Atheists Are Not Suicide Bombers.

technicality slip up. I'll waive that one to you.


you should think before you try to attribute the crimes of a few ROGUE elements within a population to the entire core of groups within it.

Where "element" = individuals
Where "population" = The complete collection of ALL known religions.
Where "core of groups" =Docrtrines and varied denominations of a single parent religion.

Fixed. ^^

So, some blogger who thinks communism is a religion (lol), who is an Atheist yet is "Pro-Israel" (lol), and who posts nothing but plaugerized works and youtube videos is your source?

Is bulleta still talking to herself?

Do you guys feel bad for Seraph yet? lol

I feel bad for you, yes.

<3 That's hilarious.

But anyway, I've been sick for a few days and it seems I missed some good fun.

I'm sure I'm not the first to comment on this (not going to read 12 pages to find out), but what is up with the OP starting two practically identical threads(on the same day, no less) about religion?

Also, lol at her posting under a different name in the other thread to continue fanning the flames. That amused me greatly. ;)

Edit: She's not angry, just concentrating :3

To say that every person in the world who practices a religion is guilty of hate crimes, violence, or murder is absolutely insane. I never said anything remotely close to that. There was a very big misunderstanding, or either some of you people just lack the simple comprehensive skills needed to read and actually interpret what you read. In my opinion... I think anyone who allows themselves to believe and be brainwashed by such nonsense as Theism, Satanism, and so on, can not possibly have enough brain capacity to allow for cognitive development. Which would explain the misinterpretations, the ignorance, and the arrogance that has been displayed on this thread time and time again. There could be another reason that explains this phenomenon. When losing an argument, some people resort to personal attacks, denying factual~historical evidence(Hitler, Sciptures, and so forth), and charging the person that disagrees= with... Straight up lies would be an understatement.

What I have actually been implying is:

That faith has contributed to more than half of hate crimes, violence, and murder that has happened throughout our entire history. Not just in America, but most of the world. I never said the entire religious world was guilty... There have been a few Atheistic people, who have killed people sure.

But not because Their god said to... (What God?)

But not because they misinterpreted their scriptures...(What Scriptures?)

And most of all...

Not because their scriptures literally say "Kill homosexuals", "Kill unwed non-virgin women". (I'm Atheist. Who the hell~o~l do you think I am? A bible thumping christian...)

Nazi Germany is a perfect example. Hitler was born Catholic, he believed in Christ. Am I saying that everyone who believes in Christ is evil? Absolutely not. But Hitler did not murder Jews, because they looked funny. He hated Jews because they Did not believe in Jesus Christ

Wonderful reason...

I think someone asked me before why Hitler killed other catholics.

Do I need to spoon~feed you?

The catholics who agreed with Hitler, were part of Hitler's Regime. Hmm.. I wonder what happened to the catholics who did not agree with Hitler...

~Jeopardy Theme~

The Scriptures also say:

Because...ya know....murder is wrong.

They also say

But given the lack of maturity, I doubt you would know the moral values of not sleeping with someone who's already in a committed relationship.

It also says:

Because stealing is wrong, amirite? But you wouldn't know that, since the entire basis of your argument is a dead comedian, who, undoubtedly "borrowed" material from other sources.

OH THAT'S SO EVIL!!!!!! HOW DARE YOU BE NICE TO YOUR PARENTS!

That's blasphemy!


That's only a few of the commandments.

So evil...lemme tell ya.

Might I also add you're not "winning" this argument? You haven't disproven any deity, and I doubt you ever will. So I'll go on my happy way, being religious, while you're still a miserable "misunderstood" *** who doesn't know the definition of "bigot."

Of course Religion doesn't encourage hate and murder...

















http://www.imagepoop.com/image/1110/God-Hates-***-***-Die-God-Laughs.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/homeboyphoto/3631002393/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26806952@N08/3643229081/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67496013@N00/116990508/ Thank god for 9/11 ??

I see contradiction, after contradiction :)

Thou shalt not murder...

Unless...

@_~

Thou shalt not murder~>

Straight people. Ok... You got me.

Obedient teenagers. Which accounts for how many teenagers LMAO? 1 out of a million??

Women who were married before they were pregnant. Again, how many women are married before they have a child? LOL

People who don't work on Sunday... Could be why unemployment rates are going up? They don't want to die -.-

Damn... If we went by the bible... We should actually kill the majority of the population of Americans. Yet again... Another understatement.

"murder" is not the same as judicial execution. Why can't you understand that?

lol@fred phelps though. he hates everyone. Once again you are using rogue elements to attribute to a group philosophy.

one in every four African-American men ages 20–29 are either in prison, in jail, or on probation/parole.

hmmm...

if you have ever taken any sort of statistics course you should know correlation doesnt "prove" anything, but I would like to see you be consistent in your logic. If you want to condemn all religions based on the actions of a minority within them, then judge non religious groups by that same standard. (a minority who are not even acting in a compatible manner with their religion and thus not very religious at all.)

You watch this thread like a hawk don't you :P

SO you're saying that our judicial system should start executing gays, disobedient teenagers, and unwed pregnant women?

You remind me of Michael Moore. Are you a fan of his by chance?

Why not? our courts say its okay to kill babies within the womb.

No..... What I'm saying is take your own medicine and be "open minded"

I'm saying that your western 21st century world view isn't automatically "better" than that of 1,500 B.C. Palestine.

I'm saying that was the WRITTEN LAW of the people to whom it was given to by God, through Moses.

I'm saying that the LAW had its positive and negative commands followed by laid out penalties.

I'm saying that it is not immoral to kill gays, disobedient teenagers, or unwed mothers because..

IF there is no God, then NOTHING is immoral or wrong.

I'm saying your OPINION of morality doesn't hold ANY weight because YOU, myself and everyone else are HUMANS with limited understanding, corrupt natures, self-seekers, and nature's hypocrites.

I'm saying NO ONE'S "values" have authority over ANOTHER person. Unless there is a God, then that God and that God ALONE has the sovereign RIGHT to define good and evil, excercising that authority in the OFFICE of creator.

I'm saying that if you read my previous post, according to the Bible every single person in history (Besides Jesus) has broken that law and concluded that ALL PEOPLE deserve death as a result, and that the whole POINT of Jesus was to "pay your fine" and take the penalty in your place.

Remeber that old saying you always hear? "let him that is without sin cast the first stone."?

Yeah, that comes from the story where a woman who was caught in adultery was taken out and about to be stoned (which was the penalty for that crime) Basically what Jesus was saying is that the men who were about to stone her were ALSO guilty of breaking the law and thus, as HYPOCRITES they were unfit to stone ANYONE. It's a moral lesson.

You have me spoon feeding theology now. Seriously, you need to understand the context of the law. You need to understand that context that WE living today and our ideals about right and wrong are "new" and not "universally true" We are just a footnote in the pages of history. We are no more sophisticated than any other era in human history when it boils down to it. We are still hypocritical degenerative liars, users, self-seekers,and back-biters. "dog eat dog"

Things we all appaul today very well may be defended tomorrow. Future generations might look back on how we view modern taboos and think of us as bigoted hatemongers. Morality is of God or is relative and not at all. Therefor, your "justice league" crusade is void because there is no universal justice if you want to take out the idea of God.

The reason there are close to 100 different sects of chistianity alone is because NOONEunderstand the context of the law.

According to you, You're right everyone else is wrong.

Which is exactly what religion teaches.

like the constitution?

Need to understand the context of the modern world in the scope of history (including the future) when you consider the ideas of "absolute morality"

Like every document written by man ~> Imperfect.

If god would have had anything to do with writing the bible, it would have been perfect and everyone would have understood it.

Since god is perfect, and everything he does is perfect, right?

No, the constitution's interpretation is subject to men's ignoranceand corrupt distortion of context. It never claimed to be infallible.

human opinions change and america was founded on the idea of self-government. For this cause, the constitution was written as a "living document" in that it ADMITS to itself that it is imperfect and yields to the generations to come for its change.

the Bible (and many other rleigious texts) claim to be infallible. The Bible for instance says not to change so much as a yod or Tiddle (like the dotting of an i or crossing of a t but in hebrew)

The problem with interpreting the Bible, for instance, (along with intentional human twisting) is that it is translated. That dosnt affect those who know the original language. It affects people who have translated versions. translations of translations. original meanings are lost. idioms lost.

Oh, and those "Christian sects" you reference are primarily the product of constantine and again the crusade era. It's also 'european' countries where this really became a problem. crusaders didnt even read the bible and the "mass" was all in latin which people generally didnt speak. They relied on corrupt popes to spin scriptures. The reformation was the result of corruption. I'm half-assing this atm as im doing somethig irl but this is enough.

Well... I do know one thing for certain.

You're not going to change my way of thinking.

Likewise...

I'm not going to change you're way of thinking.

There is no evidence that proves god's existence.

There is no proof god doesn't exist.

Let me remind you though...

There is no proof that Pink Unicorns don't exist either.

Look all around you for evidence that a creator exists. You think the very first unit of matter just generated itself? is that anymore credible than God being "eternal"? At least god claims to not be composed of physical elements. Good thing those "unsophisticated" ancients had the foresight to invent their god in a "spirit" form to bypass the big bang and like-minded THEORIES. >.>

I know theres probably less than .0.0001x 10^6% chance of persuading you. The reason i even bother is

A: to test myself.

B: to provide a voice for the opposing side; that the lurkers who may actually be giving an honest look at Theism AND atheism have more to look at than the typical Utsusemi: straw man power point.

Hey, no one wants to go on believing in a lie. If I could be convinced that no religion is right. If you could prove the bible to be false, then why would anyone want to yoke their one precious life to it? If the idea of god is so fantastic, it shouldnt be too hard to figure out a logical argument that would show that God is considerably less probable than magic cosmic spontaneous explosions that dont need matter to create a universe, if not prove the impossibility of God outright.

No one should continue living in an obvious lie. Now, which one of us owns the lie? Which possibility is more fantastic? I'll tell you right now, at base value theyre just as likely. Except God doesnt "need" ingredients. Your magic explosion does.

Unicorns do exist.

rhinoceros

duh.

But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. James 1:14

Each individual is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of what religion you claim or don't claim. Whatever movies you do or don't watch. Video games you do or don't play... ect. ect. ect.

bloody hell, just realized OP has started THREE threads on the same topic. Managed to get one locked. I am officially done in her threads as she is just an idiotic troll.

Oh that's bull and you know it. Even the Bible says humans have the ability to determine what is good and evil. Tree of Knowledge and all that.

That morality is relative is a hard concept for a lot of people to grasp. We'd all like to believe that there is an ideal "Truth" out there for what is 100% right or wrong, but the truth is that our experiences throughout our lives and history influence how we see the world. That's why a lot of the laws in Leviticus get tossed out. I wonder why more people don't figure this out: the stuff that says gays are evil is in with the same stuff that says not to wear cotton and linens at the same time and that slavery is okay. You don't need a book to tell you that slavery and murder are wrong because you have the ability to figure that out on your own.

Morality is something human beings figure out for themselves, and even most theists acknowledge we have the ability to scrutinize.

Aside from the fact that a perfect being wouldn't have let his plan get mucked my by talking snakes in the first place, why would God give us laws if we couldn't follow them? And why is someone else suffering your punishment for your crime considered justice? That's like someone else serving 20 years for me robbing a bank. That doesn't make sense.

And it's a beautiful story. It was also not in the original Bible. It does not show up in the earliest known copies of the gospels (note: we do not have any original copies of any book of the Bible.) It was a popular folk tale about Jesus, similar to other non-canonical stories like the Gospel of Thomas, except that people really liked it and early scribes inserted it into the Bible. Fun facts are fun. :)

The thing is, ancient people didn't conceive of God as a perfect being. God is described as being "sorry" for making human beings in the story of the Flood, jealous in the commandments, and unknowing of things that would happen in the future in several books (Genesis & Job come to mind). If you believe in Trinity, Jesus and the God of the old testament are the same guy in different persons, but Jesus makes a new covenant, which is a change, declares unclean animals fit for consumption, etc. This is God changing his mind.

Everything is relative. And it doesn't make it worthless.

You're right, they should know that. Christians should never make the assumption that morality is a Christian concept alone. There are other religions such as Buddhism--to name one--that agree that morality is the ideal medium through which peace and order can be attained. Christianity, however, is a religion based on the love of God, and through Him, loving others.
And you're absolutely right; it doesn't make sense, and it's not supposed to--in the immediate sense, anyways.

Paul says in Romans 3:20,23-24, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin....for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
So the law, while its intention was to be followed, was and is completely impossible to follow. Hence why ritual sacrifices were necessary, and later on, the payment through Christ's death on the cross. But why would God send his son...? Love. You've heard it before: John 3:16.
Ooh, you sir (or madam!) are more aware of this than most Christians I know! /salute!! It's true about the insertion; it was never there to begin with. Funnily enough, they make a note of it in many Bibles that this section of Scripture was added and not in the original text. So anyone brash enough to deny this would have to look again.

However, this is where I feel it comes down to personal belief: whereas I understand the history of the Bible's early beginnings, I'm of the belief that the men who put these scriptures together were guided by God. I've read the Bible over and over many times in my years, and I'm still convinced of its spiritual applications and message of love throughout the entire text. However, most of the arguments that arise against Christianity never address this directly, but--well, look at Bulleta's approach. Many are more willing to address human error rather than addressing adherence to true Christian doctrine. In your case, Maru, I'm willing to concede the fact that the early beginnings of the Bible are questionable; I, however, haven't found any contextual reason to doubt it.
To be honest, I've always read those differently than what you've stated--I never felt that God's emotional state attests to his imperfection, rather I feel that it attests to his ability to feel; that he's not the sort of God Deists view him to be. He has the full capacity (greater, even) to feel pain and grief as caused by the beings he created to love him, but chose not to. But the thing is, even in his grief and pain he didn't destroy all of humanity, he gave them another chance at life. (For those who don't know, Maru is taking this from Genesis 6:5-8)

As for the jealousy, while that is initially expressed in Exodus 20:4-6, it is also expressed in the words of many of the major and minor prophets. Israel and Judah are both illustrated as adulterous wives who have cheated on their ever-faithful husband and have run away with worthless idols, for which that betrayal causes immense pain and grief and jealousy to God.

And in Job, I'm not exactly following you, there. Can you give me a direct quote? I'm only aware of the fact that Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu's monologues shouldn't be quoted directly as scriptural truth, as they're rebuked by God later on for having incorrect views of God and/or Job.
Ooh, actually, from what I've read, God has never changed his mind; he's always determined that "love covers a multitude of sins." Starting in Exodus 34:6-7, it echoes parts of 20:5-6 that "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." It seems entirely contradictory, but it is who God is. Justice and love rolled into one. And none of us are in either category, but rather, in both--fully deserving his punishment, but fully able to accept his love and forgiveness.

Continuing on, the book of Isaiah has countless words of God expressing wrath and judgment, but also a longing to redeem those lost to him: "Yet, the Lord longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice." -Isaiah 30:18. More in chapter 14, too. the entire book is filled with prophecies of judgment, but in many places you will find that his anger is replaced by love for those who repent. The same goes for all the rest of the prophets, especially Hosea through whom God illustrates Israel as an adulterous wife who angers him by betraying him, but he still loves her and wants her back. There's SO much more in the OT that I'd love to go into, but atm I don't have the Bible I study from with me (left it in mom's car >_<) and it's kind of hard for me to find those verses as I only remember where it is by its placement on the page, not by exact verse.

Anyways, that's just my response, there.
I can't agree more with this; perspective influences EVERYTHING. However, perspective doesn't affect your ability to seek truth, be it physical or spiritual. A different perspective, in other words, is no excuse for ignorance and antagonism towards other perspectives.