own evil and profits (Rev. Falwell, for example). Jesse Jackson = not much better. Atheism today does not lead to evil- religion does- EVERY DAY.
Again, I refer you to Hume: “Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are anything but sick men’s dreams”, and “Doubt, uncertainty, suspence of judgement appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny, concerning this subject”
This is not to say that ALL religion leads to evil, but why the hell should civilisation take the risk? It’s the lesser of all evils to make simple people cry by telling them that their imaginary friend isn’t real. Rather than allow the excesses of religious nonsense to continue further. Hell, if you can rein in all the religious nutcases of the World, then I’d be happy to see religion continue. But I don’t think you can…
Religion SHOULD be disenfranchised in the sense that it ought to be a natural progression of civilisation, to reach the point at which religion becomes a nice but largely irrelevant factor. That was starting to be the case, in the UK for example, but the World has seen an unfortunate rise in extremist religious views recently. If religion is disenfranchised, it will only be to the point where it is no longer afforded this undeserved privileged status it has.
No one’s going to tell you that you can’t believe in your religion. That would only encourage you anyway…
I think the point that was being made to you back then revolved around the differences between Deism (a standpoint that cannot be disproven, and may well be correct) and Theism (saying that there definitely is a God, and you know his Name through a personal revelation and will one day go round his house for cups of tea and cakes).
If he is saying that we should ‘change centuries old thought patterns…’ then he is right. Religion is redundant- it was a first and worst attempt at scientific process. He doesn’t need to justify this view because he cannot, and I think would not, bring the proposition to pass- it is an abstract suggestion. If he was standing with a gun to the head of every religious person, then justification would most certainly be required. But, as has been demonstrated here, it’s not atheists or non-religious folk that tend to take those actions so much. The only way for this to come to pass is for reason to prevail in the minds of all…
Science HAS easily proven religious texts wrong- as have things like historical study.
The bible (Luke) explicitly states that Jesus was born during the reigns of Quirinius in Syria, and King Herod in Judea / Palestine along with the Census held by Augustus. It’s factually and historically wrong- these historical markers do not all overlap. And no biblical scholar has been able to explain this. Any text reproduced over and over from dodgy second-hand accounts will always be erroneous. E.g. the Qu’ran.
THERE’S your proof that science, history, critical thought etc. have disproven something from religion. Bearing in mind that the bible CLAIMS OVERTLY to be the INFALLIBLE word of God, I don’t think I’m being unfair by pointing out that one mistake crushes the entire logic of the mythology.
I think I’ve grasped that fairly well, yah? I think it’s pretty pathetic that you copied the last line of my comment and still mispelled ‘your’. All you had to do was read and reproduce the text. That’s actually a cracking example of why the bible is not accurate- it’s because people make errors like that, no matter how hard they try not to! Try and keep up, eh?
1.b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: something that misleads or deceives
2: to create a false or misleading impression
@Aries, I’ll say it again because you fail at reading comprehension today. Preaching to children is lying because you’re telling them something is true when you don’t know whether it is or not. Believing what you’re telling them isn’t the point. The point is that you give the false impression that you KNOW when, in fact, you DON’T. That is the lie. Again, the point is that you give the false impression that you KNOW when, in fact, you DON’T. That is the lie. I said it twice because you keep missing and/or twisting that point, probably intentionally.
In summary, preaching is lying. Accept it. Or file a complaint with REALITY.
@Rogue, it seems to me that Aries is purposely ignoring and/or twisting opposing arguments at this point. If he keeps it up I’ll return the favor.
@Aries, just for the lols (and since you said “…oxford English dictionary, dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, etc all say that lie involves intent.”):
lie (noun, verb)
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
lie 2 (noun, verb)
2. (n) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
2. (v) To convey a false image or impression
1. To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods
lie 2 (noun, verb)
- used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression
- present a false impression; be deceptive
All unedited. The only two centered on intent fully fit preaching because as I said in the above post (twice): “The point is that you give the false impression that you KNOW when, in fact, you DON’T. That is the lie.”
Has no one noticed that I DON’T CARE TO ARGUE THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A GOD? I am not “arguing for the losing side.” My side is completely independent of this argument. My side is this: ariesdragon never once called any of you immoral, heathens, deluded, stupid, filthy, or any other rude names. You, on the other hand, have all called ALL CHRISTIANS stupid, deluded, crazy, childish, pedophiles, and child-abusing liars, and THAT’S ONLY TO NAME A FEW. My argument is, to put it simply, BE NICE. Leave me out of your stupid religion argument and treat human beings like human beings!
If you guys want to play dictionary qouters, I’m game:
the free dictionary
lie 2 (l)
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
1. (intr) to speak untruthfully with intent to mislead or deceive
2. (intr) to convey a false impression or practise deception the camera does not lie
1. an untrue or deceptive statement deliberately used to mislead
2. something that is deliberately intended to deceive
1. a. An act or instance of lying; a false statement made with intent to deceive; a criminal falsehood.
To present false statements; to convey a false impression; to make a deceitful show
–verb (used without object)
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Perjury (lying under oath, a crime in the us government)
The statute criminalizes one who “knowingly and willfully”:
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
: to create a false or misleading impression
: to bring about by telling lies
It should be noted that the brackets for number 2 are meant to go together, so how do you create a false or misleading impression? By telling lies. What is a lie? an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
You don’t have any proof whatsoever that the religious texts have been disproven. We don’t have anywhere near a complete nor accurate compilation of that time periods documentation, such as census records. So saying that Jesus Christ, which wouldn’t have been his name on the census records anyway is disproven because of lack of records is silly. In fact Jesus last name would have probably been either Jesus of Nazerath, or Jesus Bar Joseph. Or it might not have been either of these at all, people didn’t go by family name then and Jesus was actually not that uncommon of a name. Christ was given to him by his followers.
Once again, this is Rogue’s claim. I didn’t say anything about atheism. I said that since Rogue claims that “Facts are the revelation. It’s put innumerable pock marks in the stupidity of religious texts. Believing in God is one thing and atheists really can’t disprove that, but belief based in and aroused from religious texts – that’s strong ignorance that can easily be discredited.” Then he should be able to provide some proof. After all religious texts can easily be discredited according to him, correct? That is a firm claim that has nothing to do with the existence of God. And once again, not asking you to do that. I’m saying since you claim that religious texts can easily be discredited, then prove it. If it’s so easy, than a demand for proof is not unreasonable.
Also, lets go back to the concept of rights. Shall we?
–verb (used with object), -chised, -chis·ing.
to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote.
to deprive of a franchise, privilege, or right.
to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
Oxford English Dictionary:
1. trans. To deprive of civil or electoral privileges; to DISFRANCHISE.
A couple of definitions from google
deprive of voting rights
Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people, or rendering a person’s vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement might occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation. …
The free dictionary
Adj. 1.disenfranchised – deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote; “labor was voiceless”; “disenfrenchised masses took to the streets”
Yeah, you are saying you want rights taken away when you say you want religion disenfranchised. Since churches cannot vote, since Bibles or Qurans cannot vote, since mosques cannot vote, who would you be taking that right from? How would that be accomplished? By taking away the right to vote from the FOLLOWERS of that religion.
You either need to admit you’ve been using the wrong words and that it wasn’t my reading skills that gave off the impression that you wanted rights taken away but your word choice. Or you need to admit that you do want the right of religious people to vote how the choose taken away.
Honestly, you’re the most unthinking people I’ve ever had the displeasure of debating with. You use all kinds of negative words and wonder why people take offense at what you say. You use say you want religious people disenfranchised and then claim I’m putting words in your mouth when I say everyone should have the same rights regardless of religion. You claim you want teaching children religion to be regarded as child abuse, but then you say that you want religious people to be able to continually abuse their kids and wonder why people are assuming that you’re name calling. Do you ever stop to actually think about what you’re saying and how it is coming across? Do you ever stop to think how you’re message is being decoded?
Because I can assure my reading comprehension skills (while currently impaired do to being on pain killers from a fall down the stairs as I mentioned before) are excellent. I may not be able to write as good as I read, but I have scored perfect scores on every test that I have taken on the matter, including the ACTs and the practice LSATS. I’m not reading your post wrong when I say that you saying you want people disenfranchised is the same thing as saying you want their rights taken away. That is simply the cold hard facts. If you don’t like them then back away from the stance and admit you’re wrong. Why does your own words bother you so much? It’s because inside you know you are wrong and so seek to make me look like I’m wrong to save ego. I’m sick of it.
I never said you can disprove or prove God. I may have demanded proof facetiously but if you couldn’t tell that I was being facetious from comparisons to flying pigs and time travel than you seriously need to work on YOUR reading comprehension.
I did ask you backup your claim that religious texts were easily discredited. That is a claim, that has nothing to do with atheism actually. An agnostic person could claim the same thing. A person who believes in God and spirituality but thinks all the organized religion are wrong could claim the same thing. I’ve made no claim to what atheism is, I’ve only demanded that since you are so damn obsessed with proof that you back up your claims.
That bill about the niqabs and burqas was not passed because of security reasons, as you claimed Rogue. Nor was it about women’s rights. There were several different reasons bandied about by individual people on why they supported the ban, but that wasn’t the reason it was ultimately passed. It was ultimately passed because they believed it didn’t meet the muster of their “republican values,” and indeed anyone who is caught wearing one will, directly qouting the WSJ here,
“Offenders face a maximum fine of €150 (about $190) and could be asked to attend courses on what the government calls “republican values.”"
“Head-to-toe garments such as the niqab, thought to be worn by just 2,000 women in France, are seen by French critics as an affront to France’s democratic values. Some politicians have said that active citizenship requires face-to-face communication. Others say full-body robes are a means of forcing women to be submissive.”
So clearly with all the different reasons that people dislike them, and seeing as the punishment in the letter of the law says that you should take a class on values, it’s clearly not a matter of security here. It’s clearly that the French don’t like them for a variety of reasons, and found a way to justify the ban legislatively by saying they are an affront to democratic values. I should note that not once does the article mention security. You can claim France is advance all you want, but they are also trying to deport all the Roma from their country as well.
Again, quoting the WSJ here:
But over the weekend, a report emerged that France’s interior ministry sent instructions to regional governors in early August that called for the clearing of hundreds of camps, “with those of Roma as a priority.” On Monday, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux sent revised instructions, which didn’t contain any reference to Roma.
As far as devil worshipers are concerned. I dislike people who worship Satan. As they tend to believe that God exists, but prefer Satan. Who is supreme evil in my religious views. But, as much as I absolutely, positively, 100% am against their religious views, I wouldn’t be for the government denying them any of the same rights that I enjoy. I wouldn’t support removing their kids from their homes on the grounds of abuse, I wouldn’t support them having their vote taken away, and I wouldn’t support their voice being silenced. I wouldn’t talk to them, be friends with them, or anything else of the sort. But I wouldn’t support them being disenfranchised either. I would certainly pray for them, that they see the error of their ways and repent. But I wouldn’t support anything legally speaking such as disenfranchisement happening to them. This is because everyone can (and you two are proof that people DO) shed their beliefs once they are old enough to know better. I only pray for their children that they see the error or worshiping Satan and choose a better path. But all people should be treated equally, no one deserves to be disenfranchised.
Religious people are included in the public sector. Most religious people do hold some secular beliefs. I’ve stated over and over again that all people should be treated equally. That we should live and let live. Not once have I said that you a heathen, or going to hell, or that you’re immoral. I’ve said that some people draw their morals from religion and all parents should be able to teach their morals to their kids. But that doesn’t mean because some people draw morality from religion that people who don’t are immoral. X =/= Y. You’re the one advocating disenfranchisement. Not me, so cut the totalitarian nut bullshit. Not once have I said that you shouldn’t raise your kids the way you want. In fact, I’ve even illustrated how an atheist who believes in nothing and thinks nothing happens after you die can tell their kids this without being abusive. I even said that the kids that had been brought up that way were lovely. Just because a large majority of my arguments have been about Christianity because you’ve felt the need to frame everything in the terms of my personal beliefs (and because that is where I can draw personal examples most easily from) does not mean that I was saying that Christianity should be privileged. I’ve made defense for Muslims, Satanists (BLEGH), atheists as well to be able to have the same voting rights as everyone else. And the same parental rights as well. NO ONE SHOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THEIR KIDS TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY DON’T BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY ARE TEACHING THEIR KIDS. You are advocating for people’s rights taken away.
Just because you don’t have the balls to say as much doesn’t mean that isn’t the case. Disenfranchisement by the very definition means to take away rights. And to categorize religion has child abuse also has certain implications. People who abuse their children get their children taken away from them. You don’t get to keep your kids if abuse is a problem in your home. So by saying you’ll fight to the bone to have it considered to be as such, means you also have to realize the consequences of such actions. Those are the consequences of labeling religion as child abuse and advocating disenfranchisement. If you don’t agree with the consequences, then don’t fight to the bone for that position. If you can’t stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
@Aries, make your post as long as you want and quote every definition you can, but the simple fact is you claimed every definition in existence explicitly stated intent. You were either lying or just somehow managed to miss every one I quoted.
And I’m laughing my ass of right now because, as expected, you think you dodged my point. You THINK you did, but you sure as hell didn’t. As you read the lines below, imagine me dancing and singing them with a jolly jingly melody.
The point is that you give the false impression that you KNOW when, in fact, you DON’T. That is the lie.
the point is that you give the false impression that you KNOW when, in fact, you DON’T. That is the lie.
the point is that you give the false impression that you KNOW when, in fact, you DON’T. That is the lie.
The point is that lying is the intent to deceive. You aren’t giving the false impression that you KNOW, when you don’t. You are simply omitting irrelevant information. Just the same as you aren’t giving the false impression that every stranger is a pedophile by saying don’t talk to strangers to a small child. Preaching isn’t lying. There is not point is saying, “we all think x but some atheist think y, who knows who is right” when you are preaching. It’s irrelevant. You aren’t giving any false impression at all. You are omitting details that are not relevant or important. I’ve already addressed that point. It’s not lying.
Aries: If a text claims to be completely accurate and the literal, living Word of God as the Bible does then it either has to be completely accurate as a whole, or false and inaccurate. It’s a simple logical progression. God can’t be perfect ‘most of the time’. He, and His Living Word, are either perfect or fallible.
I think you can see that I have provided clear proof that the bible is not infallible and clear proof that it is either:
1 not God’s Word, or
2 God is not perfect, or
3 God deliberately chose to leave a mistake in His Holy Word to confuse people intelligent enough to dig deeper than just accepting it on blind faith. So which is it, man? 1, 2 or 3?
I am not saying Jesus didn’t exist- I’m saying that the account in Luke is factually inaccurate. And there ARE extensive records during this period of censuses. They were a big deal in the Roman World, particularly to the Jews who saw them as an affront to their religion. Censuses actually led to wars/rebellions during this time.
It’s typical of your approach that your response to this is firstly to tell me I’ve said something I didn’t say (‘Jesus didn’t exist’) and then to say ‘well the historical records are probably incomplete’. Basing your argument on a potential lack of evidence and ignoring the evidence that is actually there is a risky business, and I would say borders on intellectual dishonesty.
There is no way that history would have left out such a huge, World-changing census as described in Luke. The bible got the dates and order of events wrong. It is that simple. The reigns of Herod, Quirinius and a World-shaking event like a census in which EVERYONE had to go to their ancestral corner of the Empire are not small, undocumented events and facts. I’ll say it again LUKE GOT IT WRONG. And by Christian logic, therefore, God (the Holy Spirit) got it wrong. Which, for a Guy who’s meant to be looking after everything, is something of a concerning oversight, don’t you think?
If I was God, I’d make sure the people ‘ghostwriting’ (lol?) my memoirs got things perfectly correct, wouldn’t you?
If the bible’s account is wrong, which it is in the book of Luke, then it is not the perfect, infallible Word of God. The house of cards cannot stand if you take one card away.
Aries: is the bible the perfect, complete, Word of God or not? Based on your past ducking of questions and general unwillingness to look beyond your narrow Worldview, I doubt you’ll be honest enough to answer that question.
Pols: I don’t recall anyone calling ALL christians paedophiles. WTF are you talking about? The Pope sheltered priests and officials who abused children. That’s what I referenced. I’m sure a decent percentage of christians never have sex with minors.
Also, ‘taking offense’ and ‘I’m offended’ are the most boring phrases in the English langauge. Wouldn’t you rather win by argument, than by saying ‘Oh, I’m offended by that’ with the implication that being offended somehows trumps everything? Milosevic was probably offended by the human court of human rights, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t end up there
There’s no law saying you have to be careful to not give offense. I don’t care if people are offended. Maybe I’m offended by idiotic programming of children from a young age to blindly follow silly books. But I don’t try to stop this practice just by informing people that I’ve taken offense. I use argument to try and put my point across.
Get your mother or a loved one or trusted friend to give you a hug if you’re offended, the World doesn’t care and neither do I.
I don’t think all christians are stupid. Some are very clever. I do think a christian’s willingness to accept ‘truths’ on authority with no evidence is the height of stupidity, however, and a danger to humanity. It’s possible to be clever in some respects, but a total moron otherwise.
ps Aries- if you abuse your children then the law of your country states that they may be removed. That’s nothing to do with me, and in no way hinders my argument.
If that is the result of highlighting something serious then that’s the result. In the same way that I wouldn’t cover up the systematic abuse of children by Catholic priests just because it might cause anguish and crises of faith among millions around the World. I believe that the truth is the truth, regardless of consequence.
Besides, if lying to your kids and telling them they will be tortured after death if they don’t do such-and-such becomes illegal then almost all Christians will simply stop lying to their kids. Job done.
They might say things like ‘mummy and daddy believe in a place called Hell because this book we’ve had sent to us down the ages by God says so. But no one knows what happens after death so everyone has to make up their own mind about it. But we believe 100% in it’. See, that wasn’t so hard, eh? The kids don’t have to live in horrible fear of a disgusting punishment for thought-crimes like ‘lust’ and ‘envy’, And social services can leave the house happy.
Yet again, you misquote and misrepresent me. I don’t say ‘don’t teach religion to kids’, I say ‘don’t abuse kids by threatening them with horrific torture’. You wanna tell your kids that a man was swallowed by a whale then spit up and went shopping around Ninevah for a bit then go ahead mate. No worries. Just leave out the medieval horrific threat of torture please. And don’t push religion on others and their kids.
‘if you don’t like the heat, then get out of the kitchen’.
If you don’t like the idea of being burnt alive for all eternity, then don’t lie to your children… in the kitchen or anywhere else for that matter…
I never said that you claimed Jesus didn’t exist. Merely pointed out he wasn’t called Jesus Christ back then. What are you talking about? You said there that the Bible’s account is wrong, I’m saying that we are missing a lot of information from that time period so to say that the absence of evidence is the same as the evidence of absence isn’t true. At any rate his name on the census would not have been his name as we know him now, that is what I was saying. So the fact that no one named Christ is on the census records doesn’t surprise me, it was a name given to him by his followers. No one has ever proven the Bible to be false, and that is the whole reason this debate is even possible.
Hell is a big part of the religion, you don’t get to cherry pick religion like that. Nor is teaching your kid about hell child abuse. You keep talking about dodging questions but there is no reason that you have to threaten your kids constantly just because you taught them about hell. You claim you aren’t trying to censor anyone but you’re trying to pick and choose what people can and can’t teach their kids about their faith. They can’t say anything that doesn’t fit an atheist viewpoint when it comes to Heaven and Hell. That is not freedom of religion. Freedom of religion isn’t just about being able to practice what some arbitrary person likes and doesn’t like about a religion. Freedom of religion is being able to practice whatever religion you want, that includes teaching your kids about your religion. I am not misrepresenting your views. Censorship of religion is not freedom of religion.
Aries, let me state this clearly for you. The reason the bible is inaccurate in the example of Luke (one of many examples) is because it says that there was a huge census carried out by Augustus during the reigns of Herod and Quirinius, during which Jesus had to return to his ancetral home.
This did not happen.
It doesn’t matter if Jesus was called Long John Silver on a census, or Justus, or any derivation. I know Jesus existed. My point is that the historical events and figures to which Luke ties his story are represented inaccurately.
The bible is meant to be the Word of God, but is littered with schoolboy errors, whilst simultaneously claiming to be infallible. It’s laughable, frankly.
@Aries, you haven’t addressed anything because you apparently can’t grasp what I’m saying. If you ever tell your kids they’ll go to heaven then you’re lying. If you tell them you think they’ll go to heaven then you’re not. Plain and simple. And the fact that you are ignorant of the truth is very relevant. Clearly you just leave it out because you want to mislead them.
And since you brought up that other ridiculous argument again, I’ll tear it down too. Parents don’t say, “Look both ways before crossing or you WILL get hit by a car.” We don’t say, “Don’t talk to strangers or you WILL get kidnapped.” No, we say, “… you MIGHT…” Zealots and preachers are saying, “If you don’t believe in Jesus you WILL go to hell.” Again, they’re lying to their poor kids. Parents deal in possibilities and probabilities. Zealots deal in absolutes and lies.
@Alan, you realize Aries isn’t actually fully reading out posts right? He’s just skimming for the standard key words then referencing his King James Bible vs Rational Thought cheat sheet.
I know plenty of parents that just simply say, “don’t talk to strangers,” And I know parents who say, “look both ways before crossing or you’ll get hit by a car.” The idea that every parent qualifies every instruction with a possibility is absurd. You’re not lying if it’s true. You’re not lying if it’s true. You are not lying if it’s true. Preaching isn’t lying. It’s leaving out irrelevant viewpoints in order to teach an in-depth knowledge of the one at hand. Just like evolution need not be taught as anti-religion. There isn’t a reason to mention it at all, if some creation stories prevent evolution from being considered true and there is no way of knowing if the big bang happened the way we currently teach it happened. You don’t have to be vague. Also, fyi I haven’t been to a church yet that doesn’t say Christianity is about faith.
Read a book. That whole inaccuracy thing is not a contradiction in the bible. Specifically page 1700, or you can simply search the phrase “remains to be disposed of,” like I said earlier. It was as easy to disprove the Bible as claim, no one (well mostly no one there are still some whack jobs out there that think the sun revolves around the earth) would believe in it.
I’m fully reading your posts and I haven’t even been quoting the King James Bible. Pssh, you’re arguing for the sake of arguing so I’m done talking to you. At least Rogue and Alan take a stance and aren’t just rude for the sake of being rude. They are rude because they let their passion for their stance obscure things like basic human decency. It’s far more understandable than just being a hater, for the fun of it.
@Aries, then you know some stupid people who apparently lie to their kids. It doesn’t make it, and it doesn’t make preachers not liars. Call me rude if you like. Unfortunately it’s not rude to point out that people aren’t reading the material. You’re not and it’s obvious. Either that or you are completely ignoring points, which is basically the same thing. Seeing the words on the page is not reading. Now go forth and continue to lie about your knowledge of deities.
So telling a child, “Don’t talk to strangers,” makes people stupid.? Have you ever seen an evolution textbook’s passage on the big bang? It’s not something that is remotely testable or knowable and yet it’s presented without the words, “We believe,” because obviously that kind of thing is implicit. Just like saying, “have faith,” implies certain things too. You don’t need to tell someone everything there is to know or tell them other theories to not be considered a liar. There is no reason to do that. And just because I don’t respond to every single sentence does not mean I haven’t read them. You haven’t responded to ever single sentence either. As it already stands, the paragraphs I write are long enough to get the general point I’m trying to make across. You’re just grasping for straws now. Oh, and reading doesn’t mean I have to respond to every single thing. I don’t have to say anything at all when it comes to reading.
BTW Most parents don’t droll on and on about any particular subject to their small children because the kids don’t have very long attention spans. If you want the info to stick you have to be firm but also keep it short and sweet. Otherwise the kid is just going to tune you out. The age group I have been discussing this whole time is younger than twelve, just in case you haven’t been reading what I (or anyone else) has written.
That’s it, I’m finished. I can’t stand making the same points over and over again and I’m starting to feel like a broken record. So feel free to argue with the following bullet points. I’ll make it real simple just insert my reply into your own brain and call it a day.
1)Religion is not child abuse/lying
2)censoring someone’s religion is not freedom of religion.
3)If current religious texts were so easy to disprove, they would be in the historical archives with the other long dead religions.
4)You can’t disenfranchise a religious text. You disenfranchise it’s followers. Disenfranchising someone on the basis of religious beliefs is wrong.
@Aries, you said you know people who say, “look both ways before crossing or you’ll get hit by a car.” Those people are stupid. Or liars. Or both. Stop cherry picking pieces from responses to attempt to defend your weak position.
Also, more proof that you don’t fully read replies is the fact that you apparently missed where I criticize modern science and their stupid theories. Otherwise you never would have made your pointless big bang argument. And once again you twist my point: You are misleading children into believing that you know deities exist. That’s your lie.
Your argument about drolling on and on and short attention spans is laughable. Apparently you either don’t have kids or they have A.D.D. When a kid asks “why?” you can expect it last quite a while. Unless you just lie to them about pretend people who judge them from the clouds. Maybe that’s what this is all about? Maybe zealots would rather get their kids out of their hair instead of try to educate them. Is that the real basis of your whole “leaving pieces out” argument?
By the way, most kids I know of (including myself and my friends) start asking “why?” around 4 or 5. I was knowledgeable enough to question Catholicism when I was 8. Maybe us agnostics develop faster, who knows.
Maybe when you have a decent argument you can rejoin the conversation. Until then enjoy your time away. :p
Last post, for real this time. Telling children to look both ways before crossing the street so that you don’t get hit by a car/or you’ll get hit by a car, are not stupid things to say. I hope you teach your kids road safety and to be responsible pedestrians. Seriously.
I read your post, you’re the one that doesn’t fully understand my point. You wouldn’t say that textbooks are lies, but they include information all the time that is presented as fact when really there is some debate on the details. The big bang being just one example. So saying that it’s okay to omit that information, but it’s not okay to omit information when it comes to religious texts is disingenuous. I’m assuming you would be against the intelligent design theories being taught in classrooms even though they don’t explicitly support a particular religion, wouldn’t you? But under your definition all schools are lying because they are presenting the big bang and evolution as fact and aren’t mentioning intelligent design at all when really nobody knows or can prove if there is a God or isn’t! How is that omission good common sense (which I agree with, btw intelligent design shouldn’t be taught in the classroom and I don’t think religion can be diluted into a generic thing like that, that would satisfy everyone)but preaching is nothing more than a lie? You can’t have it both ways. Either every omission on the planet is lying, which as you can see by their definitions that is not the case, or preaching is not lying.
I don’t know what children you have been around, but the average child has a much shorter attention span than an adult. That is scientific fact.
@Aries, the phrase “…so that you don’t get hit by a car” is very different from “…or you’ll get hit by a car.” “You’ll” is a contraction for “you will” as in, “You will definitely get hit by a car if you don’t look both ways.” If a parent says that then he is a stupid liar. If you can’t comprehend the difference between possibility and proven fact then you are severely handicapped.
Yes, if a textbook presents questionable or debated information as proven fact then most anyone in the world would call it a lie. What world are you living in where this isn’t so? And since you’re lying again, I never said it’s ok to omit information. I call “scientists” liars for calling theories facts and I call zealots liars for calling beliefs facts. If you read my posts thoroughly you’d know this because I’ve said it more than once.
By the way, when I was in school they presented The Big Bang and evolution as a theories, not facts. According to my nephew, his teacher also presented them as a theories. So I guess you’re lying again. If a school wants to present “intelligent” design as another theory then that’s fine, but then they’d also better present deities as a theory. However, since at present you can’t teach religion in most public schools they just better not present it at all since it relies on a deity.
Finally, your “scientific fact” about the attention span of a child is another theory. Or have you not noticed how kids can play games, sports, pretend, etc. for hours on end whilst an average adult would be bored out of his mind after 15 minutes? No, it’s obvious now that you have no kids (or at least no normal ones over the age of 1) and haven’t spent much time around them. I have seen kids who can’t focus on one thing or one idea for more than a few minutes. They call that A.D.D. When you get over your own A.D.D. long enough to get informed about reality feel free to rejoin the discussion. Until then enjoy your time away. :p
Now you’re just starting to piss me off. I have a firm grasp of reality. I do not have ADD. The children I know do not have ADD.
No, there is a lot of gray area in history, science, etc. No one says, “We think George Washington did blank but some people think blank. They just tell you the information about George Washington. Most science just says thing like after the big bang, blah blah blah. And I my brother most certainly doesn’t have ADD. Kids can focus on video games because they simply refocus after a while. It stimulates a different part of their brain than rote memorization. I can tell you honestly haven’t been around kids if you really think they have the same or better attention spans than adults just because adults don’t like video games.
“So you don’t get a by a car,” implies that if you don’t do A, you’ll get hit by a car. To avoid that situation to you do something (namely look both ways before crossing the street) to avoid being hit. I eat veggies (so) that I’ll be healthy. That implies eating veggies will certainly result in you becoming healthier. I look both ways so I don’t get hit by a car. That implies that if you didn’t look both ways, you would certainly get hit by a car and so you take the necessary precautions to avoid that scenario.
My little brother is learning about this stuff, right now, as we speak. His teacher felt the need to preface the class with this is only theory, because the textbooks certainly did not do so. They just said the big bang led to the formation of the universe. Once again, I don’t particularly care if you can’t see that it isn’t about the science subject. The big bang was an example, and easy one to make and comprehend. I was framing it in a way I figured you would understand, I was not saying that you subscribed to the big bang theory. If one thing isn’t a lie, then you can’t call the other omission a lie when it is the same situation just because it’s more agreeable.
I can assure you do, having studied from several different textbooks in recent years that none of them goes off on tangents about alternate theories or preface their information with “we believe,” or anything of the sort. Because it is irrelevant. Omission is not lying. Lying is intent to deceive and these books don’t do anything of the sort.
This is especially true in kid’s textbooks. Another example, most textbooks teach the Wright brothers invented the first successful airplane in the world. There is plenty of controversy surrounding this claim, but you won’t see parents complaining about the school lying to their kids. Why? It’s irrelevant. They were the easiest to verify, they get the credit, that’s it. That as far as goes in children’s textbooks. That isn’t to say that American education system is lying to all of it’s students, now is it? Nope, I don’t know what world you live in but few people believe that. Do you want to know why? Because omissions are not lies. Even though elementary school kids probably think they know quite a lot about any given subject they study, everyone knows that you water it down to the basics and build from there as their cognitive abilities grow as they mature. If you think that the fact that kids lose focus and get caught up in their own imaginations proves they have a long attention span then you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Have you ever seen a kid playing? Their imaginations aren’t the kind of focused creativity that even lead to inventions or novels that adults have. It’s wild and fun and something that results in part to their short attention spans and vivid and active imaginations. As far as video games, if you ever played one you’ll notice that they switch things up a lot so that you have to refocus your attention. Which renews the amount of time a kid will concentrate on that task.
@Aries, you know jack about shit. I have three kids of my own. I have several nephews and nieces. I’ve been around kids all my my life and I know for a fact that your theory about kids’ attention spans is wrong as can be. My guess is you’re just regurgitating some statistics off a parenting blog. By the way, statistics also aren’t indicative of an entire species. Some kids have short attention spans, some have long ones. Just like some Christians are murderers and pedophiles while others are not. No two people are the same so to think you know something that applies to all people, children or otherwise, is idiotic.
“So you don’t get hit by a car,” does not imply that one will definitely get hit by a car. If you honestly believe that then you also have a poor grasp of language. I think your brain is so intertwined with the bible that you automatically assume that the way you interpret things are somehow implied by the circumstances of a given situation. You should get that looked at, man, seriously.
Again, your alleged example with your alleged little brother is mute because while that may be one case, there are millions of other, different cases. You sound like a college student because most college students tend to think that one or two examples of something points to an overwhelming trend. It’s a big world. There are lots of schools. They’re all different. I’ve never heard of unproven scientific theories presented as fact. If this is happening in your community then you should speak to the school board because those teachers are lying just like you’re lying about knowing anything about deities.
Your last paragraph basically restates everything you already said in earlier paragraphs in your posts. As I’ve already refuted these arguments (many a time) I’ll just leave it at that. Besides which you undoubtedly won’t be able to grasp anything I’ve said because you’re a closed-minded person who is apparently only attempting to prove his skewed views of life to himself, most likely due to insecurity and/or doubts. Get out into the world, meet people, learn new things. You might grow as a person and finally realize you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Just because the kids in your family have longer attention spans than most doesn’t mean that most kids don’t have as long of attention spans as an adult. There brain isn’t fully developed yet. Children’s brains are not the same as adult brains and that is why a child is not held to the same legal responsibilities as an adult. I don’t need to know your family to know that.
I have never seen a single textbook that presents the information inside of it as open to interpretation.
The word so is something that used by circumstance though. in the way or manner indicated, described, or implied: Do it so.
in that or this manner or fashion; thus: So it turned out.
in the aforesaid state or condition: It is broken and has long been so.
to the extent or degree indicated or suggested: Do not walk so fast.
Informal. very or extremely: I’m so sad.
very greatly: My head aches so!
(used before an adverb or an adverbial clause and fol. by as) to such a degree or extent: so far as I know.
having the purpose of: a speech so commemorating the victory.
for this or that reason; hence; therefore: She is ill, and so cannot come to the party.
I sincerely doubt anyone is going to read this and think to themselves, “You know what? I don’t like religious freedom, let’s take away the right to vote from anyone that believes in anything! While we’re at it let’s take away their kids too, as a social experiment, for shits and giggles. Maybe then everyone in the world will finally stop believing differently than I do!” Come off your high horse. There are no winners and losers. Just different points of view. Unless you mean you’re proud that you’re still a bigot.
You’re so childish. Keep creating straw men arguing against points nobody ever suggested. Your willful ignorance has gone from baffling to hilarious. You will still never understand the difference between the disenfranchisement of people versus ideas and it is 100% because of your willingness to delude yourself and ignore other people’s positions. You’re continually showing yourself to be a disingenuous liar and someone who doesn’t care in the slightest about truth.
You choose to propagate make-believe in the face of evidence. There are clear winners and losers, kid. You are CLEARLY grasping at straws to fight a downhill battle. You are irrelevant.
It’s funny how you don’t understand how to use a dictionary. Disenfranchise means to take away rights, especially the right to vote. Ideas can’t vote. Buildings can’t vote. Books can’t vote. Only people can. It’s hilarious actually that even faced with black and white definitions from dictionary companies that are far more established and relevant than you’ll ever be you continue to to think you can just make up definitions for words. By the way, if you were to disenfranchise an idea, how would you go about doing it. By disenfranchising the person who holds it because they are the only one you can take anything from. And even assuming your definition, a bigot is someone who is so devoted to their ideas that treat beliefs that differ from their own with animosity and intolerance. Trying to disenfranchise an idea that differs from your own and throwing the hateful language you have thrown on at it with such animosity is still bigotry.
You’re right though, I do lose. Because I didn’t really realize just how big of a bigot you were sooner. That’s my bad. I agree. Toodles.
You want to know a secret, you’re irrelevant to me too! Want to know why, because this is a lamebook discussion. The fact that you think any of this has any relevancy is hilarious!
Aries, it’s funny that you tell me to ‘read a book’ (I’ve read plenty) and then reference a book from so long ago… the fact remains that there ARE mistakes in the bible, and if a book claims to be the revealed word of God then there logically can be no mistakes in it.
The way you are making your defence is basically an admission that the bible is not perfect (you have an idea of what the bible is ‘trying to say’, but this is subjective and disregards whole areas of doctrine which don’t fit with your World-view).
Earlier you actually stated that ‘Hell is a big part of the religion, you don’t get to cherry pick religion like that’ (your quote, when stating the threat of hell should be emphasised to kids). If that is the case, as you yourself have asserted, then you must follow other commandments and also execute homosexuals and witches, mutilate the genitals of children and commit genocide if prompted by what is deemed to be revelation from God. If you do not, you are cherry-picking. You can’t have it both ways.
I know that YOU would never do such things, but there are people in the World who would ~(‘witches’ are routinely executed in parts of Africa, for example, in the name of christianity). That is why your supposedly-meek form of dogmatism is actually so incredibly dangerous, as well as being profoundly unreasonable (in the sense that reasoned thought does not get a fair crack of the whip because dogmatic thought overrides it. An idea that contradicts the bible is automatically false).
If the bible’s not perfect then the whole idea of authority breaks down. I personally wouldn’t accept life-rules on so-called authority anyway as I think that’s dangerous- but people do. It’s particularly dangerous to base decisions on an authority that can be demonstrated to be imperfect, especially when many World-changing events (suppression of stem cell research, for example) proceed from this flawed system of thinking, impacting on everyone.
Using flawed logic allows you to justify certain things. One of those things is terrifying children with threats of horrible torment after death. And because of the nature of your dogmatism, you can’t even see the damage that such an action exerts on the minds of children.
It’s sad, more than anything. The problem is that there are also lots of dogmatics in this World who want to spread this system so that it sneaks back into schools again. Luckily, there are lots of moderate people, people who would not necessarily challenge your dogmatism through a misguided sense of politeness, who will draw the line at allowing demagogues access to their children.
@Aries, where did I say “my family?” Somehow you draw the conclusion that the only kids I know of are the ones in my family? Hilarity. How about this, just because the 1 or 2 kids you are citing have A.D.D. doesn’t mean all kids do. And wtf are you even bringing up legal responsibility for? That has nothing to do with a person’s attention span otherwise adults with A.D.D. wouldn’t have an legal responsibilities either. I swear, your most current arguments are borderline retarded.
Now let’s think about this, oh editor of reality: Big Bang Theory. Theory of Relativity. Evolution Theory. The word theory is in the actual name of these theories. That alone should shut you up, but I know it won’t. The fact that they are presented as The Big Bang Theory, etc. in text books should also shut you up, but of course it won’t. No, you just want to live in your own world where you think all scientific ideas, hypotheses, and theories are accepted and presented as fact. Sorry, kid, but you don’t live in the same world as the rest of the human population.
Also, why are you copy/pasting definitions of “so?” Does it depend on what the definition of the word “is” is? Guess what, Bill Clinton still fucked Monica Lewinski. Guess what, “so you don’t get hit by a car,” is not the same as “or you will get hit by a car.” Your copy/pastes don’t even reflect the proper usage of the word “so” in that sentence. I did, however, find a definition that describes your thought process: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retarded
By the way, I thought you said you were done with this thread. Wasn’t that like a week ago? Well, if you ever decide to stop being a liar feel free to rejoin rejoin the conversation when you get over your learning disability.
You were talking about your three children and your nieces and nephews having long attention spans. I think you thought I meant purely nuclear, but I did not. Your family is all of your relatives and can even be people not related by blood. I don’t judge what a family constitutes. Also, where’d you get the idea that I said the only kids you know are the ones in your immediate family? I’m seriously at a loss on that one. BTW, Theory in Science is considered to be one of the highest forms of knowledge and doesn’t have the kind of looser interpretation of the term in the way that you used it. In fact, theories are just stuff that tends to be newer. Newton’s laws which Einstein’s theory of relativity have proven to be not completely accurate are still called laws because they are older. I wanted place as much stock into the word theory when it comes to science as you do. Also the definition of So wasn’t to show you the definition as it pertained to the sentence, but to show you that the word does change meaning based on circumstance. You claimed I needed to get my head look at because I was interpreting the definition of the word differently based on given circumstances. I was showing you that while you’d be right about most words, so is something that is interpreted differently in any given circumstance.
I said I was done, but congratulations your post changed my mind. And who suddenly made you the conversation police, last I checked this was my conversation with rogue to begin with you just joined in to heckle. At least Alan joined to contribute to the conversation, you just want to quibble over semantics.
The people who interpret it that way are just exploiting in group/out group dynamics to further their own agenda. I’ve stated it over and over again that just because some people abuse a thing to further their own agenda, it doesn’t mean that thing itself is bad. Europeans used the “white man’s burden,” to commit similar atrocities. The Japanese claimed they had to do the war crimes they did for the sake of Asia and still don’t bother with a more adequate explanation. Heck, the still don’t bother with an apology and have pretty much scrubbed what they did out of their history books. Why do you think China hates them? In that country that also made classes based off jobs since ethnically and religiously it’s one of the most homogeneous countries in the world and some of the companies still screen for people whose ancestors worked in dirty jobs. People will use any unifying thing as an excuse to attack people who are different so they can claim that other groups money, power, land, etc. That wouldn’t end even if religion ended.
@Aries, I specifically mentioned a few kids, and also noted that, “I’ve been around kids all my my life …” You were obviously trying in invalidate my argument by implying that my family was the only example I was citing. You did this in your comment, “Just because the kids in your family have longer attention spans than most doesn’t mean…” Your attempt to backpedal just went bad.
“Theory in Science is considered to be one of the highest forms of knowledge and doesn’t have the kind of looser interpretation of the term in the way that you used it.” Wrong. A theory is a theory. Just because a scientist came up with it does not change the definition of the word. You’re seriously grasping at straws here.
Your argument about the word “so” is another sad example of you grasping at straws. Yes, words can change meaning based on context. “So” what? The point of contention was a specific sentence with specific context. The meaning of the word in any other context is irrelevant to that particular argument. In other words, you’re still wrong if you think those two sentences share the exact same meaning.
Finally, I’m not the conversation police, unlike you think you are. I was simply stating the FACT that you said you had posted your final post. You religious zealots are always trying to instill meaning where it doesn’t exist. :p
I wasn’t trying to say your family was the only example you were citing. I was simply addressing the fact that you can’t invalidate statistics because you know exceptions to the rule. I couldn’t tell who the statement, “I’ve been around kids my whole life,” was referring to as it could have been anyone. I don’t know you from Adam. So I just talked about what I did know, which is that just because the kids in your family sound as though they are more advanced than other kids when it comes to attention spans (and most of the kids you have met), doesn’t mean that the statistically speaking children don’t have shorter attention spans than most.
As for your idea bout theory, yes the meaning does change when it comes to science.
rationalwiki (dot) org/wiki/Scientific_theory
I may not agree with the atheist undertones in their message, but they are right about theories. If you want to see more cites just google the “it’s just a theory myth.” Theories are the pinnacle of scientific knowledge.
In the specific context I gave, the word so is used to shorten a thought. If I cross the street without looking, I will get hit by a car. I don’t want to get hit by a car. Therefore, I will look before crossing the street. That becomes–> I look both ways so I don’t get hit by a car. O
I can change my mind about the conversation all I want.
–verb (used with object),-chised, -chis·ing.
to deprive (A PERSON) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote.
to deprive of a franchise, privilege, or right.
From Merriam Webster
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote
From Oxford English Dictionary
a. trans. To deprive of the rights and privileges of a free citizen of a borough, city, or country, or of some franchise previously enjoyed.
1. trans. To deprive of civil or electoral privileges;
1. Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
2. Deprived of power; marginalized.
Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person’s vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable registration or identification impediments in the path of voters.
You say the I’m the immature one but you continue to call people childish names such as cunt.
You say I don’t know the what the definition of the word, but clearly it is you who does not know the definition.
Yeah fair play, this post is getting hard to find now… unless i’m missing something or some way to find posts easily. It’s like page 22 or something …
@Patton. What you described isn’t irony you stupid bastard. A better example of irony would be your describing us as childish for having a meaningful philosophical discussion. Are we children, or adults? Are we skimming the surface like children or going deeper, like (sexy) adults?
In intellectual terms, you’re more Custer than Patton really aren’t you…?
This is going nowhere now. Much like the global debate. People that choose to ignore reason cannot be reasoned with. I’m off to watch Sam Harris debates on youtubes… ‘night. (And this time, I REALLY AM LEAVING etc. etc. etc.)
DON’T TELL ME I ABUSE MY KIDS, DON’T DISENFRANCHISE MY RIGHT TO BELIEVE UTTER BOLLOCKS AND POISON THE WORLD WITH IT… sighs.
@Aries, keep back pedaling, buddy. :p Your words show the truth in your motives. And statistics, once again, are not indicative of an entire population. They are based on tiny groups that typically fit the mold the statistics takers are looking for to prove their point. Doctor Spock had statistics too, yet has been largely discredited. If you base all your argument on statistics, you’re closed-minded and ultimately wrong. But of course you’re used to being wrong…
Also, congratulations on quoting a wiki as reference material. In other words, “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!” Oh wait, “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!” I love it how a narrow-minded, no-proof-having, do-anything-to-try-to-be-right, religious zealot will finally resort to citing a wiki. Sorry, kiddo, but I can go edit a wiki to say that God is a cat and Jesus Christ sucked Julius Caesar’s balls for beer money. That’s why your grade school teacher told you to look up words in the dictionary. No no no, not urban dictionary you silly little boy.
Anyway, back to the point, a theory is always a theory otherwise they’d use a new word for it. It means they don’t know. Not a fact. Buy a dictionary that works. And talk about it any way you want, but your silly misinterpretation of the word “so” doesn’t apply to the given context. The two sentences don’t mean the same. Get it through your “I Don’t Use My Brain Unit” hat. I weep for the future when a thing like you will pollute the human gene pool.
Back pedaling? You really believe that personal anecdotal evidence outweighs statistical evaluations on 1000s of people? If you really believe that I got some beach front property in Florida I’d love ya to take a look at. Also, I would love you to quote where I said that you only knew your family’s kids because I honestly have NO idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
Just because something is on a wiki, doesn’t mean it is automatically untrue. For example, the wiki link for disenfranchise says the same thing in different words as the oxford English dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com so we know that it’s correct. Scientific theory is another one where some people edited with atheistic undertones that give no help to the definition of the word, but the definition was still correct. Also, Newton’s Theory of Gravitation is still considered, “just a theory,” but no reasonable person would argue that gravity doesn’t exist, no would they? But, If you don’t like the wiki link here are some more:
The first one is from the University of California, at Berkeley. A very reputable university.
evolution (dot) berkeley (dot) edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory (dot) shtml
I’m also not a religious zealot. Far from it. I haven’t once condemned anyone to an eternity in hell or called people heathens. Despite being called names such as cunt, I have tried my best (even if I haven’t always succeeded) to not call the same kinds of pathetic names. I have debated with pastors who go outside university and yell at people that they know for a fact they are going to hell and wear sandwich signs that say things like I know you touch yourself at night, you’re going to hell with the same kind of passion. I don’t support fire and brimstone preaching at secular institutions and yelling at people they are going to hell anymore than I agree with categorizing religion as child abuse. I am not a religious zealot. In this case I’m defending religion because quite frankly, some of the comments on this thread were as unacceptable to me as my comments were to the people who made them. I don’t think religion is child abuse nor do I think that religious people need to be disenfranchised. For the record, I think people should live and let live. I don’t support religion being taught in schools, nor the intelligent design curriculum.
@Aries, if my personal eye-witness evidence is of a thousand kids then yes, it is indeed as valuable as “statistical” “evidence” of a couple thousand cases. After all, you’re the guy who believes that Jesus Christ lived and was the son of some deity based solely on the alleged eye-witness accounts of only a few people sa reported hundreds of years after the deaths of the man and said alleged eye-witnesses. In the real world we call that hearsay, but you call it proof. I (and countless others) have actual, factual, eye-witness accounts of kids who don’t don’t have the attention spans of a typical A.D.D. sufferer, yet you discount it. You’re about as bassackwards as it gets, kid.
Also, I already quoted where you IMPLIED my only examples were my family members, so learn to read and stfu, El Retardus Maximus.
Just because something is on a wiki doesn’t automatically make it true. Just because one thing on one wiki is true doesn’t mean all things on all wikis are true. Yet you seem to think otherwise. Get your head off the intertubes and learn from life, Asstard Menagerie.
Newton’s theory of gravity is indeed a theory because of the nature of it. He says two bodies just attract by some magical force. That’s the theory. Other theories are that it’s due to magnetic fields. Those are also called theories. So since many scientist believe the gravity theory over Newton’s does that make it a fact? So both theories are fact now? How does that even work, Mental Superpower?
You are clearly a Text Book Wizard with no real-world experience (i.e. you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about). Get your face out the book and live a little. You MIGHT, MIGHT, MIGHT learn something.
But you didn’t mention a personal eye witness account of a thousands of kids, did you? Nope. Also, one person’s experiences do not statistical trends make. The fact of the matter is, kids do not have the same cognitive abilities as adults. They have shorter attention spans, and less judgement abilities. The average child compared to the average adult will lose in almost every comparison mentally. That is why it is up to adults to guide and protect them and raise so they can reach their full potentials. That is also why they are not subject to the same punishment under the law as an adult, even holding everything else equal.
I did not imply that your only example was your family. I said just because the people in your family are x, doesn’t mean y. That doesn’t mean only the people in your family are x, it simply mean that is a false corollary. I think I know what I meant to say better than you do, why don’t you take your own advice.
I didn’t say that just because something is on a wiki, that made it true. I said that just because something is on a wiki, it doesn’t automatically make it false. I told you to compare other sources to determine the validity of the wiki’s statement. In this case, though it appeared on a wiki you can see that what the wiki said about Scientific Theory being different than just a theory in the more common usage of the term was correct. You’re the one that got all preachy because I used a wiki the first time to illustrate my point.
I didn’t say that Scientific Theory=fact. I said that Scientific Theory was the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. Theory is held to a much higher level, so the term theory is not as fast and loose as you claim it is. Hell, the Earth rotating around the sun is considered “Heliocentric Theory,” but no reasonable person would assume that Sun rotates around the earth at this point, now would they? So your whole, “just a theory,” simply does not hold water. It is being presented to children as the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. It makes no references to the fact that not everyone thinks it’s true and have competing, feasible claims. It doesn’t say, we believe x, but there is a good chance that it could be false. Why? Because it’s irrelevant to the teaching of evolution. They teach elementary children in school that the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an airplane. Why? Because those are earliest one it’s easy to attribute these “facts,” too even though there is strong evidence to support that this may or not be true. But do they say we BELIEVE that the Wright Brothers flew the first airplane? No, a little kid doesn’t need to know about the controversies surrounding the 1902 flight race.
@Aries, sure I did. I even quoted it again for you. You know, how I said, “…around kids all my life…” I guess it’s not obvious to the obtuse? And there you go changing your argument again. Cognitive ability does not equal attention span. You are really bad at this, kiddo. It’s no wonder you seem to not know what you’re talking about. I get it now. You have A.D.D. and can’t stick with an argument. Just remember, the world is not like you. No two people are alike. Kids in general don’t have short attention spans. Adults in general don’t have long attention spans. See, I made my sentences short so you can take them all in. You’re welcome.
You implied I only had a few examples. Then you lied about your arguments. Then you backpedaled You still are. Short sentences goo for Aries. Short paragraphs even better.
You quoted the wiki. Then you defended its validity wither other wiki facts. You’re confused. You’re also the preachy woman, not me. You also love some dead guy you think may have been names Jesus. And he wasn’t even Hispanic. Excellent. Shorter sentences! Good good good!
Maybe you don’t know what pinnacle means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pinnacle I know it’s long, but try to read it in steps. You might get it. A theory is the beginning, not the highest achievement. Think about it. I know it’s hard for you. Do it anyway. The scientist has an idea. It’s called a theory. If he’s right he might prove it. That would be the pinnacle. Get it now? Ask Jesus to help you. Never mind. That’s obviously where you learned this crap. From the imaginary dead guy. Even a child knows that a theory isn’t a fact. Are you a child? No. Because then you’d know too. You’re just a Jesus freak. But that’s just a theory. Or to you a fact. Short. Sentences. Did that help?
“been around kids my whole life,” does not necessarily mean that you’ve been around 1000s of kids. My little brother has been around kids his whole life too, his classmates. It could easily just mean that because you have a large family, someone at one point or another always seemed to have a child. Like I said, I don’t know how old you are, I don’t know you from Adam. Why you think someone should assume you’ve been around 1000s of kids just because you’ve been around them your whole life is beyond me.
Once again, I didn’t say that kids in general have ADD or super short attention spans. I said that kids have shorter attention spans than adults. Adults in general DO have better cognitive abilities than children. This includes attention span (being able to focus is a cognitive ability), judgement, reasoning, etc. All of these are true because a child’s brain is not fully developed yet. This is why even kids who are big enough to sit behind the wheel of the car, and who lacks the motor skills to drive, still are not allowed to drive cars. They don’t pay attention to the road. Yes some adults have adult onset ADD, and yes some kids have better cognitive abilities than some adults. But in general adults > children in cognitive abilities. This is why the law protects them the way it does.
YOu do only have a few examples. You haven’t been graphing and testing children’s attention spans for each child you’ve met. You’re basing it on things like, “have you ever seen a kid play a video game?” That is not science. And even if you had, one person’s life experiences are not enough to determine general trends for populations of people based off age.
I am not preachy. Go back and read my first posts. Just because I choose to defend religion in the context of the debate (child abuse or not, disenfranchise them or not) doesn’t mean that I go around screaming at people to convert or else. You can be preachy about other things besides religion, and you’re the one that jumped on the soapbox about wikis.
A hypothesis is the beginning, theory is the end. Also, this is not a wiki, this is a university website aimed at teaching people about evolution: evolution (dot) berkeley (dot) edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory (dot) shtm From a prestigious university. I didn’t cite any other wikis but the first one. I cited a university page, a book, some random webpages and a dictionary. That some webpage information is unreliable is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is if you test the validity of these cites against things from more established sources, such as Berkeley University educational pages and the information is the same you can reasonably infer that the information on those websites is valid.
By the way, as I said before theory is the pinnacle of scientific analysis. It goes like this: Think of a question you want to investigate, do some background research, form an hypothesis, test, analyze results, if hypothesis is true report those results, if hypothesis is wrong back to testing. Wash, rinse, repeat. After a enough tests are done, and enough information has been gathered and held true repeatedly, then a theory is formed. C’mon man, this is elementary school science.
@Aries, you sad little child, if you really think a theory is the end then that explains why you are a religious zealot. You obviously never got past “elementary school science.”
And once again, cognitive abilities have nothing to do with attention spans. Maybe now you should look up the word “cognitive.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive This is getting to be a trend with you, kid. You use words you don’t understand a lot don’t you? And until you meet and test every kid and every adult on Earth you can’t say that, in general, kids have shorter attention spans than adults. Statistics aren’t rules of a species. When you grow up you might understand this.
And yes, you are preachy. Looks like you also don’t know what the word “preach” means. I’m not surprised. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preach See definition 2 under verb: you are most certainly urging your ideas in a tiresome manner.
Aries, once again, cognitive abilities have nothing to do with attention spans. Maybe now you should look up the word “cognitive.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive This is getting to be a trend with you, kid. You use words you don’t understand a lot don’t you? And until you meet and test every kid and every adult on Earth you can’t say that, in general, kids have shorter attention spans than adults. Statistics aren’t rules of a species.. When you grow up you might understand this.
@Aries, yes, you are preachy. Looks like you also don’t know what the word “preach” means. I’m not surprised. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preach See definition 2 under verb: you are most certainly urging your ideas in a tiresome manner.
A study on cognitive abilities, particularly how the complexity of commercials affected a child’s ability to focus. (by the way the length of time and ability to focus is your, Attention Span.) http://crx.sagepub.com/content/1/1/69.short
A study on cognitive abilities, particularly how the complexity of commercials affected a child’s ability to focus. (by the way the length of time and ability to focus is your, Attention Span.) http://crx.sagepub.com/content/1/1/69.short
You don’t know anything about me besides this lamebook posting. It doesn’t make me a preachy person. Sure the whole thread can be seen as preachy, as can certain comments from everyone on here. But that doesn’t make ME preachy. You don’t know anything about ME as a person. In fact, I’m generally pretty quiet and try to take a neutral position. But, I cannot take a neutral position on religion=child abuse. That doesn’t make me preachy, just passionate about advocating for people’s rights. No matter how small a change, I wouldn’t want to sit back and let someone be accused of something as heinous as child abuse when they did nothing to warrant it. Besides that, I’m a generally quiet person and to be honest this is the longest I’ve ever spoke on the issue. Probably because the format doesn’t allow for you to chat so responses come days/hours at a time. You on the other seem to be just arguing for the sake of arguing.
@Aries, once again you change your argument. You said, “Theories are the pinnacle of scientific knowledge.” No they’re not. Again, try to figure out what “pinnacle” means so you don’t look like a fool for the rest of your pointless life.
@Aries, I know you are either stubborn or stupid. I know that you’re preaching on this forum. That, by definition makes you preachy. What’s wrong, kiddo, you can dish it out but you can’t take it? And you are clearly arguing just to argue, so what’s your point here? You’re obviously not trying to get anything out of the discussion because your mental disability and/or A.D.D. prevents you from absorbing the information repeatedly posted. No, you’re just preaching.
You really need to learn the definition of changing an argument. Adding new information is not changing your argument.
I provided that journal to show whether you personally agree or not there are scientific studies that focus on attention span as a cognitive ability. Congitive skills are skills that are used in the process of gaining knowledge, being able to focus on the information being given so that you can absorb it is a necessary tool in gaining knowledge. Therefore, attention span is a cognitive ability.
You obviously didn’t look at the illustration. It said the same thing as I have been saying. Or are you too stupid to realize that the point that all the other steps lead to is the pinnacle of the process. I know what pinnacle means. The pinnacle is the highest or culminating point. Culminating means to arrive at the final stage. The final stage is Theory. Scientists observe something, develop a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and report results. If those results hold true in numerous tests over time a theory is formed. Since the theory is the culmination of all that work, it is the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. I don’t know how posting a chart somehow changes my argument when it puts in colorful arrow form exactly what I have been saying, but I suspect you throw out a lot of phrases you don’t understand.
Being a preachy person, and preaching are two different things. For a word to describe a person, it has to hold true in more than one encounter. Doing something one time doesn’t mean that you are that thing. For example, a person who runs really fast because a lion is chasing them. Just because aderanline allowed that person to run fast that one time, it doesn’t mean they are a fast runner in general. Or the lady that lifted a truck off her kid. Just because adrenaline allowed her to lift an object as heavy as that it doesn’t mean that she is Hercules and could so on a regular basis, now does it? Of course not. So, just because I was forced to get preachy on this site, doesn’t mean i’m a preachy person. You cannot tell anything about a person from such a short time period unless they say something about their core beliefs. For example, you can safely say that I’m a Christian. You can’t call me a zealot though, because someone who is defending their religion from an attack on it, is of course going to defend it with a lot of passion. That doesn’t mean that in general that person does things like go around protesting at funerals. I assure you I do no such things. As I said before, I’m a generally quiet person. But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to sit back and let someone accuse others of child abuse without having anything to say on the issue.
I have gotten something out of the discussion though. Just because you haven’t changed my mind and converted me into an atheist/agnostic that thinks preaching is lying child abuse and that religious people should be disenfranchised, doesn’t mean I haven’t gotten anything out of it. I found a new source of information, google books! I also learned that I don’t particularly care if someone thinks I’m a cunt, or retard or whatever when it comes discussions like this. What have YOU gotten out it? You’ve taken no discernible side on the original debate, and all you’ve done is call a bunch of names and throw out dictionary definitions of words that you still proceed to use incorrectly.
You on the other hand, while admitting to be agnostic and claiming you put religous zealots and hardline atheists in the same boat decided to single me and masterprop out for unknown reasons. You have a less problem with an atheist calling someone who is religious a cunt who abuses children and should have their rights taken away than a religious person who uses a bible quote in two of their 100+ comments and never as a justification of their comments but only in instances when someone is making a direct reference to the Christian belief structure. (which if you read my first post was what I too was saying, only difference I backed up what I was saying by not singling out a single person. Just because sweetpea never replied back to me doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have told her the same kinds of things, only that would have been a more biblical debate.)
My point is and has always been Live and Let Live. I never said that religion was better, only that it wasn’t child abuse or lying. Religious people don’t deserve to be disenfranchised. If replying to other people’s posts that they shouldn’t throw out those kinds of names and that religious people are equal to everyone else is preaching to you, than whatever. I don’t care. But i sincerely doubt you are being genuine since you seem to claim that you put hardline atheist in the same boat as religious zealots but you don’t. If you did you would take exception to someone campaigning to strip religious people of their rights or supporting the removal of children from their homes. You would probably also be able to understand why religious people would take exception to that kind of rhetoric, and how it could piss them off. If you were neutral you’d be able to empathize with both sides and wouldn’t want either side to attempt to disenfranchise the other. But you don’t. Instead you’re like, well you have a point atheists, religious people are a bunch of liars. I honestly respect Alan and even childish Rogue more because at least they practiced what they preach. You claim that we should live and let live but then don’t practice what you preach. Now, maybe something I and MasterProp said really just lit a fire under you so much so that you were blinded to anything anyone else was saying. I don’t know, maybe you aren’t like that in life in general. However, considering your screen name I’m suspecting you do just argue for the sake of arguing, and hate on others because it’s fun for you. I don’t know for sure, I don’t know you from Adam.
What I do know is, all your childish name calling is annoying. And you annoy me. Dish it out but can’t take it? Name one instance of me calling everyone else heathens who are surely going to hell. Name one instance of me calling someone a cunt? I assure you, that you cannot. As for a mental disability, I have none. Just because someone doesn’t believe the way you doesn’t mean that they are mentally disabled, immoral, etc. In fact, if you actually bothered to read my posts you would see that I took the same kind of exception to someone saying an atheist shouldn’t teach their children nothing happens after they die. I even said that satanists (despite my dislike for them as people) shouldn’t automatically have their children taken away. I’m not campaigning for Christianity, I’m saying that we should live and let live. That no one is better than anyone else. That raising your kids within a belief system isn’t child abuse. That no one should be disenfranchised. You on the other hand, are just hating on religious people for no discernible reason. It’s not like you are an atheist who believes that religion is child abuse and thus you must attack the religious, at least not according to you. So then why are you name calling so much? What point besides “I’m right, everyone else is wrong, and you religious people are a bunch of liars” are you trying to make.
@Aries, no you need to learn how to stop changing your argument. First you say all kids have shorter attention spans than all adults. Then, since I crushed that ridiculous argument, you change it to all kids have a lower cognitive ability than all adults.
Also, you first said that theory is the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. After I (once again) crushed that ridiculous argument, you change it to theory is the end of scientific method. Either you have A.D.D. of you’re at least mildly retarded.
@Aries, I singled out no one. I responded to the atheist who confused the meanings of atheism and agnosticism. I also pointed out how they can’t prove a deity doesn’t exist. You’re (at least) mild retardation apparently prevented you from comprehending that. They apparently realized I was right and declined to argue further. You being (at least) mildly retarded continue to preach away like the preachy, retarded, lying child you are.
My point is that you’re an uneducated, closed-minded, lying douche. My point is that you should be euthanized before you get some chick drunk enough to date rape her and pollute the gene pool.
no you need to learn how to stop changing your argument. First you say all kids have shorter attention spans than all adults. Then, since I crushed that ridiculous argument, you change it to all kids have a lower cognitive ability than all adults.
I said that attention span falls under cognitive abilities and maintained my position that children (in general) have lower cognitive abilities/attention spans than adults. I even linked an article studying cognitive abilities and specifically attention span. I did not change my argument, merely expanding on it and if you had any reading comprehension skills you would see this is not a change of argument. You didn’t crush anything, you completely failed to prove that scientific analysis in the form of statistical analyzation of the human brain > your personal life experience. You also failed to provide any proof that attention span isn’t a cognitive ability.
“Also, you first said that theory is the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. After I (once again) crushed that ridiculous argument, you change it to theory is the end of scientific method. Either you have A.D.D. of you’re at least mildly retarded.”
Pinnacle is defined as culmination is defined as end result. I You didn’t crush anything and I continued to use the word pinnacle in my posts. I guess to you, using synonyms for clearer understading is changing your argument. Synonym Use=mental retardation. LOL
“Aries, if you honestly think that COGNITIVE ABILITY is the EXACT SAME THING as ATTENTION SPAN then you definitely are at least mildly retarded.”
Once again, I did not say they were the same thing. I said that attention span was a cognitive ability. I used cognitive ability as a category of which several things fall. Specifically I defined cognitive ability the way dictionary.com’s subsite reference.com defined it, and the way many sites define it. I said and I qoute my earlier qoute, “Congitive skills are skills that are used in the process of gaining knowledge.” But since you don’t believe me, here is yet another definition for you. http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/12/18/what-are-cognitive-abilities/
I said that the end result of all that knowledge derived from using the scientific method (aka the culmination) is Theory. Since Pinnacle is defined as the highest OR CULMINATING POINT by the dictionary, and theory is the culmination of many studies conducted using the scientific method and the highest point of scientific knowledge as illustrated by the flow chart explaining the scientific method then we know that Science is the Pinnacle of the scientific method. Once again, your reading skills are wanting. I never changed my argument, just the way I phrased it. Since you refused to believe those sites explaining the “just a theory myth,” I encouraged you to google the scientific method. Not because Theory and The Scientific Method are exactly the same. I already fully illustrated I know the steps of the scientific method and have said the them over and over again. I was merely pointing out that at the end of the flow charts that explain the Scientific Method you will see a little thing called Theory. Since Theory is the end/culminating point of all that work, that makes it the pinnacle. Theory is a step, the all important final step, but a step none the less in the larger process known as the scientific method. Scientists don’t come up with theories and then test them. They make observations, form hypothesis, test, and if successful report results. If after a while and numerous tests the results are the same then and only then is theory formed.
My point is that you singled me out for the special name calling like uneducated, lying, douche, date rapist, etc. You claimed that Masterprop wasn’t a Christian and proceeded to try to attempt to argue with him and tried to tell him what HE believed. Just because you may have disagreed with someone else on the forum doesn’t mean you didn’t single people out as primary targets. I don’t see you being anywhere as close to as nasty to others as you are to me. They didn’t stop arguing because you convinced them too, they stopped because they got tired of rehashing the same debate and realized they weren’t going to change my mind anymore than I was going to change their. Because, and to qoute Alan, “…like global debates this going nowhere…” They decided to leave.
My point is that you’re annoying me with all the petty name calling and only proving my point even if you think you are being clever. Name calling is the best defense of the people who aren’t smart enough to use evidence, such as the numerous sites I have posted as evidence, to win a debate. They just think because they can call names, they are crushing someone in a debate. It’s tiresome and laughable. Also, if you really believe I am mentally retarded lying child then it makes you an evil person if you think I should be euthanized because I believe things that only a retarded person would. So either you know full well that you are lying through your teeth when you throw out insults like that, or you are terrible person in the inside. The kind of which laws have to be written against so they don’t go around trying to execute mentally retarded people. Which one is it?
@Aries, no matter how much you babble on and how many times you repeat your idiocy, cognitive ability is not equal to attention span and does not “fall under” it. Two separate things, kiddo. Stop the stupidity already.
And yes, you’re fully wrong about theories being the “pinnacle” of scientific knowledge. And that’s exactly what you said. I’ve quoted it a few times. You don’t want to accept it though because you know how stupid you look. Denial much? Retarded much? :p
Read, boy. Read. Then you’ll see why it is you think you’re singled out. The other never argued against what I said because they know I’m right. You know I’m right too, but you’re too stubborn and childish and (at least) mildly retarded to admit it.
I’m name calling because, first off, you started it, and secondly because I’m done being smart with stupid people like you. You want to argue on and on when it’s been proven that you’re wrong. You’re being childish so I call you a child. You’re being stupid so I call you stupid. You’re acting retarded so I’m calling you a retard. Facts is facts, kiddo.
Finally, yes, you should be euthanized. Not executed. Euthanized. For your own good and the good of humanity. You’re a liar, you condone child abuse, and you’re (at least) mildly retarded. You can’t possibly be of any use or good to this world.
No matter how much proof I present, you’re going to call it babbling and have a “I’m right, your wrong,” mentality. But the fact of the matter is I’ve got universities, scientists and dictionaries all saying the same thing. I’ve posted link after link after link. You’re clearly just too afraid to click them because you’re afraid you’re going to be proven wrong. But anyone who bothers to click them will see that you are so throughly wrong that it’s weird there is even an argument about this. I bet next you’re going to tell me that penultimate means the best. It’s funny actually.
They did argue against what you said, Alan didn’t agree with your clearly uneducated views about science anymore than I do. He just chose not to argue about it because unlike you instead of picking fights about random things he is capable of having a debate where he sticks to the subject.
You were never smart if you honestly think name calling does anything to prove your point. Give me one good reason anyone should believe you, when you have provided no references for your view point (I have) and have instead chosen to call names. If someone asks two different people what a word means, and one person consults a dictionary and the other person just calls them a retard, who do you think any rational person would believe? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the one calling someone a retard just because they disagree.
Executed, Euthanized, both=killing somebody. Why don’t you understand synonyms? You yourself in other posts claimed that preaching isn’t child abuse, and now you are claim that I condone child abuse because I said preaching isn’t child abuse? By the way, preaching isn’t lying. You’ve given no proof whatsoever that it is. You’re true colors have finally revealed themselves though. You are not the “live and let live agnostic,” that you claim to be. You have the dangerous mindset that people who believe in religion should all be executed. And who anyone disagrees with you and is different than you is a retard who should be executed. That’s the kind of dangerous mindset that allowed the holocaust to happen.
NO, you started it in post 153 when you accused me of being unable to carry on a conversation about bible quotes and in post 188 you started saying btw, you’re god and I’m going to put feces in your mothers mouth in direct response to me (and the religous people on the board in general) asserting that there is a god and that just because you can’t see him doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. The first time you just started name calling which was 198 prior to which I had not called you a single name. Besides the hater, which is your screen name.
And for your information, I’ve already done a lot of good for this world. I’ve saved a kid’s life by pulling him out of the way before he was hit by a car, I’ve furnished apartments for Hurricane Katrina victims and was even recognized by the city council for which I live in for my efforts, I’ve helped build orphanages in Belize, I’ve gathered and given away toys for children in poor homes for Christmas, I’ve helped provide many thanksgiving meals for poor people, I’ve helped renovate the middle school I attended (right before I graduated actually) by fixing and painting all the bathrooms so they kids who came after me had something nice to look at. I’ve helped build a playground in a park for children in a poverty stricken area, I’ve helped staff blood drives numerous times, and I have volunteered at soup kitchens numerous times as well. I’ve done a lot of charity work, and all of this before the age of 25 and much it before I could even drink. None of this was through a church, I might add. Although I have participated in church activities as well. By the way did you know that Christians have donated more time and money than any other modern group (and by group I don’t mean countries) and that the Catholic Church is the world largest charity? I’m personally not a Catholic, but considering that is only but one branch of the Christian religion I’d have to say that these “lying, child abusers,” have done plenty of good for this world.
Oh, and by the way I haven’t had my IQ tested in recent years, but when the school had me tested in middle school 6th grade I had a 124. Certainly not a genius, but that certainly isn’t retarded either. Not even a little bit. I don’t know what makes you think I’m retarded. Probably the fact that as a member of the spelling and grammar check generation, I didn’t care as much about proof reading my punctuation before hitting submit. But I can assure you that I am not even a little bit retarded.
At any rate, even if someone doesn’t do charity work, or even if they are mildly retarded, a human being’s life isn’t measured by how much they can be used by society. I nor anyone else is here for your benefit. No innocent person deserves to be executed or euthanized. You have a very dangerous, evil and sickening outlook on the world. I will pray for your soul.
@Aries, wow you sure typed a lot of crap didn’t you? I actually didn’t read any of it because I’m sure it’s just more lies and (at least) slightly retarded babbling. Instead I just interpreted it as, “Blah blah babble babble lie blah blah.”
The only line I actually read was the last one. Feel free to pray to your pagan homosexual deity, you vile date rapist. At least it’ll keep you out of trouble. Pray long and hard. Like the erection you imagine on your pagan homosexual deity. The long, hard, gay pagan erection you long to have jammed into your waiting anus.
I knew you wouldn’t read it, just like you didn’t read any of the links. You’re afraid of being proven wrong, that’s what you claim to be agnostic when you’re clearly an atheist. You’re so afraid of learning that you’re wrong that when you are proven wrong you devolve into a twelve year old. Shame.
Don’t worry though, I’ll pray for you. I don’t care if you make baseless accusations about Jesus or myself. When you call all these childish names it just makes YOU look bad. Don’t worry though, this just makes me want to pray for you even more. You’re clearly a very lost little soul, may God have mercy on you.
@Aries, no, stupid boy, I read all your links. That’s how I pastes quotes from them. That just proved AGAIN that you never full read anyone elses’ posts. Because you have A.D.D.
Have fun praying to your homosexual deity. In fact, you should pray with the priest you frequently have anal sex with. Pray long… and hard… together. Is he the one who taught you how to date rape children, you sick bastard?
Nope, you didn’t read them. Just because you may have copied or pasted a line of two out of them doesn’t mean you read them. There is no way in hell any sane could possibly read a dictionary and come to the opposite definition of the word unless they didn’t really read it. They all clearly state the same thing I have been saying ad nauseum. Since I’m working under the assumption that you are at least semi-sane, I highly doubt you actually read them. Or am I just giving you too much credit?
I don’t date rape children. However the fact that you have devolved into a five year old is exceedingly sad.
@Aries, you mentally challenged little girl (you said you’re not a boy), just stfu and stop chugging your grandfather’s spoog. You are apparently literate, but your A.D.D. and (at least) mild retardation are getting tiresome.
It’s now clear why you condone date rape and child abuse (mentally and sexually). You were abused in much the same ways by your father and/or grandfather as a child, so now you think it’s ok, you sick freak. Now bend over so your priest and put his manhood in your pooper.
@teaching your children about your religion isn’t child abuse. I don’t condone child abuse. Let’s not bring family into this, I haven’t talked trash about YOUR family, now have I. I said they were probably more advanced than other kids, but that is hardly an insult. Also, my grandfather is dead.
“Fools show their annoyance at once, but the prudent overlook an insult.”
Jesus, Prince of Peace,
you have asked us to love our enemies
and pray for those who persecute us.
We pray for our enemies and those who oppose us.
With the help of the Holy Spirit,
may all people learn to work together
for that justice which brings true and lasting peace.
To you be glory and honor for ever and ever.
This, may be a Catholic prayer (and I’m not catholic) but I think it’s apropos. Since you have devolved into gibberish, I have decided to replace bible qoutes for my replies in the hopes that someone can at least learn something. I will not however simply call you names that have no basis in reality. I’m better than that, and I’m sincerely hoping as a mother and/or father that bullying and name calling someone who you suspect is mentally retarded and thus incapable of understanding your point of view isn’t the solution. (I’m not, but you seem convinced that I am which should be enough of a reason not to post things like your last post.) Remember, it takes all kinds to make a planet. I’m sure you’re a great parent (not being sarcastic here, in fact being very sincere) as you seem to be pretty passionate about things like fostering Independence, critical thought, and defending your belief system. I encourage you to not let defending your belief system though not lead you to promote close mindedness or refusal to except that you can be wrong sometimes. That sometimes it’s better to allow neutral third parties mediate discrepancies in two people’s views on certain things, like the definition of a word. For example, the dictionary or a medical journal. It’s okay to be wrong sometimes thehater, it doesn’t make you stupid. Nor does it make someone mildly retarded. You should also present facts and evidence when making a provable claim, not just belligerently hammer your point across. I might have listened to your definition of the words if you had provided some kind of proof that attention span is a cognitive trait or that the “just theory” concept is fact rather than myth. You didn’t provide such links however, you just belligerently stated your opinion over and over again.
@Aries, so when you and your priest “pray” together, does he just diddle your bum with his finger or do you let him go all in with his holiness? Did he rape you first or did you actually initiate this inappropriate behavior? Has he had his way with all the “men” in your family or just you? Does you boyfriend know you also get it on with you priest? I bet Jesus would love your story, you know, being that he’s gayer than a love child between Boy George and Elton John. Oh sorry, I’ve brought up two more of your fantasy flames.
What man is there who desires life and loves many days, that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry.
Jesus Christ was a gay man named Mustafa. He changed his name to Jesus because he thought he was Hispanic. He liked to lick balls of his boyfriend named Bumbata. His god was a c0ck as big as the Titanic.
11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
OMG I’ve fornicated loads of times. What can I do? The bible says I’m not inheriting the Kingdom of God? Is there any hope for me? Can the sweet cleansing love of Jesus wash the dirty face of even such a wretch as I?
Nah, just kidding Aries, this religion is still fucking stupid. I’m guessing the ‘plans’ in Jeremiah for prosperity don’t include gays. God has entirely different ‘plans’ for them, huh? The whole system is a sick joke, and people like you only further exacerbate the problem.
If you’re guna pray for something, perhaps you could pray that history forgives the ignorance of people like yourself, and the way you help to hold back human progress.
Believe or don’t, I’m not trying to convert you nor anyone else. All of the quotes are in direct response to the hater’s absurd accusations that I have raped people, and was raped by family and priests. Certainly, if you were was as moral as you claim to be you wouldn’t seek to attack my religion for using them in such a manner. You yourself admitted that theoretically speaking you would not exclude the possibility that God might exist, but you believe that he does not because you find no proof. You also take exception to the Christian God and really don’t believe that Christianity could possibly be true. That is fine. I wasn’t hear to debate whether or not God exists, and I have advocated for religious rights that are incredibly offensive to me. Not because I like those religions, but because I believe all people should be treated with respect and human dignity. I don’t think my religious beliefs should be the only ones allowed in America.
I’m not going to accuse you of raping little children, and I’m not going to claim you were raped by your family and priests in incestuous relations. I wouldn’t make fun of something like that, even if it were true. You seem to be making the case the claim that Christianity is holding the world back. But certainly you can see that is hatred and fear that holds people back, not religion. It is just one of many things people exploit for power, money, resources or land. That is the true root cause of every war, whatever the people starting the war try to justify it with. When you have such blind hatred of someone that you feel more of a need to comment on harmless bible verses then someone attacking people the way thehater is, including bringing in people’s deceased family members that have nothing to do with the situation. You don’t further advance your cause at all. When we look at the people in the world who we admire for brining about positive social change, like Ghandi, do you know what we find? Someone who may not agree with what their opponent is doing, but still realizes that all people are deserving of basic human decency. If you truly want to make an argument that the best thing for mankind is atheism and science, if you want to prove the moral atheist viewpoint, then as Ghandi said you should, “Be the change you want see in the world.” That includes letting go of your prejudices and fighting for what you consider to be your truth and knowledge, but at the same time hanging around people who you shouldn’t want to associate yourself with, people who promote hatred. You don’t have to be rude to them or anything of the sort, just don’t aid them in their spreading of hatred or you will end up in the same position they are in. As far as I can tell, you’re not the same as the hater. You have been (mostly) the most reasonable person for your viewpoint’s camp.
Don’t lose that. Don’t let your hatred of bible verses cloud your view of what’s really going on. I’m not posting them to convert anyone, or to “hold back humanity.” I’m posting them because I refuse to dignify thehater’s venom and hatred with a rebuttal against the obviously false things that he says. I won’t let him/her push me away or around. I’m not going to dignify his charges that I rape people, or was raped by family members and by the pastors of my church with a proper rebuttal. It’s obvious lies, disgustingly petty insults and borderline cyber bullying. Instead, I will just post bible verses to give people something else to look at.
Oh yeah, and he/she started that particular line of posting because he/she thinks that a theory is the same as a hypothesis. He thinks scientists form a theory, and then conduct research and tests to see if it’s true. Seriously, go back and read his last few posts if you don’t believe me. This had nothing to do with religion.
@Aries, when your priest puts his “holiness” inside your butt do you imagine it’s Jesus “The Gaylord” Christ making you squeal like a pig? Remember, no means no. Stop the lying, child abuse, and date rape. Stop Aries.
No,I dont accept that these bible verses are ‘harmless’, they incite human beings to commit the most disgusting acts of barbarism and brutality. You say that they don’t do this any more- take a look at the situation in Uganda and tell me that.
The so-called ‘harmless’ texts that incite genocide of unbelievers, hatred of homosexuals and eternal torture of those that do not comply with the heavenly dictatorship are in fact entirely harmful.
thehater is just trolling you. Seriously, it’s not difficult to work that out, is it?
It is not in any way immoral to ‘attack your religion’. Any concept or belief should be open to critique. It is the common stance of those who believe unsupportable nonsense to start crying when it is criticised. The reason for this is that sustained criticism shows the belief for what it is. Childish, nonsensical and ultimately very dangerous.
You can’t see that, because you are so steeped in the system which is designed to stop you seeing that. And to indoctrinate children from a young age is abuse. I dunno if you’ve ever raped anyone, and frankly don’t care. Your belief in this BS is bad enough.
I don’t need your lecture about hanging around with people who spread hatred. thehater can answer for what he or she writes (trolls) to you. I answer for myself, and to myself.
Finally, I do not admire M. Gandhi. History has whitewashed him into something he certainly was not. He was an able politician, knew a good soundbite when he heard it- but in fact, his insistance on including tenants of Hinduism at a political level in India has contributed to great suffering for countless people on the subcontinent and beyond. Just another deluded religious crackpot who put his own proud belief system above the good of everyone. Sound familiar?