# Christians make death Threats against Illustrator of Bible Passages



## ElRay (Aug 7, 2014)

The folks that illustrated actual bible passages like:


and:

and:

have received much hate mail and threats in the past, but some true christian nut case has actually tracked the author down and sent personally addressed seat threat:

Scary shit and hypocrisy at it's finest. These are actual passages from one of the many official versions of the bible. Is anything that shows the reality of the bible not really part of the bible and must be hidden?

Sauce:

What Is Awkward Moments? | Awkward Moments (Not Found In Your Average) Children's Bible
The Awkward Moments Childrens Bible: The Passages They Dont Share in Sunday School
Author of Bible Parody Book Receives Death Threats Before Attending Weekend Conference
(More) Death Threats From Christians | Awkward Moments (Not Found In Your Average) Children's Bible


----------



## Mike (Aug 7, 2014)

Thou shalt not understand thy olde grammar. This is why I don't like religion. No matter what, you get these extremists that are ready to hurt other people because it offended their faith. I have plenty of stuff I believe in and was raised catholic. If anything I took the love and acceptance part from it. If someone doesn't believe what you believe, just accept it knowing it's not your duty to judge, or punish the "nonbelievers"

Every magical book has its consequences for what happens to those who don't accept its tenets. So why true believers feel they have to take matters into their own hands is beyond me.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 7, 2014)

Mike said:


> ... punish the "nonbelievers" ...



And supposedly Islam is the only religion mythology that incites and requires people to commit violence. More hypocrisy and ignorance.

What's worse here is that this is actual quotes from one of the many versions of the christian bible. And people still attack with "My bible doesn't use those exact words, therefore you're lying.". The arrogance that their preferred version is the only version, and dodging the issue by claiming the fact that the sentiments agree can be ignored because the words don't match exactly.


Ray


----------



## tedtan (Aug 7, 2014)

Mike said:


> No matter what, you get these extremists that are ready to hurt other people because it offended their faith.



There are plenty of people waiting to hurt others because someone offended them, some just choose to hide behind religion. There are still plenty of flakes out there anyway, though.


----------



## Randy (Aug 7, 2014)

tedtan said:


> There are plenty of people waiting to hurt others because someone offended them, some just choose to hide behind religion. There are still plenty of flakes out there anyway, though.



In general, I notice people have very poor control of their emotions. Something makes them feel a certain way, so they simply react to it because they're too busy feeling sorry for themselves to rationalize their actions. Aaron Hernandez following two people and unloading a gun into their car because a guy spilled a drunk on him in the club, for example.

Religion heeds violence in two ways... 

One, the way I just mentioned. "Seeing two men kiss makes me feel uncomfortable, therefore it must be because it's an affront to god, therefore it's not right." "My wife cheated on me and it makes me feel like less of a man, therefore the only reasonable repercussion is to stone her to death." etc. etc.

The second being the way the powerful use it to amass wealth. Pick whichever televangelist you want as an example. Or pick any of the Crusades era Popes/religious leaders who advocated conquering lands/peoples to protect Christianity; leaving out that said conquering is also accompanied by acquiring lands with vital resources and riches that all go to the church.

In the case of the death threats in the OP, clearly a case of the former. "Somebody made drawings illustrating ridiculous points of something I hold dear, and that makes me feel insecure about my faith, therefore they deserve to die". 

It all boils down to disgustingly insecure people.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 8, 2014)

I've repped Ray too recently to do it again. This does win at least part of the internets.

I wonder what could be changed about those parts of the inerrant Word to make them more acceptable to those who subscribe to fundamentalism?

The fact that the maker of death threats is quoting Deuteronomy 13 will make it hard for fundamentalist Christians to argue against the justification, like Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam not being able to argue against the fatwah for Salman Rushdie. Once you say, "Well, you don't *really* have to believe that part of the Word," you undermine literalism. 

Scary religious people are scary.


----------



## Vrollin (Aug 8, 2014)

Extremists come in all shapes and sizes....


----------



## MailMan (Aug 8, 2014)

But... but... but... How can people who send death threats even consider themselves Christians?


----------



## ElRay (Aug 8, 2014)

MailMan said:


> But... but... but... How can people who send death threats even consider themselves Christians?



Because they cherry-pick and selectively interpret portions of their preferred version of the christian bible that cater to their pre-conceived, indoctrinated from birth and/or closely held as an emotional crutch, BELIEFS.

Ray


----------



## Vhyle (Aug 8, 2014)

This is a prime example, among many others, of why I honestly detest and avoid organized religions in general. Not EVERYONE who is religious is obviously a jackaloon nutjob like this, but I can honestly say that religion does more harm than good. This goes greatly beyond Christianity, of course. The hypocrisy reigns much too strongly among the religious masses, it's disgusting. I want nothing to do with it.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 9, 2014)

And the Christian Taliban/Terrorists win:

Bible Parody Book Author Skips Conference After Receiving Death Threats, but Attendees Are Honoring Him Another Way


----------



## frahmans (Aug 10, 2014)

I remember when the Danish cartoonist made cartoon (joke) about Muhammad. This is similar and the reactions were similar. 

As a Moslem, I was angry but knew violence or threats would do not good. Ok, so I joined a petition. 

There should be more civil ways to show disapproval than violence. But it goes to show those who take religion for face value and not try to internalize what's real or not get carried away by emotions.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 10, 2014)

All I gotta say:


----------



## Explorer (Aug 10, 2014)

That cartoon hits the nail on the head. 

Because we would always read complaints about why assumptions are often made about it, my friends and I started playing a game where, whenever we run across a news story about a shooting at a music show, the others have to guess what kind of show it is. 

"Country?"

"No."

"Opera?"

"No."

"Blues?"

"No."

"Indie?"

"No."

"Rock?"

"No." 

"Hiphop?"

"Yes! How did you guess?!"

----

Okay, so it seems that those of us who have bothered to post are against this kind of thing, and I know I'm not the only person who has talked about this with friends and acquaintances. 

Reading the comments on the articles, there's lots of apparent atheists posting, and occasionally someone of faith who is just as scary as "Bloodthirsty God's Little Helper," but not a lot (actually, none that I've seen) of faith who are condemning BGLH.

I guess my question is... do people of faith talk about this stuff amongst themselves, and express disapproval?

Do pastors preach sermons about the evils of zealotry, used to justify murder?

I know that some have expressed being tired about how non-believers of their particular faith might talk about it... but how do they take steps to bring that dialog into their communities?

Does it happen, or is it just ignored?


----------



## ElRay (Aug 10, 2014)

You know, I went to a boxing match the other weekend and a hockey game broke-out. F^cking Obama & the Liberal Media

*{facetiousness for the  impaired}*


----------



## Explorer (Aug 10, 2014)

That underlining made me think it was a link. Denied! The point goes to you... *laugh*


----------



## CrazyDean (Aug 11, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I guess my question is... do people of faith talk about this stuff amongst themselves, and express disapproval?
> 
> Do pastors preach sermons about the evils of zealotry, used to justify murder?
> 
> ...



To your first question, yes. It really is the obvious answer. There aren't a billion Christians who think everyone who disagrees with them should be killed. MOST Christians really try to be good people. However, there are a few extremists. What organization doesn't have those? Some people harbor a lot of anger and hide behind religion to justify their actions. 

As for sermons on the topic of murder, that pretty much never happens. Again, most Christians don't think about trying to murder people. Just like most Democrats don't think about murdering all the Republicans. Pastors tend to speak about things that most people have issues with like marriage and family. The sort of topics that are present in everyday life. They speak on how to improve your life and be happy. It would be pointless for a sermon to contain "Hey guys, you can't just kill people because they don't like Christianity." You would just get a room full of people thinking "well no shit!" Of course, you're in church so no one would actually say that...

As for the illustrations, the second and third are pretty clear, but the first one is a bit out of context. The city was under siege from a neighboring country. The people were starving because there was an army outside that kept supplies from getting to the city. So when you're faced with starvation, cannibalism will sometimes occur.

I don't care for the guy putting out this book because I think its sole purpose is to create hate. That being said, I think the one about slavery is pretty funny.


----------



## Necris (Aug 11, 2014)

CrazyDean said:


> I don't care for the guy putting out this book because *I think its sole purpose is to create hate*. That being said, I think the one about slavery is pretty funny.



Think a bit harder. The point of it was to illustrate some of the stories from the bible that are either downplayed, actively avoided, or, as is most often the case, completely unknown to actual Christians who remain blissfully unaware of them because they've never read their own damn book; and then to laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of said stories (this is optional though).

This isn't "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion".


----------



## ElRay (Aug 11, 2014)

{irrational apologetics snipped}

If you want to pick-nits over one of the three examples, here's 19 + a crossword puzzle: SAMPLES GALLERY - Volume #1. Such as the passages that say the old laws (no wearing leather, no tattoos, no eating shellfish, slavery is OK, polygamy is OK, etc.) are still in effect, and one of the many passages that tell women to shut-up and take a subordinate place. Just be glad they didn't illustrate Ezekiel 23:20



CrazyDean said:


> ... I don't care for the guy putting out this book because I think its sole purpose is to create hate. ...



The only hate created/displayed is by Christians whose faith is so weak that they can't handle the truth of their mythology exposed.

In the author's own words, which can easily be found on the book's website:


Horus Gilgamesh said:


> "The goal of the project,&#8221; says author Horus Gilgamesh, &#8220;is to challenge readers from all walks of life to gain a better understanding of the content of the Bible and its context in modern day culture. The fact that our fans report shooting milk out their noses from laughter is just an added bonus.&#8221;


Once again, a theist/apologist didn't do the easy research before blaming the victim, acting self righteous, claiming persecution were there is none, claiming their mythology deserves special protection/privilege, acting like "freedom of speech" only applies to themselves and/or acting like "freedom of speech" means that others cannot comment, critique or correct their mythological BELIEFS. If theists/apologists weren't intellectually lazy, thought logically and stuck to reality, we wouldn't have all the problems we have due to their confusion between mythology and reality.

The book is NOT satire or parody, because these are actual quotes from one of the 200+ "official" English translations.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 11, 2014)

CrazyDean said:


> ... MOST Christians really try to be good people ...








CrazyDean said:


> ... most Christians don't think ...



Yes, that's the whole point. They don't know their own mythology, and they don't think about what they do know.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 11, 2014)

I almost mentioned Ezekiel 23:20 in the "Baptist Leader Dude Seeks Sex with Animals" topic, but held back. My restraint is to be commended.

That sample of spreading something on someone's "feet"... it's pretty well known if you've done serious Scriptural research that "feet" refers to "legs" and even "the boner/genitals." 

So, she smears his crotch with blood, and that either fools or satisfies the bloodthirsty Almighty. 

Another story where "feet" is a euphemism is the story of Ruth, where after she does uncover his "feet," she tells him to "spread his skirts over her" ("get it on!"). 

----

I guess I'm kind of wondering, from the point of view of the people of faith who object to the actual passages of Scripture... what is the nature of your objection? That knowing this stuff is in there makes it look bad to Christians and non-Christians? 

A lot of people claim that the Bible is about love, and that it is inerrant in its entirety... but there's a lot that is a bit off to most folks. 

The fact is that the true victim of a girl being raped, the one who needs to be made whole, is the father, and the daughter must be taken off his hands in addition to him getting his 50 pieces of silver. You still have folks who think that way in both Islam and Christianity, that females aren't the equals of men, that the thing to be preserved is men's honor... and so many American fundamentalist Christians are all about the women yielding to the men's authority, all based on Scripture. That's what happens when the argument is made seriously that Scripture is the true basis of morality. 

I'll note again... this stuff isn't a problem if you think the Bible is a book written by humans, full of human viewpoints and mistakes, over a long period of time, you can forgive a little slop in the works, and you can say, wow, this part is silly! (Or terrifying, your choice.)

And if you believe it's inerrant, and the source of morality, then you have to work with the stuff which makes it hard to talk to people who have doubts about the inerrancy part.


----------



## frahmans (Aug 11, 2014)

Explorer, personally I try not to come into a discussion and share a quote from a passage - In other words, I try not to be a "Google Preacher".

Many people quote one part of a passage (bible, quran, torah, and other books) without considering the total context of the passage. Moreover, whether or not it is overwritten by another passage is something that individual may not know.

And I can't or don't want to go into a discussion when an individual are quoting passages. The person posting the passage also may not know the total context and use it to argue their own point. And if I reply, I may bring greater harm rather than bringing a better light. 

A lot of misunderstanding in the world is because people are passionate about one passage without knowing the entire context.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 11, 2014)

As many will know, I'm a Christian myself. I don't need religion as a crutch, I chose what faith (or lack thereof) to have, and I am as skeptical as it gets pertaining all sorts of organized religion, simply because I have a hard time digesting the thought of "THAT specific dude knows what God wants and we should totally follow his every teaching" and it's implications on critical thinking and it's more than obvious relevance for our development as human beings.

Having said this, and not even going any deeper in what books are and are not in the Bible and why, any extreme action such as this is unacceptable, so the fine gentleman should do his "divine work" in prison, as should all fundamentalists that act against the most basic and self-evident human rights. The end.


----------



## Surveyor 777 (Aug 11, 2014)

Fred the Shred said:


> As many will know, I'm a Christian myself. I don't need religion as a crutch, I chose what faith (or lack thereof) to have, and I am as skeptical as it gets pertaining all sorts of organized religion, simply because I have a hard time digesting the thought of "THAT specific dude knows what God wants and we should totally follow his every teaching" and it's implications on critical thinking and it's more than obvious relevance for our development as human beings.
> 
> Having said this, and not even going any deeper in what books are and are not in the Bible and why, any extreme action such as this is unacceptable, so the fine gentleman should do his "divine work" in prison, as should all fundamentalists that act against the most basic and self-evident human rights. The end.



Well said, Fred. This pertains to me, also. I am a Christian & have been all my life. Born & raised Catholic, then converted to Lutheran after getting married. Like you, Fred, I don't use religion as a crutch. As time goes on I also question religious things more and more and am skeptical on a lot of things. I have never read the entire Bible, not even close. Just had to read certain parts in school and whatever you hear in church, but I have never actually sat down to read it "for light reading" or anything like that.

I've always wondered about how the Bible was written. From what I remember growing up, I was taught that God spoke to certain men & they wrote down what God said. Coming from a religious family, I didn't question it. But over time I thought, why did God only talk to THOSE guys and not anybody else? And was it actually "speaking" or these guys just had thoughts & they figured it must be from God? Heck, I don't know - like I said I never really got in-depth on this stuff.

I don't know how many times the Bible was translated from it's original text to what it is today. I've always thought that there must have been some things lost in translation. I know I read something by Joe Satriani about this - with his album that had "musterion" in the title - that word was used somewhere in the Bible but wasn't translated over correctly so the passage lost it's original meaning.

Don't know if I'm off base here but thought it was weird how religious people think numerology or whatever it is that deals with numbers & how it affects their life - that it's all BS. That numbers have nothing to do with anything. Now I don't believe in that stuff but I always notice how certain numbers are repeated in Bible stories, like 3, 12, 40 - maybe more. Read something about how back in those times certain numbers were seen as being important. So this and numerology (whatever) aren't the same, but it's hypocritical to scoff at one thing when a little of the basis of your faith is based on certain numbers. I probably didn't make a lick of sense in this paragraph.

It really p*sses me off about how some "Christians" treat (or look upon) gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. Reminds me of the story of Jesus eating with a tax collector. When I was a kid & heard the story I thought "so what? He's eating with some guy, big deal". Wasn't until later I found out that tax collectors really weren't very nice people and people really didn't like them. So what I took from that was that Jesus didn't care WHO you were - he'd eat a meal with you. Same with prostitutes and such. Don't care who you are - you're cool with me.

That's what I take from Christianity. I don't care who you are, what your beliefs (or lack of) are, your color, sexual orientation, etc. - as long as you treat people decent, you're cool with me.

As for the person who wrote that letter in the OP, that really is scary. Just chill out. I don't have a problem with the illustrations - if it makes you think, actually THINK about your religion, either you'll find an answer that will prove that your belief is correct or you won't & maybe that'll make you think & question more. That's why we have brains - to think, not to follow.

Sorry this is so long - I tend to ramble.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 11, 2014)

frahmans said:


> ... Many people quote one part of a passage (bible, quran, torah, and other books) without considering the total context of the passage. Moreover, whether or not it is overwritten by another passage is something that individual may not know. ...


So, you're agreeing that the bible isn't inerrant and immutable. Where's the official list of what's right, and must be followed and what's wrong and can be ignored? Since it's not inerrant and immutable, how do we know what hasn't been "corrected" is actually correct? How do we know it isn't pending correction already? 

This is one of the worst apologists' cop-out. Explain the obvious contradictions. Here's a few:
Are the old rules (Levitcus, etc.) in effect or not? Old Testament says they can never and will never be repealed. New Testament says both that they have been repealed and they haven't.
Was the tomb open or shut when the fist peopl earrived?
What king was alive when Jesus was supposedly born?
Why is there ZERO historical collaboration and plenty of historical conflicts with the mythology?
Why was slavery, polygamy and anti-misegenation OK, but now are wrong?
Why was contraception OK, but now wrong?
Why was the loss of a unborn fetus not murder (merely a fine to be negotiated between the potential father and the one causing the loss), but now is?
Why are there 200+ English translations of the bible?
Why are there 41,000+ sects of Christianity?
Why is divorce tolerated/supported/ignored in some of the 41,000+ sects, but not in others?
Why can priests marry in some of the 41,000+ sects, but not in others?
Why are women banned from begin priests in some of the 41,000+ sects, but not others?
Why is homosexuality evil in some of the 41,000+ sects, but OK in others?

See over six hundred cataloged errors, contradictions, etc. at: BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

Add to that, is the bible literal or subjective? If it's literal, how do you deal with the 600+ reality-defying factual errors and contradictions? If it's open to subjective interpretation, where's the official list of what's literal and what's not? How can it be used as a basis for anything, if it's open to subjective interpretation by man?


frahmans said:


> ...
> And I can't or don't want to go into a discussion when an individual are quoting passages. The person posting the passage also may not know the total context and use it to argue their own point. And if I reply, I may bring greater harm rather than bringing a better light. ...




That is a total cop-out.


frahmans said:


> ...
> A lot of misunderstanding in the world is because people are passionate about one passage without knowing the entire context.


No. There's a lot of troubles because a tome that is less historically accurate than Gone With The Wind and as much fantasy as Harry Potter is being used to justify bias, hate, bigotry, misogyny, violence, hypocrisy, etc. by people that arrogantly choose to be willfully ignorant.

You do know the history of your own bible, correct? That no part was written by any eye witnesses? That it was assembled centuries after the supposed events, from multiple conflicting source documents, that contained multiple versions of the included books, and many books that were discarded and destroyed?

Please, there is no way that you can be rational and accept the bible in any of it's forms. It's at best a source of "how to live your life" and would be no different than picking The Stand, or Harry Potter, or The Lord of the Rings, etc. as a source.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 11, 2014)

Fred the Shred said:


> ... so the fine gentleman should do his "divine work" in prison, as should all fundamentalists that act against the most basic and self-evident human rights. The end.



But, that's your subjective opinion based on your BELIEFS and there are plenty of christians that will say you're not a TrueChristian(R) and for every piece of "evidence" you can gather to support your BELEIF, they can find "evidence" to support their BELEIF. 

It's no different than quote mining Harry Potter or The Hobbit + The Lord of the Rings + The Silmarrilion to support BELIEFS.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 11, 2014)

Surveyor 777 said:


> ... I also question religious things more and more and am skeptical on a lot of things ... I have never read the entire Bible, not even close ... I've always wondered about how the Bible was written ... I didn't question it ... I don't know ... I never really got in-depth on this stuff ... I don't know how many times the Bible was translated from it's original text to what it is today ... I've always thought that there must have been some things lost in translation ...


This is essentially universal. BELEIF survives in ignorance and the cases where it survives despite actual knowledge are truly scary/psychotic.


Surveyor 777 said:


> ... either you'll find an answer that will prove that your belief is correct or you won't & maybe that'll make you think & question more ...


Short of one or more of the 3000+ gods people have worshipped throughout history/pre-history popping in and saying, "Sorry for hiding all this time. Please ignore these parts, some knucklehead messed-it-up. ...", you will never find anything that proves any mythological texts. Add into that the fact that many BELIEVE that because they're talking about their interpretation, of their preferred flavor of mythology, based on their preferred version of a mythological tome, that their comments, actions, etc. are immune to comment, critique and correction. This leads to the real problem that too many folks can't admit that their BELIEFS are contradicted by reality, or are logically contradicting, or hypocritical, etc. and continue BELIEVING, use their BELIEFS to justify their hate, bigotry, violence, etc. and try to get their BELIEFS codified as civil laws to be forced on others.


EDIT: Oh the ignorance abounds. To the (most likely theist) neg repper that does not understand "Freedom of Speech", thank you for clearly illustrating the points about ignorance, poor reading comprehension, irrationality, expectation of special privilege and spiteful, vindictive, hypocritical behavior when anybody disagrees with their BELIEFS, I've been making in these posts. 

"Freedom of Speech" and "Everybody is entitled to their opinion" DO NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM CRITIQUE, COMMENT OR CRITICISM. 

As I've said many times, theists can BELIEVE whatever mythological nonsense they want to BELIEVE. They fact that some people call their mythology "religion", doesn't give them a free pass to say whatever they want with no response, i.e. no critique, no comment and no criticism. "Freedom of Speech" and "Everybody's entitled to an opinion" does not mean that your nonsense can't be justifiably torn to shreds when you chose to unleash it into a public forum. If your faith can't survive exposure to logic, reason, reality and a bit of dissension, it's not very strong to begin with, eh? 

Since the neg repper's reading comprehension has been demonstrated to be rather poor, I'll repeat what I've said this many, many, many times: I have no problems with people BELIEVING any mythology they choose. Just don't expect that rational, educated people to sit quietly and let your nonsense go unanswered, uncorrected, etc., when spewed into a public forum, especially when the mythology is used to justify hate, bigotry, violence, etc. or when special privilege is demanded (1st Amendment Violations, legal exemptions, etc.). or when BELIEVERS in any mythology try to get their version codified as laws to be forced on all.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 11, 2014)

ElRay said:


> But, that's your subjective opinion based on your BELIEFS and there are plenty of christians that will say you're not a TrueChristian(R) and for every piece of "evidence" you can gather to support your BELEIF, they can find "evidence" to support their BELEIF.
> 
> It's no different than quote mining Harry Potter or The Hobbit + The Lord of the Rings + The Silmarrilion to support BELIEFS.



Of course. And what relevance can it possibly have to you for as long as I am a decent human being? You can come to me and say "I believe in the almighty Hamster-God, Devourer of Worlds! I sacrifice two sunflower seeds to Him so the world won't be devoured" and what will stem from that? Nothing. I may find it silly, but if you genuinely believe that and aren't using religion as a very bad justification for irrational prejudice or inhumane actions, who am I to state that I have a better belief than you?

Organized religion has been used as a way to control people via reinforcing political power since forever, and it's ridiculously easy to find countless examples. It has a hierarchy run by men, who will of course know what the God or Gods want without the shadow of a doubt. It was used as a pretext to perpetrate heinous acts throughout time. So has democracy, for that matter. And freedom. And even human rights were used as a way to glorify wars that killed innocents. The USA have committed atrocities in the name of many a noble ideal, my own country as well before that, as well as Spain, England, Germany, Turkey and pretty much virtually every single country out there, both to foreign countries and their own. By the full-on "wrong doings were done in the name of [insert "culprit" here]" approach you seem keen on taking, then we should just eradicate mankind altogether - we are the indisputable cause. Men kill, enslave, discriminate, deceive and destroy other men. Not gods.

As a side note, kindly refrain from indoctrinating people, please - nobody is doing it here, and any atheist, agnostic or religious person with a shred of civility and common sense would condone the absurd actions in the OP.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 11, 2014)

Fred the Shred said:


> ... As a side note, kindly refrain from indoctrinating people ...



What indoctrinating? Maybe it's an English isn't your first language issue, but to indoctrinate means to brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, condition, program, etc. people to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, i.e. without thinking. The only folks doing any indoctrination are the believers in mythology. You have to be trained to believe uncritically, to BELIEVE any mythology, because it all falls apart under any rational inquiry.

Pointing out faults in logic, contradictions in claims, historical inaccuracies, deviations from reality, hypocrisy, etc. is emphatically NOT indoctrination, because they all rely on critical thinking -- they're the exact opposite of indoctrination.

Your comment is another solipsist/deconstructionist tactic used by BELIEVERS. Trying to claim that critical, rational, grounded in reality discussion is equivalent to the indoctrination that BELIEF in mythology requires so the dissension can be irrationally dismissed via hand waving. That is intellectually dishonesty. 

Again, if your BELIEFS are so fragile that they can't stand-up to rational discourse and the mere mention of disagreement must be silenced, your BELIEFS aren't that strong to begin with. If you want to put your BELIEFS out into a public forum, be ready to defend them. You can't expect others to simply relinquish their Freedom of Speech simply because you used yours to express your mythological BELIEFS.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 11, 2014)

frahmans said:


> Explorer, personally I try not to come into a discussion and share a quote from a passage - In other words, I try not to be a "Google Preacher".
> 
> Many people quote one part of a passage (bible, quran, torah, and other books) without considering the total context of the passage. Moreover, whether or not it is overwritten by another passage is something that individual may not know.
> 
> ...



What I found most interesting when I was doing Biblical scholarship ("I'm gonna master these languages, learn where this book comes from, and show them that this stuff *does* all fit together!") was that it was said by some that one had to start with the viewpoint that Scripture was all true, and then make all the parts reconcile with each other. 

And it didn't work, even with that _a priori_ justification. 

BTW, this was in the days before Google and the internet. However, the advent of the internet has done quite a bit to shine light on Scripture, and to make facts easier to find and bring together. 

And so many involved in fundamentalist Christianity are not fans of said internet because increased knowledge and access make it harder and harder to convince outsiders, and even their offspring, of the claim of inerrancy. 

Anyways, since I grew up in a Christian faith, and spent a great deal of time learning about how Scripture came to be, I never assume that someone else didn't have a similar background. And even if they didn't, I think it's worth talking about where there is a problem with Scripture than to say that the person doesn't understand it. 

In short: If Christian apologetics seem weak on some points.... it's often because they are weak on those points.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 12, 2014)

ElRay said:


> What indoctrinating? Maybe it's an English isn't your first language issue, but to indoctrinate means to brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, condition, program, etc. people to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, i.e. without thinking. The only folks doing any indoctrination are the believers in mythology. You have to be trained to believe uncritically, to BELIEVE any mythology, because it all falls apart under any rational inquiry.
> 
> Pointing out faults in logic, contradictions in claims, historical inaccuracies, deviations from reality, hypocrisy, etc. is emphatically NOT indoctrination, because they all rely on critical thinking -- they're the exact opposite of indoctrination.
> 
> ...



The problem here is that you accept only one type of logic and insist on taking a topic about a man's (or woman's, for all we know) inexcusable actions and turning that into a generalized, all covering tirade against belief systems no matter what. You are throwing inconsistencies in the Bible (of which there are many, as the "right" books were chosen in the Vatican II council by men, most likely with a political agenda behind them as was the custom then) as the main argument, which are to be acknowledged for what they are in my opinion.

I don't need to "defend" my beliefs, nor are they fragile, nor was doing that the point of my post. If anything, I presented the need for mutual respect. I am not suppressing your freedom of speech, I am not hiding the frailty of my belief behind your silence, I am not stating non-believers are bound to have horrible ends (I don't believe that anyway), and I actually went on about respecting others' beliefs no matter how silly they may sound to me, and I'm pretty sure mine does sound silly to you. 

The rest of the post is pure logic - anything that is a wrongly used system that has the power to gather people has been used wrongly historically, not just religion. Using a reductionist view that states that the wrong doings in the name of a system is a synonym of the system itself being the root of such wrong doings is simply to excuse us as a species for our still flawed social evolution and our opportunistic use of grouping behaviours.

Be it as it may, I don't see a point in continuing - I am keen on debating a wealth of subjects, but that only works based on acceptance and understanding of the others' positions in spite of our disagreement, and I am hard pressed to find that taking place here.

-------

As for who gave me positive rep for presenting my position without being angry, thanks, but I find it silly to attack anyone because he believes something different than me, and while I find aggressive or over-assertive rebuttal a bit excessive at times, it's not like that would justify being a dick towards him!


----------



## ElRay (Aug 12, 2014)

Fred the Shred said:


> The problem here is that you accept only one type of logic ...



More solipsism/apologetics. I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 12, 2014)

I have to disagree pertaining the statement of solipsism, as I'm not a believer of the external world being but a representation of whatever entity, nor do I deny the existence of multiple forms of conscience, quite the contrary. As a result, I do not need to be irrefutably proven that alternative validity outside my empirical / mental experience exists, as it does. I am open to being wrong, as I believe anyone should be as a part of a personal evolution process, but in something as simple as "is there divinity", being wrong will mean that I will be entirely recycled by an ecosystem to sustain and create new life and energy, so it's a beautiful way to face an afterlife no matter what.

The only thing that is logically self-sustainable as far as the concept of divinity goes is agnosticism. The absence of trustworthy, non subjective means to demonstrate the existence or lack thereof of anything "metaphysical" or whatever designation you choose to use leaves only concepts, subjective experience and a good dose of belief in whatever direction as the fulcrum of debate, as it is a concept we are discussing, not "the commonly accepted truth by X% of followers of religion Y and why it's all wrong" - that is pretty easy to do with a modicum of dialectics, as is the age-old "comfort speech" coming from many a theist that states you have nothing to lose in believing that capitalizes on our self-indulgence. When debating theism and atheism, there is a lot more common ground to be found than manichean-like approaches will allow us to achieve, though. The idea of pure duality of good and evil is questionable at best, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Anyway, this sort of debate flows far better face to face (or pixel to pixel and wav to wav...  ), where no misunderstanding of positions (and we both had that in such a short sequence of posts) can subsist for long, and where the actual exchange of ideas can have a less rigid format. The forum format, while useful for a great many things, is a bit prone to ideas and flow of communication being lost in cyberspace, and I doubt we are conveying our thought to each other efficiently as it is.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 12, 2014)

I've been following this thread rather haphazardly and there have been some interesting points on all sides.

Just one thing I'd like to point out: logic doesn't have different viewpoints. Something is either logical or it isn't...we don't have our own personal brand of logic.

I do agree that, logically, agnosticism is the only sustainable position once the issue of "is there a god, yes or no" has been raised because it can't be empirically proven either way. 

That being said, had I not been raised to believe in said magical sky-fairy creator, I have no reason to think that I would have ever asked that question in this day and age where science has answered so many of the big questions (and set us on the path of discovery for all other questions to come).


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 13, 2014)

Fred the Shred said:


> The problem here is that you accept only one type of logic and insist on taking a topic about a man's (or woman's, for all we know) inexcusable actions and turning that into a generalized, all covering tirade against belief systems no matter what.
> 
> I don't need to "defend" my beliefs, nor are they fragile, nor was doing that the point of my post. If anything, I presented the need for mutual respect.
> 
> anything that is a wrongly used system that has the power to gather people has been used wrongly historically, not just religion.



I've been following this thread and didn't have much to say till this...I feel like you're trying to paint elray as combative or obtuse while it's obvious he has an understanding of organized religion and is plainly stating his points, while you've accused him of indoctrinating?

I'm not quite sure what other form of logic you'd have him use but while this may be just one incident it's just another in an insanely long line of religious bullying...and while you may find it inexcusable now (in the modern day) I argue that the only reason you even find that action inexcusable is because most of us live in secular societies now.

If it were any other century you would of probably fell in with every other believer in calling this man a heretic but because in the last 50 years Christians have became obsessed with this idea of "mutual respect" between theism/atheism (it seems, simply on the basis of they're no longer able to just kill whoever disagrees with them) theist expect complete respect of all they're differing and unprovable claims whereas atheist are not to be trusted, liars, hoaxers, possessed ect. Where has this mutual respect been for millennia? It sure wasn't written in the bible.

While YOU personally may be respectful and listen also understand you are the minority...

And yeah you can argue "systems that have the power to gather people have been used wrongly historically, not just religion" but I'd be surprised if any other system has caused as much pain and suffering.

The fact is religion on a large scale causes stupidity...people stop asking questions, stop exploring the real world and delve into their minds for what "they" think is correct based on things they pick and choose from a book they've never read.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 13, 2014)

Well, I do tend to agree for the most part, mind you - I'm just the pointing out of religion as "a" as opposed to "the" factor for inhibition of critical thinking (and the evolution that entails) and one of the most easy to use ways to capitalize on a readily available large group, but hardly an isolated case. Groups holding power tend to find ways to exert that power over other groups, and of course religion was quite the easy route back then, in a time where philosophy and science were walking hand in hand and all truth in a non-secular system was, of course, centered around that (i.e. the famous dude(s) that know what God(s) wants).

Secular states are fundamental, as I'm sure all but the die-hard conservatives will agree. They ensure that belief is a freedom as opposed to a forced path, and that makes self-discovery and spirituality for those interested a true choice which you may or may not take an interest on. It's worth noting that defenders of secular political systems were a minority not too long ago, so I do have _some_ faith in mankind understanding that acceptance of difference as something not just mandatory, but actually a non-issue at all in all societal traits.

If I had been brainwashed from birth to worship the magic Unicorn LaLa and taught to kill everyone that doesn't believe that the Universe exists as a consequence of LaLa farting pink, blue, yellow and red stars the smelled of roses, with a deep societal support in which that was the one true format, I am fully aware that only exposition - and opportunity for that exposition to awaken the need to question - would I start wondering if that was the ONLY right way. You know as well as I do that historically, we could just replace "LaLa" by "God", "Freedom", "the Revolution", and keep on going.

My take on this sort of thing, put in the most concise way possible, is that ideals that move us to action create causes. It's when causes stop being themselves and become all encompassing objectives and self-justified unquestionable truth, ultimately justifying everything in the name of "a greater good" that shit has hit the fan. Countless times. And, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think we have learned the lesson of the perils of "unquestionable" thus far.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 13, 2014)

Fred seems unlike those folks I run across who want to talk about religion... but for them, that means telling you about their religion, as opposed to a true conversation. *laugh*

Anyway, it definitely seems that Fred isn't taking a fundamentalist stance on this. I fear fundamentalism of all stripes, including religious and political, and even the utopian fundamentalists who occasionally post about their revelations about how much better things would be if we all just (insert action leading to perfect world) instead of doing what we choose for ourselves. 

----

You know, Fred, I'm not sure if I'd say that the average person is agnostic about elves and unicorns, as opposed to just not believing in them. I'd say that most folks have a provisional "No way!" in place because there just isn't the evidence. 

And if that evidence came up, that provisional "No way!" would switch over to "Wow, an elf riding a unicorn.. and impaling those worthless hippies who make so much f-ing noise while supposedly communing with nature!" 

Similarly, one can have a provisional "No way!" in place for any deity you can name until there is irrefutable evidence for it, and then switch lickety split to, "Wow, Shiva is really tearing into those Christians and Muslims! The backed the wrong horse!"

Would you agree with that definition of "atheist" for elves, unicorns and deities?

----

Getting back on topic, similar to His plan with Ebola, maybe Yahweh will strike down the more violent of His followers to teach the rest of us a lesson....


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 13, 2014)

Absolutely agreed pertaining fundamentalism. As for teaching the rest of us a lesson, it's a recurring theme of yours, isn't it?


----------



## tedtan (Aug 13, 2014)

The Shit Wolf said:


> I've been following this thread and didn't have much to say till this...I feel like you're trying to paint elray as combative or obtuse while it's obvious he has an understanding of organized religion and is plainly stating his points, while you've accused him of indoctrinating?



Here on SSO, most people are not religious. Add to that the fact that ElRay and Explorer have been on a personal anti-Christian crusade over the past few months over the course of numerous threads and it does make them appear to be the aggressors, at least within the current confines of SSO. If they were to "spread the love around" by starting threads against Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, et. al. it might help to soften the blow a bit.




The Shit Wolf said:


> And yeah you can argue "systems that have the power to gather people have been used wrongly historically, not just religion" but I'd be surprised if any other system has caused as much pain and suffering.



Systems like slavery and various fascist/totalitarian dictatorships (e.g., Hitler and the Nazis, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS, et. al.) to name just a couple, have been extremely destructive over the years. And in hindsight, even the Catholic Crusades appear to have been attempts by the Catholic church to gain power and influence over the various kings and governors in Europe that were not on board with the Church's mission (and gain some gold and money for their coffers in the process).

Keep in mind that religion has been used over the centuries as a means of control and of whipping the "regular Joes" into a frenzy in order to get them on board with a leader's ideas, just as the right wing hard liners do today. So even when religion looks like the problem, it is often merely a tool used by unscrupulous leaders in order to accomplish their underlying goal (which always seem to revolve around power, fame and greed), not something inherently evil in and of itself.




The Shit Wolf said:


> The fact is eligion on a large scale causes stupidity...people stop asking questions, stop exploring the real world and delve into their minds for what "they" think is correct based on things they pick and choose from a book they've never read.



On the whole, there appears to be a larger than average degree of intellectual laziness and willful ignorance within religious groups as compared to non religious groups. I haven't done any research into this, but that appears to be a case of correlation (things occurring together, but not caused by one another) rather than one of causation (one thing actually causing the other). If we think about it smart, intelligent, well educated people are statistically more likely to be atheist or agnostic than they are to be theist, so this skews the perception.

So I would say that religion tends to attract people who are already prone to intellectual laziness rather than religion causes people who are not intellectually lazy to turn off their critical thinking skills and become so. Or maybe even take it to the other extreme and say that intellectual laziness causes religion to persist in the modern age because, as Mordacain said above, would we even conceive of gods in today's world where science has explained many of the things religions aim to explain if we weren't brought into a system where religion already existed to begin with?


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 13, 2014)

I tend to find that religion itself doesn't make you (or favour, at least) intellectually lazy. What I do find is that strict religious upbringing with an emphasis on "all-explaining" views of theism is quite the invitation to laziness as you are invited to feel content with the explanations you've been given, often dismissing valid information that would make other individuals dig deeper as said information would raise questions about the legitimacy of some teachings.

Whether people would conceive the idea of theism this day if it hadn't existed before is something that would spark a rather long debate, but it is a rather interesting subject I've thought about from time to time. My latest hunch tended towards the "yes" side of things, as the idea of the intangible, transcendent non-physical dimension of things does exist based on the subjective experience of many, and as such at least inviting to the search of such aspects beyond the empirical realm.

Explorer, now that I saw your edit, I tend to say that the thing about elves and unicorns is a bit different, as the legends would often state coexistence and a verifiable (hey, not my texts!  ) number of aspects that were... well, as verifiable as the Loch Ness monster in the end, so time + no sign of said tracks resulted in the disbelief of even the most fervorous defender of their existence. As for antagonic revelations of sorts, and taking as an example Sanskrit being the way to go, isn't the risk of being wrong permanent even when having facts supporting a theory? Subjective experience is even more vulnerable for obvious reasons, so if Shiva comes along and kicks my ass, I had it coming, but I hope he does it as Bhairava, which is metal as ....!


----------



## Xaios (Aug 13, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Or maybe even take it to the other extreme and say that intellectual laziness causes religion to persist in the modern age because, as Mordacain said above, would we even conceive of gods in today's world where science has explained many of the things religions aim to explain if we weren't brought into a system where religion already existed to begin with?



That's an interesting question, although I'm inclined to say that it would still take form one way or another. Just look at how many people out there, even people who are flatly agnostic or even atheist, believe in crystal power, ancient aliens, astrology, pyramid power, remote viewing, tarot, palm reading...

Some of those things are pretty new in terms of things people believe, and there isn't anymore evidence to support those things than there is a deity. 

With regards to the OP, yes, the man who sent the death threat is most certainly a terrible person (or at very least quite unhinged) and I hope they find him and lock him up before he does any harm.

EDIT: Major derp, said astronomy instead of astrology.


----------



## Necris (Aug 13, 2014)

^ Astrology*. 

Also, claiming Explorer and ElRay are on an "anti-christian crusade" is more than a bit much. The vast majority of Explorers threads have a clear overlap with politics and a focus on absurd and/or discriminatory decisions made by Republicans with close ties to the religious right. While I don't want to speak for Explorer I'm sure the moment deep faith in Islam,Judaism,Hinduism, Buddhism etc held by an elected member of the GOP proves to be the driving force behind said person supporting and pursuing anti-scientific and/or discriminatory policies then I'm sure Explorer would be more than happy to "spread the love around".


----------



## tedtan (Aug 13, 2014)

Fred the Shred said:


> I tend to find that religion itself doesn't make you (or favour, at least) intellectually lazy. What I do find is that strict religious upbringing with an emphasis on "all-explaining" views of theism is quite the invitation to laziness as you are invited to feel content with the explanations you've been given, often dismissing valid information that would make other individuals dig deeper as said information would raise questions about the legitimacy of some teachings.



I can see that happening, especially in areas that may challenge scripture.




Fred the Shred said:


> Whether people would conceive the idea of theism this day if it hadn't existed before is something that would spark a rather long debate, but it is a rather interesting subject I've thought about from time to time. My latest hunch tended towards the "yes" side of things, as the idea of the intangible, transcendent non-physical dimension of things does exist based on the subjective experience of many, and as such at least inviting to the search of such aspects beyond the empirical realm.





Xaios said:


> That's an interesting question, although I'm inclined to say that it would still take form one way or another. Just look at how many people out there, even people who are flatly agnostic or even atheist, believe in crystal power, ancient aliens, astronomy, pyramid power, remote viewing, tarot, palm reading...



I tend to agree that we would develop something, though I'm not certain if we'd end up sticking with the new age "we're all connected with the universe" mumbo jumbo or if we would extend this to creating omniscient, all powerful deity(ies) to worship.


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 13, 2014)

Sh-t like this is why I'm ashamed of my own religion.

I've seen countless Christians make fun of every other religion, but when fun gets poked at us, it's like ....ing wwIII. Every single one of them starts spouting out this uninformed bigotry, completely forgetting what they've learned about "loving thy neighbor". 

Where I live, there's a massive franchise (I wouldn't think of calling it a church) that I've been forced to go to my entire life, and it's everything wrong with Christianity. The pastor spends about 40% of the time telling us to give him more money, and the other 60% is spent telling us that it's okay we might have cheated on our spouses, that we're bad people, because all we have to do is pray. From this, we see all of these horrible people leaving their families upon arrival to go sit with their friends, we see people on twitter not giving a shit, we see people committing affairs smiling at each other during the hypocritical service. Those same people act like giving 1% of their seemingly $300,000 disposable income equates them to a saint. They act like giving a homeless person 3 dollars and a half empty water bottle was this amazing challenge, and they feel they need to post it all over facebook to receive commendations from their equal peers. All the while, they don't care about doing it to help someone, they do it because they think it'll get to heaven. That's not a huge generalization, these people literally post that on facebook. It's taught to us in services. 

Making my own decisions, I would very much like to believe there's a God (maybe not the one who caused a massive flood), and I do think that there is one, but that belief doesn't affect how I want to act towards others. No one should be going through the motions of kindness to get into an afterlife, they should be doing it _BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO._ None of this is meant to brag at all (I'm not one to talk up myself by any stretch of imagination), but I gladly pay for a lot for people in my life. I'll buy all of my friends food, I'll get them badass presents, I'll help them with anything I can, sometimes playing therapist, and I'll stop and help nearly every single broken down car on the side of the road I see. But God has absolutely nothing to do with that. It might just be programmed into my head from my parents and grandparents, but I do it because I feel it's the right thing to do (I want to stress that none of that was bragging, just me trying to show a point).

All of these extremists and the WBC and protesters who stand outside of abortion clinics are just ridiculous, and this death threat specifically pisses me off beyond all belief. It was a humorous picture book, not a rally against Christianity.

/end rant


----------



## tedtan (Aug 13, 2014)

Forrest_H said:


> They act like giving a homeless person 3 dollars and a half empty water bottle was this amazing challenge, and they feel they need to post it all over facebook to receive commendations from their equal peers. All the while, they don't care about doing it to help someone, they do it because they think it'll get to heaven. That's not a huge generalization, these people literally post that on facebook.



I know the kind of people you speak of. And I have to ask: are these people truly Christians (e.g., followers of Christ) or are they just pretentious douches trying to 1) fit into a group and 2) setting themselves up to play holier-than-thou by trying to make themselves look good before others? I tend to believe the latter is the right call in most (all) of these cases.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 13, 2014)

Necris said:


> Also, claiming Explorer and ElRay are on an "anti-christian crusade" is more than a bit much. The vast majority of Explorers threads have a clear overlap with politics and a focus on absurd and/or discriminatory decisions made by Republicans with close ties to the religious right.



I'll agree that they have a political position they are pushing, too. But I have read a number of threads that attempt to bait religious individuals into a debate where, when those individuals fail to take the bait, Explorer or ElRay will continue needling them in an attempt to provoke a response. And in those cases, there has not always been an overt political component to that bait, it has sometimes been purely religious in nature (Christian, specifically).




Necris said:


> While I don't want to speak for Explorer I'm sure the moment deep faith in Islam,Judaism,Hinduism, Buddhism etc held by an elected member of the GOP proves to be the driving force behind said person supporting and pursuing anti-scientific and/or discriminatory policies then I'm sure Explorer would be more than happy to "spread the love around".



While I understand that you're not officially speaking on his behalf, there is currently a thread about the current Israeli-Gaza conflict (I believe it is called Genocide in Gaza or something that affect). I certainly don't pretend that religion is the only cause for that situation, but it is certainly a major reason for the conflict. And those right wing GOP leaders certainly love to have Israel in the middle east. I mean, how else will the middle east go to war with itself to bring about the second coming, right? So the opportunity to "spread the love" amongst the Muslims and Jews is certainly readily available as I type. There's even a GOP component to target in that mix.


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 13, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I know the kind of people you speak of. And I have to ask: are these people truly Christians (e.g., followers of Christ) or are they just pretentious douches trying to 1) fit into a group and 2) setting themselves up to play holier-than-thou by trying to make themselves look good before others? I tend to believe the latter is the right call in most (all) of these cases.



Typically, it's the latter. For example, the same kids who gave me shit over and over again in elementary school for being overweight, loving to read, and being super tan to the point of looking hispanic (all 3 made me super self concious about my weight and body, not want to read, and stay out of the sun as much as possible) are the same kids who were in my youth group pretending to be caring young children. 

At that same church, there was a helper of the church who swore up and down that adultery and rape were wrong, but stalked my mom for months while my parents and he and his wife were still married (Scary for a young kid). 

There are people there who I truly feel sorry for though, because they are just good people and they aren't violent Christians. The sweet older ladies and kind elderly men who go because it's close to their home who don't judge anyone (Came in wearing a tank top revealing my tattoo since I had no clean shirts and had a captive bead stuck in my ear, got mean glares and whispers from everyone else, and had a little 60 year old woman tell me good morning and that I looked handsome ) throw their money away because they don't realize what the money is going towards. There are good families there like that as well, and they just see giving money as helping others for the sake of helping others, and don't realize they're just giving money to build another church somewhere where the pastor can make more money.

The pastor, Will, I've known all of my life, and he is definitely a great guy in some aspects, and he did start off humble (We used to have services in the cafeteria at my elementary school), but I just don't see why he needs all of this money. So far, he's built about 3 churches in total under the original name, but it just seems redundant. Maybe he is really just trying to spread Christianity (Not for or against that), but these are big, nice churches, not humble little chapels.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 13, 2014)

Surveyor 777 said:


> I am a Christian & have been all my life...then converted to Lutheran...I also question religious things more and more and am skeptical on a lot of things...I have never read the entire Bible, not even close....I've always wondered about how the Bible was written. ...Heck, I don't know...I never really got in-depth on this stuff...That's what I take from Christianity.





> Sh-t like this is why I'm ashamed of my own religion.



This is something I genuinely don't understand. I've met tons of people who self-identify as being Christian, or whatever other religion... without knowing anything about that religion, and without believing in any of the things that go along with that label. Some have even gone as far as saying "no, you're not atheist, you're catholic, because you come from a catholic family". (I've been in that argument more than once, with different people). Statements like this make me wonder why someone would use a particular label or descriptor on themselves without fully knowing what that word means, or what it associates them with. (I'm not saying the two I quoted don't know anything about religion, but the wording of their posts made me think of this.)

I knew some people a while back who decided to "convert to Ásatrú", not because they actually believed in those things, but because they decided it was cool. If you asked them though, they would say they "totally believed in it", but couldn't tell you any more about it than what you'd find in the first few results of a google search.

I had someone a while ago try to convince me that everyone realized that the bible wasn't literal and that the majority of Christians understand religion as a metaphor, except for in some major overall points.

I realize I've gone off topic, but I never see it come up in conversation- at what point, if you're going to pick and choose elements of your religion to actually believe in, can you no longer claim to be part of that same religion anymore? And moreso, out of all the people who identify as being part of a religion, how many of them reeeaaally believe everything that goes along with it? As in, if you believe in God, but don't agree with things in the bible, or don't take the bible as true, or don't go to church, or maybe you take the religions teachings as a metaphor- can you still call yourself a Christian (or whatever else) at that point?


----------



## Xaios (Aug 13, 2014)

Necris said:


> ^ Astrology*.



Stars aren't real man, they're lights from the *FIRES OF HELL*. Illusions created by Satan in order to trick people... 

So that they get neck pain...

...neck pain *FROM HELL!!!*


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 13, 2014)

TedEH said:


> This is something I genuinely don't understand...



Fair point, actually. I don't think I explained myself very well 

In summary of what I believe, I do think something put us here. I do think Jesus was real, and I do think he did some powerful things. I do think that we were put on the Earth for a reason. I do think that there is an afterlife. I do pray sometimes, and I do thank my God for things that I don't see as coincidences. I do believe there might be a Hell. I do believe there might be angels on the earth. And I do try to explain Christianity to others IF THEY WANT TO HEAR IT.

I don't believe that Christianity is justification for conflict. I don't think that seriously negative (sometimes violent) judgement from belief to belief is right, especially in the group I think I fit loosely in. I don't think that suicide will land you in Hell. I believe evolution did occur and might still be actively occurring. I don't think shoving religion in other people's faces and telling them that the god (or lack of one) they believe in is wrong or stupid (I honestly only posted on this thread to rant about the OP). I don't think that doing something completely wrong (sinning, if you want to call it that) is absolved by merely saying "I'm sorry" in a 15 second prayer. I don't think that one should be kind to fit into a group of people or to get into an afterlife. I don't think that churches asking for more money and expanding into what seems like a corporation is okay. I don't think that tattoos are going to send anyone to Hell. I don't think homosexuality is wrong. I don't think abortion is wrong. I'm not against any scientific advance, rather, for it. And I don't believe the whole idea of the Day of Judgement having only a select few who will make it to Heaven.

In short, I think there's a God, I think he put something here before us that evolved into what we are now, I think Jesus walked the Earth and did good things, and I do pray. But I don't support the aggression of some Christians towards different beliefs or sexual orientation, and I don't think that my God would banish those people to somewhere bad. 

So, maybe I'm not a Christian, maybe I just have a select few ideas from their beliefs. I guess the reason I call myself a Christian is because that was how I was raised as a child, and to me, when someone says God, it's synonymous with Christianity (Likewise, Allah is related to Islam, Yahweh is Judaism, etc. None of those are meant to have negative, generalized connotations, by the way). 

If any of that was hypocritical, I apologize. Beliefs are weird and confusing. I won't go into why I believe there's a God since I don't want to piss anyone off more than I might have already done.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 14, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Here on SSO, most people are not religious. Add to that the fact that ElRay and Explorer have been on a personal anti-Christian crusade over the past few months over the course of numerous threads and it does make them appear to be the aggressors, at least within the current confines of SSO. If they were to "spread the love around" by starting threads against Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, et. al. it might help to soften the blow a bit.



You mean if you could look at my post history, and see that I also post about Second Amendment arguments and where I believe they go wrong, that might make you think there is more to my interests and ideas?

Or if I posted about my shock about Gandhi sexually exploiting his female followers, that might soften the blow?

Or if I spent some time on the bad arguments of the "men's rights" groups who claim to be pro-men, but are (through actions and words) demonstrably anti-woman, as opposed to pro-anything?

What about global warming denial?

What about equal rights for adult humans?

What about freedom to hold your own religious beliefs (or lack thereoof)not being required to live by someone else's religious beliefs?

What about utopian schemes which argue that putting things into some else's hands is better than democracy?

And, although you might not see them the same way, but what about other topics where folks would vigorously argue about how humans couldn't have built the pyramids, therefore aliens?

Hopefully you'll be able to look back and see posts on all those things from me. 

You'll even see, in the guitar and ERG sections of this site, that I often advise people to see how stock pickups work, since so many newbies post about their decision to replace what they're getting before they've even tried it. To me, that's like salting your food before you've tasted it. 

----

In the US, it is true that politics are being hugely influenced by a group which believes that their faith overrides all evidence and reason. Further, they believe that their faith should have privileges exceeding all other faiths. (See the recent cases and topics where it was considered okay to disallow all community faiths except one from being able to offer prayers at government meetings, which should be anathema to anyone who thinks the Constitution's religious protections are a good idea.)

----

If you read what I posted in the "Baptist Leader animal sex" topic, I specifically noted that the Baptists in that state had been fighting against two consenting adults being able to marry, while taking a very understanding view of their brother's non-consensual... er... relations. That's clearly a case where one religious group wants its views imposed on the rest of the population. To me, it seems much of the time like the outrage is that one points out when members of these groups go so whacky, but they completely gloss over robbing others of their freedom to reject that group's religion. 

*To me, the easiest way to argue against being required to accept those religious views as true, and therefore applicable to everything, is to argue their factual truth, both with outside sources and internally. *

Regarding "needling"... I generally lay things out clearly when I talk about claims of factual truth. If I say 2+2=5, then it should be easy to rebut that. If I say that 2+2=4, and someone disagrees, their disagreement doesn't make "2+2=2" needling. It just means they don't feel they want to invest the time and effort in showing where it's wrong, or they just find it annoying... while being unable to argue against it. 

One more thing: Unlike a lot of evangelical fundamentalist viewpoints, I was educated by the Jesuits, who have evolved to have a deep respect for research *and* being able to construct one's thinking and theories based on evidence. (I ultimately gave up my ideas of joining the Society, or of any monastic tradition, because I realized that I didn't want to promote faith in a deity I could find no strong evidence for.) Anyway, that Jesuit thinking didn't go well with the "assume Scripture is perfect, and that the mistakes are yours" evangelical mindset. 

And that background is what leads me to be a bit more wiling to hear arguments and real evidence, and to call a spade a spade when they fall short. 

Okay, this is long enough. 

*Short version: I've posted about Gandhi being abusive, against aliens building the pyramids, about strange politics, and for clear thinking in politics, guitar design and customization, and other areas. Please don't be offended if one of those impinge on your particular area of "BAD TOUCH!" Be assured that I apply that thinking to all areas that interest me, and am not singling you out. 

Now, why not go post in that topic about how unfair I am to Gandhi?*


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 14, 2014)

Hey guys, I can understand that someone routinely trying to destroy your belief structure with logical arguments can be annoying, I really do. I for one, would love to let everyone believe whatever the hell they want as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process.

However, it's not half as annoying as being forced to live under the yolk of theological oppression. If it were not for rational (read, not necessarily athiest, agnostic or otherwise) people confronting the numerous, seemingly never-ending attempts by the hyper-religious to force their fellow citizens to conform to their particular world-view then that is exactly where we would all be right-now.

Nobody should get special treatment for whatever they choose to believe. For a society to properly meet the needs of all of its citizens, the only viable option is to base its laws on the physical world. That doesn't preclude allowing people to believe whatever they want; it just means that their unfounded, unprovable beliefs should not be used to meter justice and establish a system of fairness for its citizens.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 14, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Hey guys, I can understand that someone routinely trying to destroy your belief structure with logical arguments can be annoying, I really do. I for one, would love to let everyone believe whatever the hell they want as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process.
> 
> However, it's not half as annoying as being forced to live under the yolk of theological oppression. If it were not for rational (read, not necessarily athiest, agnostic or otherwise) people confronting the numerous, seemingly never-ending attempts by the hyper-religious to force their fellow citizens to conform to their particular world-view then that is exactly where we would all be right-now.
> 
> Nobody should get special treatment for whatever they choose to believe. For a society to properly meet the needs of all of its citizens, the only viable option is to base its laws on the physical world. That doesn't preclude allowing people to believe whatever they want; it just means that their unfounded, unprovable beliefs should not be used to meter justice and establish a system of fairness for its citizens.


 
QFT... Very well spoken (typed).


----------



## Fred the Shred (Aug 14, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Nobody should get special treatment for whatever they choose to believe. For a society to properly meet the needs of all of its citizens, the only viable option is to base its laws on the physical world. That doesn't preclude allowing people to believe whatever they want; it just means that their unfounded, unprovable beliefs should not be used to meter justice and establish a system of fairness for its citizens.



This is something that sums up one of my major sources of frustration with people that insist that religious views should make it into the law books due to tradition. Typically, I say that's an awesome idea and volunteer to exact some passages from the Leviticus or perhaps some Muslim fundamentalist laws - hey, if it's tradition how can it possibly be wrong, right?

I don't feel harassed or attacked by people having strong negative feelings against organized religion or denying the validity of theism in any way. If people can expose their ideas to me and actually talk and listen as well, then it's usually an interesting subject, and I've seen valid points from all sorts of approaches to the idea of divinity - it's pretty enlightening to understand the thought processes involved in reaching a conclusion, sometimes more than the conclusion itself. 

It is also a delicate matter in which presenting an argument in a more aggressive or assertive way can often convey the completely wrong impression, and one also that is prone to extreme, inflexible positions from either side that negate debate altogether, but that's bound to happen with no matter what polarizing subject, I suppose.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 14, 2014)

tedtan said:


> would we even conceive of gods in today's world where science has explained many of the things religions aim to explain if we weren't brought into a system where religion already existed to begin with?



While I wouldn't say that the answer to this question is a clear no, it's pretty close. Many of the thousands of religions that have sprung up across our history and pre-history didn't conceive of gods at all, and still others conceived of gods but don't/didn't require that their followers believe in them. 

The main thing we gain with science and technology is the ability to record and share information, whether that technology be writing utensils, printing presses, or the internet. Look at Scientology. The claims of that religion are no less strange than many of the claims associated with more mainstream religions, and if we're going to be completely honest, they're a laughing stock. We know where that religion came from, we know how it developed, we know a great many things about the people who hold most of the power within it, and the vast, vast majority of the Earth's population knows that it's nonsense. 

The only aspect of the Abrahamic religions that could possibly survive the inherent and seemingly inescapable scrutiny of our age are the various miraculous events - virgin birth, being raised from the dead, body rising to the heavens, etc. These claims were what converted many non believers centuries ago, and as our capacity to think critically and our levels of technology improved, miraculous events just dried up. God used to turn you into a pillar of salt for looking over your shoulder, or strike you down for blasphemy, but in the age of education and scrutiny that doesn't happen unless some person claims to be an instrument of God as they threaten or harm you. There are now hundreds of millions (billions?) of digital cameras built into phones, secured to lamp posts, installed in corners of stores, and there is now effectively total silence on the miracle front unless the claim comes from a region or person who either can't supply evidence, or does not have regular access to technology. 

How can that be the case if even only 20% of the stories and claims of the bible are true? 10%? 1%?

-----

I'll move away from that question now.

Here's a thought on taking inflexible stances on issues. If you're completely politically neutral - you don't support any ideology, any cause, any party - but you are well informed enough to judge the policies and arguments on their merits, you're not stubborn or inflexible, you're cautious (some might even say reasonable). If an ideology asks you to support them based on their merits, asks you to ignore their faults, and asks you forgive the considerable damage they've done in the past on the basis that that damage is hardly being done anymore - all of which we might be able to say about Communism, for example - any person would not only be completely justified in refusing to support that ideology, but they'd probably be doing the right thing.

To portray religions as if they are a benign option that can be taken or left but must always be considered isn't really fair or correct. This is particularly so in countries that have a dominant religion. If we were genuinely committed to supporting the notion that people should be supported equally in their choices of whether or not they should believe in a faith, they should be equally informed of the histories, supernatural claims, structures, and idiosyncrasies of ALL faiths. Hundreds of them. Just as we claim to value citizens that are politically informed, and in the USA honour their right not to get involved to the tune of 40%-50% of the population at the last few elections, maybe we shouldn't be labelling people as religious unless they've been given all the options.

Those of us who have looked deeply and analytically at length at more than one faith and come to the conclusion of atheism are not being inflexible, and are not being unreasonable by approaching these issues the same way we would political ideologies, social standards, and ethical considerations. In the absence of evidence, and with the contradictory nature of the ethical and philosophical claims of most religions, there is simply no compelling reason to step away from neutrality. And you can bet your life that if we raised children to question religion the same way we raise them to question everything else, it wouldn't last long.

-------

Huh. That was unnecessarily long-winded. Looks like I'm back . Oh, and I have as many assignments ahead of me over the next two months as I have behind me in the last two, so I guess I'd better wave goodbye again . Seven weeks to go - I hope getting a degree is worth the effort.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 14, 2014)

Explorer said:


> You mean if you could look at my post history, and see that I also post about Second Amendment arguments and where I believe they go wrong, that might make you think there is more to my interests and ideas?
> 
> Or if I posted about my shock about Gandhi sexually exploiting his female followers, that might soften the blow?
> 
> ...



Don't put words in my mouth - I never said or implied that you have a limited breadth of interests.

I merely made the observation that you've been on an anti-Christian kick over the past few months as an OBSERVATION, not as a CONDEMNATION. (And you do appear to have been or I wouldn't have posted that comment). But for the record, I certainly don't stalk you reading all your posts, so I am more than willing to admit that I may well have missed some bashing other religions (e.g., spreading the love), especially those more than a few months back. But from the list you provided above, I still don't see any. 




Explorer said:


> In the US, it is true that politics are being hugely influenced by a group which believes that their faith overrides all evidence and reason. Further, they believe that their faith should have privileges exceeding all other faiths. (See the recent cases and topics where it was considered okay to disallow all community faiths except one from being able to offer prayers at government meetings, which should be anathema to anyone who thinks the Constitution's religious protections are a good idea.)



Of course! I'm no more interested in being oppressed by the Christian right than you are. And I did note that your posts often have a political component. But I fail to see how any of that contradicts or negates my observation. 




Explorer said:


> If you read what I posted in the "Baptist Leader animal sex" topic, I specifically noted that the Baptists in that state had been fighting against two consenting adults being able to marry, while taking a very understanding view of their brother's non-consensual... er... relations. That's clearly a case where one religious group wants its views imposed on the rest of the population. To me, it seems much of the time like the outrage is that one points out when members of these groups go so whacky, but they completely gloss over robbing others of their freedom to reject that group's religion.



Again, I'm with you. It seems like you're taking an off-hand observation as an attack, which it wasn't intended to be.




Explorer said:


> *To me, the easiest way to argue against being required to accept those religious views as true, and therefore applicable to everything, is to argue their factual truth, both with outside sources and internally.*



Fine by me; feel free to continue doing so. But, just so we're clear, I will once again note that I was not condemning your actions, merely making an observation. 




Explorer said:


> Regarding "needling"... I generally lay things out clearly when I talk about claims of factual truth. If I say 2+2=5, then it should be easy to rebut that. If I say that 2+2=4, and someone disagrees, their disagreement doesn't make "2+2=2" needling. It just means they don't feel they want to invest the time and effort in showing where it's wrong, or they just find it annoying... while being unable to argue against it.



This I disagree with.

You don't tend to merely lay out the facts, you lay them out in such a way as to entice a fight and then continue provoking the other party(ies) in order to keep it going (e.g., needling). 




Explorer said:


> One more thing: Unlike a lot of evangelical fundamentalist viewpoints, I was educated by the Jesuits, who have evolved to have a deep respect for research *and* being able to construct one's thinking and theories based on evidence. (I ultimately gave up my ideas of joining the Society, or of any monastic tradition, because I realized that I didn't want to promote faith in a deity I could find no strong evidence for.) Anyway, that Jesuit thinking didn't go well with the "assume Scripture is perfect, and that the mistakes are yours" evangelical mindset.
> 
> And that background is what leads me to be a bit more wiling to hear arguments and real evidence, and to call a spade a spade when they fall short.



Hmm.... maybe this is where what you intend to communicate and what I read are diverging, because I don't read your posts as a genuine, good faith willingness to hear others' opinions, whether supported by fact or otherwise, but rather as a trap intending to rope people in to a logical debate they can't possibly win. Existing evidence certainly seems to suggest that there is no god, but let's be honest here: we can't disprove gods' existence anymore than we can prove his existence, so this debate can go on virtually indefinitely unless everyone adopts an agnostic position.

Furthermore, you are more educated on this topic than most, including the self proclaimed followers, so that makes it that much easier to ensnare your victims (err..., debate partners ), though I fully admit that some of them deserve it, like Lance Thrustmore or whatever is name is.




Explorer said:


> Okay, this is long enough.
> 
> *Short version: I've posted about Gandhi being abusive, against aliens building the pyramids, about strange politics, and for clear thinking in politics, guitar design and customization, and other areas. Please don't be offended if one of those impinge on your particular area of "BAD TOUCH!" Be assured that I apply that thinking to all areas that interest me, and am not singling you out.*



How would you be singling me out?




Explorer said:


> *Now, why not go post in that topic about how unfair I am to Gandhi?*



Fair? Who said anything about fair?

I simply made an observation that you've been on an anti-Christian kick lately. Nothing more.

But you could certainly infer from that observation that Christians likely read your posts the same way I did and avoid debate for that reason. Perhaps if you took a different tack, you would get different results. (You know, that whole "you'll catch more flies with honey that with vinegar" thing. Though as an aside, I'll warn you that while you'll probably catch more flies with shit than with honey and vinegar combined, doing so on SSO will only catch the Lance Thrustmores of the world ).


----------



## tedtan (Aug 14, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> If it were not for rational (read, not necessarily athiest, agnostic or otherwise) people confronting the numerous, seemingly never-ending attempts by the hyper-religious to force their fellow citizens to conform to their particular world-view then that is exactly where we would all be right-now.



While I agree with this in general, I'm not certain how bringing up religion on a guitar oriented forum (particularly one inhabited by us assholes ), is helping in this regard. Isn't doing so merely preaching to the choir rather than "confronting the numerous, seemingly never-ending attempts by the hyper-religious to force their fellow citizens to conform to their particular world-view"?  




estabon37 said:


> To portray religions as if they are a benign option that can be taken or left but must always be considered isn't really fair or correct. This is particularly so in countries that have a dominant religion.



Except that in this case it is not religion itself that is at issue, but rather the government forcing religion upon people (for purposes of power, control, money, etc.) and then oppressing those that don't go along with it. Religion, in that case, is just the tool - the evil lies in the hands of the oppressors.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 14, 2014)

I think you underestimate how raving some people are about religion. Not everyone does the crazy act for the power. Some people genuinely expect everyone underneath them to follow without question. Obviously there is power within that, but that doesn't necessarily negate the reasoning behind it. That's not to say you aren't right either, but to say almost every religious leader around the world uses religion as a tool for power isn't necessarily accurate 100% of the time. Some of them definitely do it for religious reasons.

Also, pertaining to a comment earlier, there is no such thing as a true or not true christian. If you identify as christian and believe in the Abrahamic God then you are a christian whether you are a descent person or not. You can definitely be a christian without being a literal follower of Christ. Half the bible doesn't even have him in it.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 15, 2014)

Someone felt I wasn't "spreading the love." 



tedtan said:


> But for the record, I certainly don't stalk you reading all your posts, so I am more than willing to admit that I may well have missed some bashing other religions (e.g., spreading the love), especially those more than a few months back. But from the list you provided above, I still don't see any.



So, you make the case that I don't seem to talk about other religious matters other than things surrounding Christianity. I thought I gave a pretty good clue as to something which could be easily found, like this topic.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...is-position-sexually-exploit-young-women.html

But going a bit further, since that's only one area, let me add that Islam has also been the topic of discussion. 

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...pe-non-sunni-women-syria-not-april-fools.html

I think I also have posted recently about how some prominent Muslims have been speaking out against certain violence being justified by Islam, and also about how a group of Christian ministers is suing because laws to stop equality are infringing on their right to celebrate marriages. Those are two quick things off the top of my head which were positive, in my mind. 

Anyway, hopefully you can now rest at ease that I do talk about other areas of faith, and don't only talk about Christianity, and also that there have been positive topics. 

I'm going to instead argue that the one thing you want is for me to not note, when it comes up, that no persuasive case has been made for the assertion that Scripture is literally and factually true. I won't be conceding that, in the same way I won't concede that such a case was made for alien construction of the pyramids. If you define that as possibly hostile to Christians and alien enthusiasts (and believe me, that has been advanced by your counterparts in that area, as immortalized in my sig), I personally believe it's more about not liking that such a case hasn't been made, not about me. 

----

And now, back to scary Yahwist death threats, resulting from not wanting folks to point out actual Scripture!


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 15, 2014)

tedtan said:


> While I agree with this in general, I'm not certain how bringing up religion on a guitar oriented forum (particularly one inhabited by us assholes ), is helping in this regard. Isn't doing so merely preaching to the choir rather than "confronting the numerous, seemingly never-ending attempts by the hyper-religious to force their fellow citizens to conform to their particular world-view"?



The venue really doesn't matter when it comes to confronting irrational behavior.

That being said, I was primarily speaking of your average joe rationalist speaking up against religious encroachment upon their own communities (or larger); ie: when a group speaks out against a local government concluding meetings with Christian prayer or attempting to place the 10 commandments outside a court of law.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 15, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Except that in this case it is not religion itself that is at issue, but rather the government forcing religion upon people (for purposes of power, control, money, etc.) and then oppressing those that don't go along with it. Religion, in that case, is just the tool - the evil lies in the hands of the oppressors.



When I say dominant religion, I don't mean government endorsed religion, I mean a case where the members of one particular religion vastly outnumber the members of all others combined. When, for example, a country's population is majority Christian, and a significant portion of that population believes that abortion is murder, it becomes very difficult for people who are not members of that religion to access a service that as far as anybody can tell from a rational or scientific perspective causes any pain or suffering to anybody except the person who is choosing to go through with the procedure. Hell, even in states where the procedure is legal, significant oppression comes from religious corners. The religion itself is indeed the issue, because without it the issue would not exist.



> Existing evidence certainly seems to suggest that there is no god, but let's be honest here: we can't disprove gods' existence anymore than we can prove his existence, so this debate can go on virtually indefinitely unless everyone adopts an agnostic position.



This is the faulty logic I was getting at in my previous post. It's not that there's evidence against God's existence, it's that there's never been any evidence to support that existence in the first place, only claims of miraculous events, which are easily disputed. Agnosticism assumes that there is enough evidence and credibility behind a claim to warrant its consideration. This is not the case with any religion. There's no need to disprove God's existence because God's existence has never been proved. You wouldn't work do disprove the existence of invisible dragons living in the New York subways, nor would you take the agnostic path and consider it a possibility on the basis that somebody suggested it might be the case. The only sensible path is to be a "New York Subway Dragon Atheist" until such time as the existence of New York Subway Dragons is proved. The argument doesn't go on indefinitely, in fact, it ends very quickly.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 15, 2014)

Well, since there's been a little bit more conversation:

If someone thinks that some subjects shouldn't be discussed on a guitar forum... then isn't saying so actually discussing those subjects on a guitar forum?

(Granted, the existence of non-guitar sections should be a clue about those topics being allowed.)

Also, wouldn't having an alternate opinion on a subject make a case against "preaching to the choir?"

However, I do think it's worth discussing such things. I don't think that hardcore believers will necessarily be swayed, but when one is on the fence and is given evidence which they can examine and research independently, that allows them to make up their own minds. 

*Which again brings us back to the very theme of this topic, about someone bringing up certain facts for discussion, and that discussion being discouraged in a very strong way. *


----------



## tedtan (Aug 15, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Also, pertaining to a comment earlier, there is no such thing as a true or not true christian. If you identify as christian and believe in the Abrahamic God then you are a christian whether you are a descent person or not. You can definitely be a christian without being a literal follower of Christ. Half the bible doesn't even have him in it.



I'm answering this part first as it may add to my response on the other part of your post, so forgive me for taking them out of order. 

When I say a "true" Christian, I mean someone who knows what the basic tenets of Christianity are, who knows why they are what they are, and who attempts to apply them to daily life. In the case of Christianity, that is following Jesus and his teachings. This certainly applies to other religions, too. Muslims should know and follow the teaching of Mohammad, Jews the teachings of Moses and Abraham, et. al., Buddhists the teaching of the Buddha, etc.

When I said "true" Christian in addressing Forrest H's comment, he had mentioned people going to church every week, but not knowing or caring about the actual tenets of Christianity. People treating it as a social event rather than a worship and learning event. And in my mind, these people aren't Christian, even if they proclaim themselves to be. They are just people deluding themselves.

To make a reductio ad absurdum analogy, say we have a guy named Joe. Joe likes music, and guitar in particular. He hangs around a group of friends who are musicians and play in a band. Joe goes to all their shows, he hangs out with the band, he even helps them load in and load out. One day, Joe starts telling another group of his friends that he is a guitar player. He even really believes that he is a guitar player. But he doesn't own a guitar, doesn't know how to play a guitar, and has rejected his guitarist friend's attempts to teach him how to play.

So is Joe a guitarist simply because he portrays himself as such, even to the point of believing his own BS? Maybe he is according to some definitions, but he's not in my book. Maybe is trying to socialize with that group, maybe he is a true music lover, maybe he's just a nice guy helping his buddies out. But he's not a guitar player.




flint757 said:


> I think you underestimate how raving some people are about religion. Not everyone does the crazy act for the power. Some people genuinely expect everyone underneath them to follow without question. Obviously there is power within that, but that doesn't necessarily negate the reasoning behind it. That's not to say you aren't right either, but to say almost every religious leader around the world uses religion as a tool for power isn't necessarily accurate 100% of the time. Some of them definitely do it for religious reasons.



Perhaps I am overlooking some of the cooks.

But what comes to mind are, on one extreme, the Mother Theresa types who aren't hurting anyone, like the church down the street from my office that actually collects and distributes food for the poor in the area. And on the other extreme, the over the top flakes that corrupt religion into a cult with themselves at the top like Jim Jones (of the Jonestown Massacre) and David Koresh (of the Waco Branch Dividian ranch shootout with the FBI and ATF).

And in between the good guys and the insane, there sit the normal leaders who proclaim faith. Leaders like the various members of the Saudi royal family who push Islam on their country, but head to Europe and America to go boozing, whoring and gambling. The kind who are wealthy beyond most people's imagination while their people suffer near starvation.

So I probably am overlooking other leaders of true faith somewhere in that mix, but none come to mind.


----------



## RustInPeace (Aug 15, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> If an ideology asks you to support them based on their merits, asks you to ignore their faults, and asks you forgive the considerable damage they've done in the past on the basis that that damage is hardly being done anymore - all of which we might be able to say about Communism, for example - any person would not only be completely justified in refusing to support that ideology, but they'd probably be doing the right thing.



Agreed.

There was a recent story in the news of an atheist group starting a church and Sunday service down in the southern US. The point of the service was to bring people together, many of whom had left their religion, and to offer service to the community and support for each other. Basically just a regular church, but without a god involved. Many theists were quick to jump at it to denounce it and calling it "silly", "pointless", and "hypocritical". I couldnt for the life of me figure out why people coming together to help each other and the community would ever be such a bad thing?


----------



## asher (Aug 15, 2014)

Because "Fvck you, I got mine" and blind hate of atheism.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 15, 2014)

asher said:


> Because "Fvck you, I got mine" and blind hate of atheism.



Yea, never understood the blind hatred of atheists. The fact that so many states (including my home state of Maryland) still have laws on the books preventing an atheist from running for public office of any kind baffles me.

What's particularly odd is that, from an administrative point of view, an atheist in general holds no particular religious bias so they are really the most qualified to administrate fairly and equitably across the board.


----------



## asher (Aug 15, 2014)

But... but... Traditional American Values!

Pretty sure it's what I said above but also very much an Us vs. Them thing as they lose their dominant majority position.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 15, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Someone felt I wasn't "spreading the love."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, you'll be happy to know that I was never ill at ease, so no worries! 

Second, when I suggested spreading the love around it wasn't as a result of personal offense to anything you had said, but rather an (admittedly failed) attempt to point out the way you present yourself and your argument is often equally important, and sometimes _*more*_ important, than the actual argument itself. So if you were to present yourself with an even interest in all things religion rather than someone out to "knock some sense into those Christians", your arguments may be better received by the very group you are attempting to educate. So my apologies for not making that obvious in my previous post.




Explorer said:


> I'm going to instead argue that the one thing you want is for me to not note, when it comes up, that no persuasive case has been made for the assertion that Scripture is literally and factually true. I won't be conceding that, in the same way I won't concede that such a case was made for alien construction of the pyramids. If you define that as possibly hostile to Christians and alien enthusiasts (and believe me, that has been advanced by your counterparts in that area, as immortalized in my sig), I personally believe it's more about not liking that such a case hasn't been made, not about me.



OK, the shit is getting deep in here, so you'll have to excuse me while I grab my waders. 

Seriously, Explorer, I can't even begin to comprehend how you can even come to that conclusion. I myself have stated in this thread and others that "no persuasive case has been made for the assertion that Scripture is literally and factually true". Admittedly not in those exact words, but definitely that exact same message. So why would I expect you to admit something that isn't true? That makes no sense at all.

And since I am not advocating for Christianity, how can you even begin to consider alien "enthusiasts" my counterparts?

Talk about putting words in my mouth, you've gone so far as to 1) completely ignore what I actually said, 2) hear (read) what you want to hear, so that 3) you'd have something to argue against. And what a coincidence that what you wanted to hear was me advocating Christianity so you could jump in and knock some sense into me. Kind of proves my earlier observation, no?  




Explorer said:


> Well, since there's been a little bit more conversation:
> 
> If someone thinks that some subjects shouldn't be discussed on a guitar forum... then isn't saying so actually discussing those subjects on a guitar forum?
> 
> ...



If this is a reference to my post, I never suggested that any topic should be off limits. I merely questioned, from a practical perspective, if there is any merit in discussing certain topics (beyond our own personal entertainment) because we on this board, for the most part, share the same views. It just becomes a big circle jerk rather than actually swaying someone's opinion.

But for the record, I have absolutely no issue with discussing religion (including Christianity) or any other topic, even if it is for entertainment purposes only. People here won't offend me unless they start advocating child porn or pedophilia, at which point I'll simply log their IP address and have the cops en route to you to pay them a visit.


----------



## vilk (Aug 15, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> What's particularly odd is that, from an administrative point of view, an atheist in general holds no particular religious bias so they are really the most qualified to administrate fairly and equitably across the board.



Dude, if you think most people believe that being fair and equitable qualifies one to administrate you are delusional


----------



## ferret (Aug 15, 2014)

vilk said:


> Dude, if you think most people believe that being fair and equitable qualifies one to administrate you are delusional



I'd add... Dude, if you think most atheists are particularly fair or equitable you are delusional.

Atheists are just as greedy, selfish and opininated as any other brand of human.


----------



## stevexc (Aug 15, 2014)

Besides, most people don't want someone fair and equitable administrating, they want someone who agrees with their specific views administrating.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 15, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> When I say dominant religion, I don't mean government endorsed religion, I mean a case where the members of one particular religion vastly outnumber the members of all others combined. When, for example, a country's population is majority Christian, and a significant portion of that population believes that abortion is murder, it becomes very difficult for people who are not members of that religion to access a service that as far as anybody can tell from a rational or scientific perspective causes any pain or suffering to anybody except the person who is choosing to go through with the procedure. Hell, even in states where the procedure is legal, significant oppression comes from religious corners. The religion itself is indeed the issue, because without it the issue would not exist.



I follow what you're saying now, and I agree that religion can create issues when it is used as the basis for creating laws. But do note that the US is a secular state. So in our specific case, the issue isn't religion itself, but people bringing their religion into state matters that should be left in their homes and churches. 

Having said that, I disagree with your logic because blaming religion itself rather than the individuals using it inappropriately totally absolves those individuals from their responsibility in creating the problem. It would be like blaming global warming on the greenhouses gasses themselves simply because they exist rather than blaming man's activities that release the greenhouse gasses into the environment. Or blaming guns for violence when mankind had a very violent history well before guns were invented. 

Eliminating religion (or guns, or whatever) won't solve the problems we intend to solve by eliminating them because eliminating these things doesn't address the underlying issues at the core of mankind's behavior. If we eliminate religion, those same behaviors (the us against them tribal mentality, the self appointed leader who have the one "right" way, etc.) will manifest in other forms. Perhaps nationalism, perhaps racism, perhaps something else. But the point is that we need to address the underlying issues if we want to solve the problem, not the superficial things that look like they would solve the problem on the surface, but fail to address the underlying issues at the core of man's behavior. And make no mistake, it's the behaviors we are seeking to change in each of these cases.




estabon37 said:


> This is the faulty logic I was getting at in my previous post. It's not that there's evidence against God's existence, it's that there's never been any evidence to support that existence in the first place, only claims of miraculous events, which are easily disputed. Agnosticism assumes that there is enough evidence and credibility behind a claim to warrant its consideration. This is not the case with any religion. There's no need to disprove God's existence because God's existence has never been proved. You wouldn't work do disprove the existence of invisible dragons living in the New York subways, nor would you take the agnostic path and consider it a possibility on the basis that somebody suggested it might be the case. The only sensible path is to be a "New York Subway Dragon Atheist" until such time as the existence of New York Subway Dragons is proved. The argument doesn't go on indefinitely, in fact, it ends very quickly.



I get what you're saying, but agnosticism need not give credence to the existence of gods, it merely states that the existence of god(s) is unprovable/unknowable. Here are a couple of definitions.

Merriam-Webster defines agnostic as: 
1 - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; _broadly_ *:* one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god; or 

2 - a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political _agnostic__s_>.

The Oxford dictionary defines agnostic as: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


----------



## Necris (Aug 15, 2014)

You can not believe in the Subway Dragon and still not claim absolute knowledge that it doesn't exist. You are an agnostic non-believer in the New York Subway Dragon.


----------



## vilk (Aug 15, 2014)

ferret said:


> I'd add... Dude, if you think most atheists are particularly fair or equitable you are delusional.
> 
> Atheists are just as greedy, selfish and opininated as any other brand of human.



Wait, what?



stevexc said:


> Besides, most people don't want someone fair and equitable administrating, they want someone who agrees with their specific views administrating.



That's what I said...


----------



## Explorer (Aug 15, 2014)

Okay, so it turns out that my broad approach to many different faiths was ignored. I have now given some examples, both positive and negative, about my posting about other faiths.

I thought I knew what you were talking about, but apparently not.



tedtan said:


> Seriously, Explorer, I can't even begin to comprehend how you can even come to that conclusion. I myself have stated in this thread and others that "no persuasive case has been made for the assertion that Scripture is literally and factually true". Admittedly not in those exact words, but definitely that exact same message. So why would I expect you to admit something that isn't true? That makes no sense at all.



Then let me ask, so that I understand what you initially were talking about... what statements by ElRay and myself are being viewed as antithetical to Christianity, and needling as well?

I've been thinking it's our pointing out that there are problems with Scripture.

But I was wrong.

So, please be more specific as to what core assertions by ElRay and me to which you're objecting.

I'm looking forward to being able to respond to such. Thanks!


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 15, 2014)

ferret said:


> I'd add... Dude, if you think most atheists are particularly fair or equitable you are delusional.
> 
> Atheists are just as greedy, selfish and opininated as any other brand of human.



Yea, gonna call bullshit on that one. Personal experience switch on for the following:

Every single atheist I've met has come to their conclusions via reasoning which trumps at least 50% of everyone else I met; who has come to their conclusions because those were the conclusions of their parents.

I'm not saying that atheists are necessarily going to be more fair-minded than everyone else, but the process of becoming an atheist is a sort of natural selection for those that have a more open mind and are more prone to critical thinking than their theistic brethren.

I am of course, discounting those you are born atheist, ie: those who never had religion shoved down their throat from childhood. I'll admit that I have no statistical information to back it up, but I believe that those people are so far and few in-between as to be statistically insignificant.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 15, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Having said that, I disagree with your logic because blaming religion itself rather than the individuals using it inappropriately totally absolves those individuals from their responsibility in creating the problem. It would be like blaming global warming on the greenhouses gasses themselves simply because they exist rather than blaming man's activities that release the greenhouse gasses into the environment. Or blaming guns for violence when mankind had a very violent history well before guns were invented.



I'm not actually suggesting that we blame religion instead of individuals, I'm saying we should blame both. When, for example, an Islamic fundamentalist carries out a terrorist action in the name of their religion / ideology, they should be held accountable for their actions, and the methods by which they used theological and ideological writings to justify their actions should be scrutinised. Just as global warming is absolutely tackled both for the existence of greenhouse gases (which occur naturally as well as artificially) and humankind's contributions. Both are problems, and both should be dealt with. Similarly, when tackling the problem of gun violence, you should obviously address the huge cultural and societal problems that support its existence, but you should also address the accessibility and promotion of the firearms themselves. When we want to stop people from smoking, do we choose between changing the culture through education and awareness, or legislating to make cigarettes less accessible? No, we do both (run television advertisements that highlight the harms of tobacco while also banning smoking in public places, for example). When a problem has multiple causes, we should attack all the causes. And when a 'problem' states unequivocally that specific passages from specific books support their actions or justify their decisions, then both should be scrutinised in an attempt to prevent heinous actions from being repeated. 



tedtan said:


> Eliminating religion (or guns, or whatever) won't solve the problems we intend to solve by eliminating them because eliminating these things doesn't address the underlying issues at the core of mankind's behavior. If we eliminate religion, those same behaviors (the us against them tribal mentality, the self appointed leader who have the one "right" way, etc.) will manifest in other forms. Perhaps nationalism, perhaps racism, perhaps something else. But the point is that we need to address the underlying issues if we want to solve the problem, not the superficial things that look like they would solve the problem on the surface, but fail to address the underlying issues at the core of man's behavior. And make no mistake, it's the behaviors we are seeking to change in each of these cases.



I'm not saying that cultural problems cease to exist when religion ceases to exist; the GDR and Stasi in East Germany, the KGB in the USSR, and the lube-loving leader of North Korea all emphatically prove this point in extremely violent, horrible and oppressive ways. But it's never as simple as looking at the huge socioeconomic and mass cultural issues and declaring that because these exist outside of religion, then obviously it's not religion's fault that these circumstances ever occur.

Let's look at the issue of same-sex marriage in the United States, you're suggesting that the issue is an underlying cultural problem, and that any religious influence on the issue is a 'superficial' aspect. On what non-religious basis does anybody fight against same-sex marriage? Or, look outside the US. On what non-religious basis does anybody advocate female genital mutilation? People are being violated and having their access to rights denied on entirely religious bases, and the religions that perpetuate these circumstances should not be considered above criticism on the basis that it makes their moderate members uncomfortable or angry. This is why when people scrutinise violent video games to see whether or not they trigger violence in people with mental disorders, I get annoyed, but I won't say they shouldn't do the research, because if it can be proved then any solution would involve both helping those who are affected and changing the games themselves in some way. The Bible states unequivocally that blasphemers, gay men, and people who work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. People are enforcing these verses. Both the enforcers and the scripture need to be dealt with.



tedtan said:


> I get what you're saying, but agnosticism need not give credence to the existence of gods, it merely states that the existence of god(s) is unprovable/unknowable. Here are a couple of definitions.
> 
> Merriam-Webster defines agnostic as:
> 1 - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; _broadly_ *:* one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god; or
> ...



I understand the definitions of the words, this is not in dispute. But the definition says "ultimate reality (as God)". That means considering the possibilty that God exists, even though there's no reason (evidence) to support that possibility. It's certainly not saying that it's a person who "holds the view that any ultimate reality (of really any possible form, including the possibility that Atlas is still holding the Earth on his shoulder, as many thousands of people once believed, and that the universe may well be held on the shoulder of a still-larger supernatural being) is unknown and probably unknowable". Agnosticism gives credence to the existence of gods simply because it doesn't require that claims provide proof, and seemingly refuses to question outlandish claims in favour of not rocking the boat. I certainly think that's preferable to actively supporting outlandish claims, but it doesn't make much sense to me. 

Overall, I'm really talking about the huge difference between being unwilling to commit to a religious opinion on the basis of these things being 'unknowable' (agnosticism), and recognising that 'unknowable' essentially means 'unproveable', which means that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, Scientology, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Pastafarianism, Discordianism, and many more are all on equal footing and can therefore be judged only by their claims, merits, philosophy, scripture, and the actions of their members (atheism). 

This is why I think Necris' chart a couple of posts below is a little insufficient, as it seems to suggest that Atheists are making a claim - to "know no god exists". I think it's more a case of "knowing that the supernatural claims of every religious institution are unproveable, and therefore in all likelihood false, and that without the supernatural claims there is no valid reason to support those institutions and philosophies because the institutions are consistently changing their minds of what is right and wrong (slavery as one of many examples) and the philosophies are based on scriptures that feature so many internal contradictions that any claim based on those scriptures is easily disputed, so there's really no need to even acknowledge the slightest possibility that any aspect of it is real". Of course, that doesn't fit on a chart very well, so ...


----------



## AxeHappy (Aug 17, 2014)

tedtan said:


> But what comes to mind are, on one extreme, the Mother Theresa types who aren't hurting anyone



Uh...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6voAW_Go5Y (also gets Gandhi and the Dali Lama) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4



> On what non-religious basis does anybody advocate female genital mutilation?



For all the same reasons idiots in the US advocate for male genital mutilation. Bullshit health reasons, that it's prettier, easier to clean, etc, etc.

peaceful parenting: FGM/MGM: Similar Attitudes & Misconceptions

peaceful parenting: Male and Female Circumcision

FGM vs MGM

FGM and male circumcision: time to confront the double standard | Practical Ethics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9QVIJJPCcs


----------



## vilk (Aug 17, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> I believe that those people are so far and few in-between as to be statistically insignificant.



...in the United States, you mean? Because there are some places in the world where being 'raised atheist' is the vast majority.


----------



## Mordacain (Aug 17, 2014)

vilk said:


> ...in the United States, you mean? Because there are some places in the world where being 'raised atheist' is the vast majority.



There are certainly places where that is the case, but not as a majority of people on this planet.

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, yes, I was referring to the United States, as I believe most of us commenting in this thread have been. When we talk about fundamentalist Christians, it's a fair bet that we're talking about he US (or Africa, but that's because of US-based Christian missionaries so it's really all the same).


----------



## ferret (Aug 19, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Yea, gonna call bullshit on that one. Personal experience switch on for the following:
> 
> Every single atheist I've met has come to their conclusions via reasoning which trumps at least 50% of everyone else I met; who has come to their conclusions because those were the conclusions of their parents.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what you're calling bullshit on. I made no comment on why someone is an atheist or how they arrived at that point in their life. I 100% stand by the statement however that atheist in general are plagued with the same human failings as everyone else, including being jerks, assholes, greedy, liars, etc, etc, etc. None of those traits really have anything to do with belief in a god, and having the ability to perform critical thinking doesn't make you good person.

In fact, a major reason I don't identify as an atheist is that the "public figureheads" of atheism in the US tend to come across as self-righteous assholes to me. I don't really find them more palatable than religious leaders.

Just look at where Richard Dawkins got up and said that "mild" pedophilia wasn't as bad as "violent" pedophilia", and followed up with "date rape" isn't as bad as "knife point rape."

I'm 100% aware of the point he was TRYING to make, but among many things he's said over time, he was an asshole about it. This is using cold hard black and white logic, completely stripped of humanity and emotion. It's essentially the other extreme.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 19, 2014)

ferret said:


> "public figureheads" of atheism



I've never thought of atheism as having figureheads. There are certainly people who are visible and vocal about the subject, but to say someone is a figurehead for it would imply that it's organized, has leaders, structures, common rules or principals, goals, etc. but none of those things are necessarily the case. Pastafarianism has figureheads, Laveyan satanism has figureheads, the scientific community has figureheads, etc. but not believing in god doesn't automatically make a part of those groups.

It would be like viewing publicly visible and vocal people who ride bikes to save the environment as figureheads for everyone-who-does't-have-a-car, as if the lack of car ownership was always for the same reason, and automatically meant you support the same things as every other person who has no cars.


----------



## asher (Aug 19, 2014)

I'm actually tempted to just chalk that up to Dawkins being an incredible asshole, as are a number of the "militant" atheists I've come into contact with (you know, the reddit-dwelling types).


----------



## ferret (Aug 19, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I've never thought of atheism as having figureheads. There are certainly people who are visible and vocal about the subject, but to say someone is a figurehead for it would imply that it's organized, has leaders, structures, common rules or principals, goals, etc. but none of those things are necessarily the case. Pastafarianism has figureheads, Laveyan satanism has figureheads, the scientific community has figureheads, etc. but not believing in god doesn't automatically make a part of those groups.
> 
> It would be like viewing publicly visible and vocal people who ride bikes to save the environment as figureheads for everyone-who-does't-have-a-car, as if the lack of car ownership was always for the same reason, and automatically meant you support the same things as every other person who has no cars.



I don't disagree per say, which is why I put that in quotes. However, as a specific example, Dawkins is involved in organizations that perform direct advocacy, so I believe the label would fit somewhat in that particular case. In the public's eye and perception, such people DO become the figureheads.



asher said:


> I'm actually tempted to just chalk that up to Dawkins being an incredible asshole, as are a number of the "militant" atheists I've come into contact with (you know, the reddit-dwelling types).



Which is essentially my point. Atheists are assholes too.


----------



## vilk (Aug 19, 2014)

I would disagree. Dawkins isn't a figurehead, nor does he become one through fame/notoriety/outspokenness, rather he's merely perceived as one by ignorant people.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 19, 2014)

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you, Explorer. I wanted to make sure that I had some links and quotes to help elaborate on what I am saying and between work and the damn database errors I keep getting over the last couple of weeks here on SSO (I thought they had gotten rid of these a few months back ), Im just now finding those supporting links and quotes. (And truthfully, I was hoping I wouldnt have to go to these lengths to explain myself because this kind of analysis of a fellow forum members posts is not only a downright pain, but my initial comment that lead to this was intended to be read as tongue in cheek rather than a condemnation). Allow me to start with my summary in an effort to help avoid further confusion and work my way back to the supporting links. So without further ado


*Summary*

Ive noticed that the way we present ourselves and our ideas often has as much of an impact on the person receiving those ideas as the ideas themselves do. So operating under the assumption (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that you are indeed looking for an open discourse on the topics you are motivated to post about, presenting your ideas a bit differently may yield better results, particularly when you are looking to engage in a conversation with Christians about their religion. (And keep in mind that people will go to great lengths to prevent the cognitive dissonance that results when their beliefs are proven incorrect, even to the point of outright ignoring the new information and carrying on like ostriches with their heads in the sand).

Why do I think you may achieve better results by taking a different tack?

First, an open, fair, balanced, and objective demeanor is critical in order to achieve that open discourse. Yet if we look at the threads youve posted over the past few months, they dont give the impression of open and balanced objectivity. In fact, of all the threads youve posted in that timeframe that deal with religion in one form or another, a full eighty-nine percent of them are directed towards Christianity, eleven percent deal with religion in a general sense (e.g., one thread), and zero percent deal with other religions specifically. This doesnt paint a picture of you as one who is objective, but rather as one with an agenda against Christianity specifically. (Note that 1) whether you do have such an agenda or not is irrelevant to my point as we are talking about how the people reading your posts perceive you, and 2) I am not judging or condemning in any way, merely making the observation). And if I have noticed this, you can bet that the Christians here on SSO have as well. So if theyve noticed this, how does that influence their responses (or lack thereof) to your questions? How might you foster a better exchange of ideas and information?

Second, whereas you purport to merely lay the facts out for people in a gentlemanly fashion, I tend to read some of those very same comments as needling your debate partners in order to provoke a response, sometimes going as far as setting up traps for them from which they cannot possibly escape unless they avoid said trap entirely up front. While there is nothing inherently wrong with taking this approach, it does tend to shut down the free flow of communications, which is counter to your desire for open dialog because this approach tends to lead to either 1) people passing on the discussion entirely, or 2) people digging in their heels and fighting rather than openly discussing the facts of the matter. How has this influenced peoples responses (or lack thereof) to your questions? How might you foster a better exchange of ideas and information?

Third, maintaining an open mind and a degree of respect for our debate partners, even when we vehemently disagree with them and/or their position, is crucial in order to foster the free flow of ideas and information. This is important because even when the specific ideas we are discussing are mundane or trivial, they may well lead to or inspire other ideas that are anything but mundane or trivial. However, in reading your posts regarding Christianity, you seem to come across as if youve already made up your mind about what constitutes the truth of the matter and merely intend to push your ideas onto the Christians much as many Christians intend to push their ideas onto others. Once again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, but it is counter to the open flow of ideas and information, so if that is your actual intent, you might try a different approach.

So what does all this mean? Simply that if open dialog on the topics you post about is your goal, you might want to present yourself and your arguments a bit less aggressively and a bit more balanced and objective in order to accomplish that goal. Maybe try it for a month or two and see how your results differ (if they do in fact differ) and take it from there. Nothing more. 
*Thread Links*

I realize that you post on a wide range of topics, not merely those of a religious nature. But since what started this back and forth between us was my comment that youve been on an anti-Christian crusade lately (which was intended to be read as a tongue in cheek comment rather than one condemning you), lets focus on those with a religious angle, even if they have political or other angles to them as well, since they are the ones that are relevant to my previous comment. Below are your threads dealing with religion that have been posted in the past few months. (Note that Ive included all religious related threads I saw posted from May 1st through August 19th. This is slightly over the three month mark I initially had in mind when I posted earlier in this thread, but I think its fair since we are only a little over half way through August to date. Plus, I simply dont have the time or requisite interest to delve any further back than this).

*Threads Critical of Christianity:*

Global warming deinial not just based on junk science from Big Oil! I was wrong!

Baptist leader in Missouri arrested for seeking sex with animal

Being against premarital sex = good reason for same sex marriage? Why or why not? (Im including this because you yourself referenced American evangelical Christians in your second sentence of the OP. Had you not brought Christianity into the discussion, I would have left this one out.)

If you don't discriminate, you're bullying Christians!

"NFL tramples Christian community and Christian values...." WTF?

Alabama justice says the First Amendment only protects Christians

NC churches sue, say ban violates their right to perform same-sex marriages!

It's nice to know that the Satanic Temple and Christianity Today agree on something!


*Threads Critical of Religion in General*

Study: Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction


*Threads Critical of Specific Religions Other Than Christianity*

-None-


When looking over these links, its pretty obvious that there are eight threads critical of Christianity in some way, whereas there is only one thread critical of religion as a general concept, and zero threads dealing with other religions, e.g., Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Thats a full eighty-nine percent of your religious related threads that are aimed at Christianity, specifically, and zero percent that are critical of other religions, specifically. (And thats not just because only the Christians have provided you with target rich environment to attack lately as there is a *whole lot* going on in the Middle East right now that can be tied into Islam and is arguably having *much* greater impact on the day to day lives of those affected.) 

Now ask yourself if this gives the appearance of a fair, balanced, and objective individual or if it gives the appearance of one who has an agenda against Christianity in particular (and keep in mind that I am not objecting to an agenda against Christianity, Im merely referring to the appearance you give to the readers of your threads, which in turn influences how they respond (or fail to respond) to you in turn).

As an aside, you also mentioned the Gandhi thread in a post above (Gandhi Used His Position To Sexually Exploit Young Women), but I must be misunderstanding your point here, as Gandhi was not a religious leader nor did he advocate religion, specifically; he was an attorney who used nonviolent protest to gain Indias independence from Britain. He even promoted the position that people of multiple religions should be able to live together in harmony, so Im not sure how this has any bearing whatsoever on singling out specific religions to target, or even religion at all. So I must be misunderstanding your point, thus Im open to any clarification you elect to provide on this.

*Needling*

The quotes below are from this thread alone. I didn't even have to look into the threads I linked above (much less your other posts) in order to find these gems. Review them and ask yourself if they seem to come from an objective person seeking information and dialog or if they seem to be unnecessarily antagonistic. Then consider how that might impact the very people with whom you are attempting to discuss this issue and their response to you. Finally, consider whether or not this approach is yielding the results you want or whether you might achieve better results with a different presentation?



Explorer said:


> Reading the comments on the articles, there's lots of apparent atheists posting, and occasionally someone of faith who is just as scary as "Bloodthirsty God's Little Helper," but not a lot (actually, none that I've seen) of faith who are condemning BGLH.





Explorer said:


> I guess I'm kind of wondering, from the point of view of the people of faith who object to the actual passages of Scripture... what is the nature of your objection? That knowing this stuff is in there makes it look bad to Christians and non-Christians?





Explorer said:


> In short: If Christian apologetics seem weak on some points.... it's often because they are weak on those points.





Explorer said:


> Fred seems unlike those folks I run across who want to talk about religion... but for them, that means telling you about their religion, as opposed to a true conversation. *laugh*



And how does this last quote differ from your own tactic except for the fact that yours is one of atheism rather than Christianity? 

I suppose I could sum all of the above up by saying: :It's OK to have an anti-Christian agenda, just please have the balls to admit that fact rather than hiding behind a bunch of pretentious bullshit. Because pretense is what got us in to Christianity, and every other religion, to begin with.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 19, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Yea, gonna call bullshit on that one. Personal experience switch on for the following:
> 
> Every single atheist I've met has come to their conclusions via reasoning which trumps at least 50% of everyone else I met; who has come to their conclusions because those were the conclusions of their parents.
> 
> ...



And *MY* personal experience switch on for the following:

I work in an engineering firm populated by engineers and other rational people who are all prone to rational thought and educated (except for the receptionist and a few secretaries), so I acknowledge that this is not only anecdotal, but likely not representative of the average Joe promoting 'Murica and religion in his trailer park (erm... neighborhood ).

But I work with a large number of people who are religious (typically Hindus, given that we are an engineering firm and have to bring people over from India on H1B visas in order to meet our recruiting demands as there are not enough US grads in engineering these days). And I remember when I first started work with my employer that I was thankful enough for my sponsor (Girish, an Indian immigrant to the US) that I offered to take him to lunch, my treat. Being in Texas, I assumed that not only would Girish, an engineer, be rational, but that steak would make for the perfect lunch . Well, as it turned out, not only was Girish a very rational engineer, but he was also a Hindu. After I removed my foot from my mouth, we had chicken for lunch. 

But that experience (and many like it) taught me that many rational people are religious. They may have simply been brought up that way and continue in their faith, or whatever, but they are able to compartmentalize and separate their religious inklings from their rational thought processes such that their religion does not compromise their rationality in day to day life.

Again, I don't pretend that this is representative of "every man", but neither do I ignore it.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 19, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> Uh...?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6voAW_Go5Y (also gets Gandhi and the Dali Lama)
> 
> ...



Sorry, AxeHappy, but I simply don't have time right now to read all the links you've provided and respond to what I think you are intending to say. If you can provide a statement asserting your thoughts, I'll be happy to comment.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 19, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> Lots of commentary



I agree that we should not only address the superficial areas, but also those that will actually affect the desired outcome. However, it seems that most people advocating against religion (and firearms, et. al.) seems to believe that that is good enough. That we needn't dig any deeper to see what causes these actual human behaviors, we can simply blame them on whatever social issue is prevalent today, perhaps religion, perhaps Rock N Roll, perhaps video games, etc.

I've said it in numerous threads and I'll repeat myself here: man created the concept of religion, man wrote the religious books, man interprets these books, man preaches these books to other men, and man receives these teachings from the self appointed teachers. That's at least five levels of mankind's psychological issues interfering with whatever theism is currently being taught, let alone the thousands of years in between the original concept and today's interpretation, so I have to put the blame on man, himself, not some nebulous "religion". We are responsible. Period. It's time we step up and take responsibility for our actions instead of shirking our responsibilities onto the "hot topic" of the day.

I mean, not only wouldn't religion exist without man, but by blaming religion, man has an extremely convenient scapegoat for anything he desires to pass off because, let's face it, the religious texts can be used to justify anything so long as you take said passage out of context.


----------



## AxeHappy (Aug 20, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Sorry, AxeHappy, but I simply don't have time right now to read all the links you've provided and respond to what I think you are intending to say. If you can provide a statement asserting your thoughts, I'll be happy to comment.




Mother Theresa wa a right ..... Nothing good about her. 


The other stuff was directed at Estabon's comment so I'm not sure ifyou want me to elaborate on that or not but:

People in cultures that practise female genital cutting give the exact same reasons for it being a good thing as culture whom practise male genital cutting and religion is typically only one of many of a list of completely bullshit reasons on that list. And the rest of the world thinks both are barbaric nonsense.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 20, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I've said it in numerous threads and I'll repeat myself here: man created the concept of religion, man wrote the religious books, man interprets these books, man preaches these books to other men, and man receives these teachings from the self appointed teachers. That's at least five levels of mankind's psychological issues interfering with whatever theism is currently being taught, let alone the thousands of years in between the original concept and today's interpretation, so I have to put the blame on man, himself, not some nebulous "religion". We are responsible. Period. It's time we step up and take responsibility for our actions instead of shirking our responsibilities onto the "hot topic" of the day.
> 
> I mean, not only wouldn't religion exist without man, but by blaming religion, man has an extremely convenient scapegoat for anything he desires to pass off because, let's face it, the religious texts can be used to justify anything so long as you take said passage out of context.



*To the argument*:
You've more or less highlighted the greatest frustration in having conversations on religion. At some point it has to be recognised that even to theists, the vast majority of religious content was generated by humans. For this exact reason, a passage can't be taken 'out of context', because any given passage was written by people, with the intent of shaping the lives of other people (for better or worse), and no supernatural elements ever enter the equation. I'm not sure any person who is critical of religion genuinely thinks that 'stopping the religion stops the violence', so much as it removes what you have identified as the world's biggest scapegoat. If it's a scapegoat, wouldn't the world be better off without it? Without religion, the people who hide within them would have no choice but to take responsibility for themselves. It's not as if this all-encompassing excuse is without power - they have more than enough money, land, assets, and influence that they should face the same scrutiny (and pay the same level of taxes) as any given business or corporation (many of whom are disturbingly good at dodging taxes). 

Really, once you strip away the 'man-created' religious content, as you've called it (which is most of the content if you're a theist, or all of the content if you're an atheist), all you're left with is centuries-old claims of people returning from the dead or being healed of terminal diseases. Those claims are still being made, churches are making massive profits as a result, and the claims are no more true now than they were two thousand years ago. We don't believe it when it 'happens' now, why should we believe that it happened back then? In short, we shouldn't. But powerful organisations perpetuate those ideas because they stand to profit. When it just so happens that the ideas they perpetuate fuel the actions of misanthropes, then the organisation should be held just as accountable as the individuals. When that organisation informs the policies of other organisations, there's even more reason to put a stop to it. 

Removing the organisations might not make the problems disappear, but it would make the excuses disappear. If you don't have an excuse, then your argument has to stand on its own. For example, the KKK doesn't like homosexuals or non-whites (I really hate that I felt the need to provide a link for that. Don't click it.), and while they certainly mix religion in with their myriad excuses, it's not the predominant factor. They just hate gay people. Their arguments tend not to hold up very well, because their arguments tend to be based on hate rather than research or reason. It's quite reasonable to attack the organisation itself based on this, because while it forms its policies on the basis of merely human faults, the organisation's very existence continues to nurture the faults, and makes it possible for the organisation and its ideologies to grow. I know many won't like this comparison, but being that churches tend to base their dislike of various groups on faith rather than research or reason, then attacking the organisations for developing stances based on shoddy reasoning and medieval philosophies is not a matter of blaming and organisation instead of the individuals that make it up, it's a matter of removing the excuse so that the people within can be forced to justify their behaviour and stances without resorting to claims that it's the will of all-powerful forces that have a plan for them.

Blaming religion as a non-theist, anti-theist, or atheist is not a matter of buying into scapegoat-ism. It's a matter of removing the scapegoat to increase accountability.

Though, it's not as if Asher's aforementioned Reddit-dwelling-types haven't wholeheartedly bought into said scapegoat-ism. I've gotta say, being an atheist that like to browse Reddit occasionally can often lead to just as much frustration caused by my so-called peers as I tend to get from my so-called ... shit I don't think there's a decent synonym for 'non-peer'. Hang on ... ... ... nope. Thesaurus wants me to use 'opponent' or 'inferior', which is bullshit. Moving on...

*Away from the argument*:
When I say frustration, I don't mean frustration with you personally, and certainly not with anybody on this forum that I can think of. Of all the people I've had these kinds of conversations with who I ultimately do not side with, people here are more willing to fully explore as many aspects of any given issue as possible. No matter how hard I tend to disagree with you much of the time, it's incredibly heartening to be able to have a conversation whereby one's 'opponent' takes all of the offered premises on board and gives them genuine consideration. I hope I'm not coming across here as trying to 'win' an argument - my goal more than anything is to increase my own understanding and the understanding of others by fully elaborating on my stance, and the reasoning that supports it.

EDIT: Clarity in first paragraph - while in the past many of my arguments have been incoherent, I try to minimise the damage where I can


----------



## tedtan (Aug 20, 2014)

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said above, estabon. Churches should be taxed, the Catholic church is the biggest business on the planet, etc.

I just approach this from a more practical, real world angle rather than one of idealism, as I realize that actually implementing all of that is not practical, certainly not in the short term. So I tend to look for some type of middle ground to see if that may be a workable solution for everyone. And in general, I'm in favor of letting everyone live together in harmony, believing and doing whatever they want, so long as they don't step on each other's toes. And when they do step on one another's' toes, we should probably work to eliminate those offending actions, not necessarily their entire belief system (even when we disagree with that belief system).


----------



## tedtan (Aug 20, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> Mother Theresa wa a right ..... Nothing good about her.
> 
> 
> The other stuff was directed at Estabon's comment so I'm not sure ifyou want me to elaborate on that or not but:
> ...



Hmm.. I can't watch the video at work, but if she advocated FGM then you may be onto something, though a brief Google search didn't turn anything up on that.


----------



## AxeHappy (Aug 20, 2014)

The mother Theresa and genital mutilation comments are completely independent of each other. 

I have no idea if she was a proponent of FGM or not. 

Two separate comments by two separate posters being addressed separately.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 20, 2014)

Mother Teresa Humanitarian Image A 'Myth,' New Study Says

While her 'story' has inspired a lot of people she really wasn't a good person by any means. She was very much your typical Christian loon when it came to medicine, poverty and suffering (except when it was her money and health that is). She thought there was beauty in death, suffering and poverty all while getting filthy rich from her foundation. She never actually wanted those in poverty to escape it because that'd be 'unchristian'. She'd reuse needles (not properly sterilized either for that matter), didn't allow pain medications, all around very poor conditions/standards. She thought the pain for those who suffered would 'bring them closer to God'. From what I've read she only aided those who converted to her faith as well. She spent more time spreading the gospel than helping people. So yeah, not a particularly good person at all really.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Aug 20, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I just approach this from a more practical, real world angle rather than one of idealism, as I realize that actually implementing all of that is not practical, certainly not in the short term. So I tend to look for some type of middle ground to see if that may be a workable solution for everyone. And in general, I'm in favor of letting everyone live together in harmony, believing and doing whatever they want, so long as they don't step on each other's toes. And when they do step on one another's' toes, we should probably work to eliminate those offending actions, not necessarily their entire belief system (even when we disagree with that belief system).



I wouldn't really call that practical? How is it not idealistic to think a bunch of different belief systems where most have clear passages about killing non believers could live in harmony? How is that any different that what's already going on in America? We all live together, believing whatever we want and still religious people try to outlaw things that don't effect them like gay marriage or abortion based on their faith, how do we eliminate those actions without eliminating part of the Christian belief system? I'm not sure what your definition of "stepping on someone's toes is" but if that's includes death threats or violent actions then we do eliminate those actions through law enforcement, but most of the ways the religious "step on toes" is not illegal.

We're never going to have a society where religious people don't try to infringe upon the rights or beliefs of others because the books these people run their lives by make them feel like they're special, more special than people who don't believe/sinners and they'll be even MORE special if they get those non believers to play along. How will that end if religion persist?

It would never end if we all had your mentality, especially considering most religions have some sort of messianic return stipulation that sometimes requires a whole groups death, a certain territory be ruled over or some other asinine requirement that would of been possible millennia ago when a religious army could assemble and just conquer cities with less than a million occupants, killing everyone/taking slaves ect. without the rest of the world giving a shit but now, it's just never going to happen. Groups like Isis who are trying to do this now will fail and no piece of land like Israel or the like will ever be just one type of religion without some sort of violent intervention.

I'm not sure about most other atheist because I don't equate atheism with intelligence but I don't want to eliminate religion or for it to become illegal or anything of that sort. It's unnecessary and most likely impossible without violent intervention, I want education to become more important and the main source of where our countries and the worlds money goes to. I believe that if we put more money into our education system and actually gave a shit about our citizens level of intelligence it would solve some (not all) of the major problems that have been discussed. I disagree with what you said in your response to me 2-3 pages ago 



tedtan said:


> On the whole, there appears to be a larger than average degree of intellectual laziness and willful ignorance within religious groups as compared to non religious groups. I haven't done any research into this, but that appears to be a case of correlation (things occurring together, but not caused by one another) rather than one of causation (one thing actually causing the other). If we think about it smart, intelligent, well educated people are statistically more likely to be atheist or agnostic than they are to be theist, so this skews the perception.
> 
> So I would say that religion tends to attract people who are already prone to intellectual laziness rather than religion causes people who are not intellectually lazy to turn off their critical thinking skills and become so. Or maybe even take it to the other extreme and say that intellectual laziness causes religion to persist in the modern age because, as Mordacain said above, would we even conceive of gods in today's world where science has explained many of the things religions aim to explain if we weren't brought into a system where religion already existed to begin with?



I agree that there is definitely an imbalance of intellectual laziness towards theist and this laziness is causing religion to persist but I could not disagree more that religion is not the cause. I know you said you didn't do any research but Religion is obviously the cause of most (not all) intellectual laziness, you'd have to be blind to think it's correlative when more often than converting, people are born into these religions believing every word and story from day one and never giving any other forms of reasoning a chance. These people are not "turning off" their critical thinking skills because they never get a chance to develop these skills in the first place.

Just this year I've had multiple mind boggling arguments with moderate religious people who said stupid shit then tried to back it up with biblical references that made no sense, like my 33yr old neighbor who argued that the Hubble telescope isn't that advanced because he thought it had cameras in it from the 60's that are less advanced than cell phone cameras today and that the pictures of galaxies it took were fake? I tried to explain how Hubble wasn't even built yet in the 60's and was launched in the 90's but none of my facts could make it through his belief in god and that he was right... To him those galaxies must be fake because god only created the earth 6,000 years ago.

Then there were these 2 girls who argued with me about Jesus, telepathy, witches, mermaids, auras and other things they claimed to know about that they believed were backed up by the bible but somehow they BOTH thought the sun orbited earth and not the other way around? I spent the rest of the night explaining why they were wrong and they still left thinking I was wrong? Because their religious beliefs didn't allow them to believe facts that seemed to go against their god.

I think regardless of their level of intelligence if religion was taken out of the equation these people might of listened to sound reasoning rather than clutch to their religion because there is no other reason to disregard logic and evidence other than religion.

I have 20+ years of other examples but my point is religion doesn't require critical thinking while education does and we all know the school systems are terrible in America, if we improved them then the general publics critical thinking ability would improve and most likely religiosity would decrease causing a rise in atheism. This seems to be what's already happening, while our school systems are terrible, access to facts and information has never been better and it seems to be increasingly hard for religious parents (who are already half-ass believers who've never read their own holy book, and their kids know it.) to indoctrinate their young kids and keep them that way as they reach adolescence. I don't see any reason this will not continue to increase to the point where atheism is the majority. 

This does not imply that we would ever outlaw religion or take away peoples right to believe what they want it just means the religious will have to get used to the general public no longer entertaining their outrageous ideas on how society should be ran so as not to insult their god/god's.

You've made it sound as if your either born smart or dumb, you're born with an interest in logic, reason and science or you're not and you're doomed to be intellectually lazy for ever. I'm not that pessimistic I think everyone born with a functioning brain has an innate wonder of the universe/science but when fantastical ideas are smashed into their brains from an early age they lose that wonder and let themselves be fed nonsensical information.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 21, 2014)

So _that's_ what it looks like to other people when I ramble on for five paragraphs . Got some authors up in this thread, y'all.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2014)

You just have to read some of my stuff to feel better about yours.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 22, 2014)

Necris said:


> You can not believe in the Subway Dragon and still not claim absolute knowledge that it doesn't exist. You are an agnostic non-believer in the New York Subway Dragon.


 
So, tell me about this Subway Dragon...


----------



## Necris (Aug 22, 2014)

Well, you see, the Subway Dragon exists outside of time yet within it, and is all present in all places yet exists outside of the physical. 

He is in total control of the trains in the New York subway, but it's not his fault when they're late. He is benevolent, but also vengeful and will cause non-believers to always miss their train.
Some even say he communicates directly with them, announcing their stop in an incoherent and garbled voice or even taking the form of a bystander and telling them "Hey, man, this is your Train." or "Nah, dude, that's not it, honestly I think you may be on the wrong platform altogether, try that one down there maybe... I guess, I don't know; hey, Is this your first time New York City?".

Leave Djod, give praise to the Dragon.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 22, 2014)

Necris said:


> Leave Djod, give praise to the Dragon.



Prepare for Djihad, mother....er.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 22, 2014)

Necris said:


> Well, you see, the Subway Dragon exists outside of time yet within it, and is all present in all places yet exists outside of the physical.



Look, he might try to exist outside the physical, but he was absolutely present in one place he shouldn't have been, and I just dropped a deuce on him. No mercy flush, nothing.

Trust me, he's done. 

And he's taking a entirely different kind of trip by tube as we speak.


----------



## Watty (Aug 23, 2014)

Forrest_H said:


> _Text_
> 
> If any of that was hypocritical, I apologize. Beliefs are weird and confusing. I won't go into why I believe there's a God since I don't want to piss anyone off more than I might have already done.



It's surprising that you can't see any of that as being hypocritical, but I will agree that beliefs tend to be confusing when you're raised to believe one thing and reality is something altogether different.

The points you just made are a prime example of why I am really starting to dislike the label "Christian" as a catch all for religious individuals in America. Given your position on issues as explained in your post, I'd say it's more accurate to relay to folks that you are religiously inclined with Judeo-Chrisitan tendencies. Of course that's more of a mouthful and doesn't have the same staying power in societal interactions, so it'll never catch on....but it is more correct to say that for most folks today. Note that I'm not criticizing you for having beliefs, let alone those contrary to my own, but I get irked when folks are disingenuous about important aspects of life, and religion (and its associated positions) tend to be one of the main instances in which it's socially acceptable to be so.

Edit: Damnit, I did it again.....got to check which page I'm quoting from in multi-page threads....


----------



## Forrest_H (Aug 23, 2014)

Watty said:


> It's surprising that you can't see any of that as being hypocritical, but I will agree that beliefs tend to be confusing when you're raised to believe one thing and reality is something altogether different.
> 
> The points you just made are a prime example of why I am really starting to dislike the label "Christian" as a catch all for religious individuals in America. Given your position on issues as explained in your post, I'd say it's more accurate to relay to folks that you are religiously inclined with Judeo-Chrisitan tendencies. Of course that's more of a mouthful and doesn't have the same staying power in societal interactions, so it'll never catch on....but it is more correct to say that for most folks today. Note that I'm not criticizing you for having beliefs, let alone those contrary to my own, but I get irked when folks are disingenuous about important aspects of life, and religion (and its associated positions) tend to be one of the main instances in which it's socially acceptable to be so.
> 
> Edit: Damnit, I did it again.....got to check which page I'm quoting from in multi-page threads....



Oh, no, I can absolutely see it being hypocritical, that's actually why I posted back in the first place.

I agree with you completely, it would be accurate to just up front to say "I believe in X which is sort of related to X" rather than just say "oh yeah I'm a Christian". I see how ignorant it was of me to just say that. I say I'm a Christian for the reason you described above; simplicity. To me, the term "Christian" works simply because there are so many paths in Christianity that using just "Christian" if I'm asked what I believe shows that I'm not in any specific denomination, my beliefs just stem from that walk of faith. It clearly doesn't fit, though, and I seem to be misusing it anyways. 

Sorry about the ignorance


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 23, 2014)

ferret said:


> I'd add... Dude, if you think most atheists are particularly fair or equitable you are delusional.
> 
> Atheists are just as greedy, selfish and opininated as any other brand of human.


 
As opposed to those who go to church and are "forgiven" for all their sins every Sunday?  that. 

The superstitious have an external locus of control. Good or bad, god is blessing them or testing them. They do not take responsibility for either.

Not believing in an outside "higher power" or whatever definitely makes ME responsible for MY actions.

I cannot say that other non-religious folk are absolutely the same, but I can say that a deity gives someone a giant scapegoat to avoid personal responsibility.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 23, 2014)

I especially hate it when people thank God for things he absolutely did not do. Like when a doctor saves someones life using years worth of built up knowledge to be able to save that individuals life or when Gabby Douglas said it was only because of God that she won the gold. No, you won the gold because you practiced relentlessly for years, every day, almost all day to be able to do those tricks. If all it took were God then all of us out of shape folk would be able to easily win a medal too. 

Seems so disrespectful to literally give no credit to the one who actually did all the work, whether that is yourself or someone else all together. People confuse confidence, gratitude and appreciation for vanity when under religious influence apparently. The irony in giving their God of choice all the credit is how vane that would make him/her.

In a world where God supposedly does everything: nothing is your fault, everything is just a test, the bad things are slightly your fault (unless it was just a test of course) and nothing good you do was because of you, but because of God.


----------



## Watty (Aug 23, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I especially hate it when people thank God for things he absolutely did not do. Like when a doctor saves someones life using years worth of built up knowledge to be able to save that individuals life or when Gabby Douglas said it was only because of God that she won the gold. No, you won the gold because you practiced relentlessly for years, every day, almost all day to be able to do those tricks. If all it took were God then all of us out of shape folk would be able to easily win a medal too.
> 
> Seems so disrespectful to literally give no credit to the one who actually did all the work, whether that is yourself or someone else all together. People confuse confidence, gratitude and appreciation for vanity when under religious influence apparently. The irony in giving their God of choice all the credit is how vane that would make him/her.
> 
> In a world where God supposedly does everything: nothing is your fault, everything is just a test, the bad things are slightly your fault (unless it was just a test of course) and nothing good you do was because of you, but because of God.



I kept waiting for the contrary position as well....

If God is to be thanked for all the good that happens, then he can also be cursed for all the bad things.


----------



## Necris (Aug 23, 2014)

Well, that's why they have Satan. 

Remember, many Christians also believe God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.

Satan has an evil plan? Okay. 
God is:

Omniscient: Therefore, he knows what it is and when it is going to happen.
Omnipresent: Therefore, he's there when it's going to happen.
Omnipotent: Therefore, he has the power to stop it from happening.

Yet he doesn't stop it from happening, but Christians will still claim it to be against his will.
(This is a hugely confusing concept.)

You have two options:
A. ) Yes, it is the will of God that horrible things happen in the world, all famine, plagues, genocides, wars, rapes etc occur with his permission, he is fully aware of what is happening, is there as it happens, and doesn't stop it because he desires these things to occur.

B.)Satan is more powerful than God.


----------



## Lance Thrustgood (Aug 23, 2014)

Necris said:


> Well, that's why they have Satan.
> 
> Remember, many Christians also believe God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.
> 
> ...



I don't think that God can be bothered babysitting humans.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 23, 2014)

If he were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent it wouldn't be a bother. That is a handy excuse that I've heard numerous religious folk give to just brush it off and think nothing more of it. Second only to the 'God did it' excuse when they can't explain something. Although that kind of contradicts your statement because a lot of that would qualify as babysitting. One has to wonder what else he's doing anyhow if supposedly Earth is the only planet with life and only humans are given access to the pearly gates. One would assume babysitting isn't a difficult task for a guy who knows literally everything and is even present for everything. If he is also omnipotent it really wouldn't be much of an additional bother for him to do something.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 23, 2014)

Necris said:


> A. ) Yes, it is the will of God that horrible things happen in the world, all famine, plagues, genocides, wars, rapes etc occur with his permission, he is fully aware of what is happening, is there as it happens, and doesn't stop it because he desires these things to occur.
> 
> B.)Satan is more powerful than God.



I don't there are any Old Testament examples of Satan disobeying God. (Please don't make the common mythology mistake of saying the snake in the garden was Satan. It wasn't.) Satan did behave pretty heinously... but there's a clear example of God telling him to. 

So God says to Satan, hey, have you checked out My man Job? He is a blameless and upright dude, and turns away from evil. Man, the dude is scared of Me!

Satan says, well, he's upright and all because you keep him from harm. As for being scared of You, I'm not going to address the way at this time.

So God says, you think he's only a righteous dude because he's got it pretty easy? Hmm... in that case, I'm telling you to go take all that away, and you'll see that he's still scared of Me! Do what you want to his family and his possessions, just don't actually touch the dude himself. You'll see that he he still knows the score!

So all Jobs sons and daughters were hanging out at the oldest brothers house, eating and just drinking a little wine, you know? And then this guy comes to Job's house and says, Dude, the oxen and doinkeys got grabbed by the Sabeen gang, and they chopped everybody else in the face with a big-ass machete, and I'm the only one who got away! 

And while he's getting into uncomfortable detail about the machetes, this second guy comes running up and says, We were in the field with your sheep, trying to figure out why it was getting cloudy, but like in a weird way. I feel nature calling, so I walk under this tree to take care of business, when suddenly the Fire of God falls from the sky and, zap! it burn all them sheep up! And I'm thinking, man, that was freaky, but now I'm smelling like barbecue, and then I get a little bit hungry, so I get ready to walk out from under the tree, and then it was like, Shazam! and all the other dudes working got hit by that God fire! It's still smelling like barbecue, but I'm not hungry no more, because I can't really tell what's what. Anyway, I'm the only one who got away, 

And while he's still talking about barbecue, this third guy comes running up and says, Job, dude, this gang of those Chaldean dudes came up on us, split into three mini gangs, and then pulled out these machetes! Then they started chopping everybody in the face, and it was this weird crunchy noise, and then while they were grabbing all the camels, I ran out the back way. I'm the only one who escaped without getting chopped in the face!

(The first servant, not sure if Job had believed his story, starts pointing at this third guy, making a chopping motion and mouthing the words, See? See? I told you! Machete to the face! Chop! Crunch!)

So now, while the last guy is talking about the chopping, with the first guy agreeing about the machete stuff, and with the second guy still talking who knows what about barbecue, this fourth guy comes running up. Job, he says, your sons and daughters were all hanging inside your oldest son's house, eating and sharing a little wine, and then this big old wind blows and smacks all the corners of the house, bam!, just like the big bad wolf, and it huffed and puffed and blew the house in.

Only, you know, nobody went running to no other little pig's house to hide from the wolf, because they ALL DEAD. Squished FLAT. I got away, though. Oh, talking about pigs... did somebody say something about barbecue? 'Cause I smelled some big cookout not far from here, like someone did up a whole flock of sheep or something!

So Job says, Imma keeping it real!, and he tears his robes and shaves his head, and falls to the ground to worship (presumably in fear). He said, I was born naked, and I'll die naked! God saw fit to give me stuff, including my innocent children, and he saw fit to strike them down in his mercy, and to take everything else away! Blessed be the name of God!

And the four guys said, Amen! Don't hurt us!

And in all this, Job didn't sin by saying that God was wrong to do all this wicked stuff, because, you know how God told Satan that Job was afraid of Him? Well, it's not like Job would suddenly think, man, God took everything, squished my children like bugs, and even sent His fire to burn up a bunch of poor animals, but now seems like the perfect time to bitch out loud, right? Because clearly God is either not very happy... or He's doing it because he's got some sick bet on or something, and how you gonna mouth off to some crazy dude got the power of death over you, and watching you all the time besides, so you get no privacy even when you on the toilet?

Amen. 

Man, that Book of Job is something else, but the take away here is, God will .... your shit up just to show he can, and to prove to Satan just how scared people are of Him. It's like when you hear someone talking about how others get gunned down for not showing respect, but with much more firepower and absolutely no law enforcement to help. 

In case you're wondering, here's the actual story. The funny stuff might not actually be in there, but there is definitely some scary stuff which is.


----------



## Necris (Aug 24, 2014)

I'm well acquainted with the story, it reads like an abusive relationship. 

Abraham and Issac is another fun story. God knew before he even asked that if he told Abraham to sacrifice his only son as a burnt offering Abraham would be all over it, he knew Abraham loved his son, yet he decided to test the faith he already knew Abraham had just for fun.

I mean, come on, who _doesn't_ love a bit of psychological torture? 

Some christians will say "well, God abhors the idea of Child Sacrifice, the bible says so, so he never would have made Abraham go through with it, it was just a test of faith, he's not a monster."

And that's when I will point you to the story of Jepthah, who vowed to the Lord that if he were given victory over the Ammonites he would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return as a burnt offering.
He emerged from the battle victorious, and upon returning home the first thing that walked out of his home to greet him was his daughter. She went away for 2 months to lament her fate, and when she returned he fulfilled his vow, and sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to god. At no point did god ever stop Jepthah or release him from his vow.

And lets not forget, he knew that would happen too. That pesky omniscience really makes him look like a dick, doesn't it? 

Even if we reduce things to kill count, I think god finishes the Bible at something like 2.5 million if you go only by passages that actually give numbers (so you omit the great flood, among other things). Satan finishes with 10, not 10 _million_, Ten, the number of fingers most of us have; and those killings of his,as it happens, occur in the story of Job so they're technically gods too.

You'd almost think, in light of his direct actions and commands throughout the Bible, that he's a far greater monster than Satan could ever hope to be. 

Throughout the bible he destroys towns, orders entire populations killed, causes massive natural disasters etc. and yet, when very similar things happen now, Christians claim it's against his will and attribute these acts to Satan because they can't reconcile these occurrences with their belief in a benevolent god. The power of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 24, 2014)

Well, nice one Necris. Explorer had done such a nice job of jazzing up a bible story that I was almost considering coversion just to see if anybody would help me re-write the whole thing in that style. Then YOU had to go and get with the less funny kid-killing examples, and all of a sudden I don't feel like going through that awful book in search of it's lighter moments (which is probably where I would have wound up anyway; there aren't many light moments - it would be a hell of a task, and I think that laziness ultimately would have prevailed).


----------



## Explorer (Aug 24, 2014)

BTW, I'm thinking of barbecue.

Too soon?


----------



## asher (Aug 24, 2014)

Explorer said:


> BTW, I'm thinking of barbecue.
> 
> Too soon?


 

Dammit, just started non-barbecue dinner.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 12, 2014)

tedtan said:


> ... If they were to "spread the love around" by starting threads against Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, et. al. it might help to soften the blow a bit. ...



I would, but there's not many non-Christians violating the 1st Amendment/Establishment Clause, using their majority position to demand/expect special privilege or have their mythology indoctrinated in the schools as being equal to actual history/science/reality in the U.S..

If Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, Scientologists, Raelians, believers in The Great A'Tuin started violating the 1st Amendment in schools, government meetings, via laws and exemptions to laws, etc. then I'd bring it up more. 

Islamic death threats are already adequately covered, so I don't have to touch those, just provide counter examples to the "We never do that" Hypocritical Christians. If Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, Scientologists, Raelians, believers in The Great A'Tuin started making death threats, I'll bring it up.

The only thing that comes to mind in the U.S. where non-christians were doing things like this are the Orthodox Jews setting-up eruvs that are used to violate immutable laws set down in the Tora and have been taken as claims that public property is now owned by the local orthodox community and no longer public places.

The other area I've weighed in on are claims by the admittedly scientifically ignorant arguing against the science they don't understand. Those discussion have become religious, but only address christian mythological claims because (so far) it's only been willfully ignorant christians that have been whining about the science/history/reality they've been miseducated and/or choose to remain willfully ignorant of contradicting their mythology. If Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, Scientologists, Raelians, believers in The Great A'Tuin started arguing against science/history/reality, I'd reply to them with the same "Therapeutic Meanness" I currently dispense to other science/history/reality deniers.

Ray


----------



## Explorer (Sep 13, 2014)

I pointed out to tedtan (before Ignoring him for just being incapable of logic) that I had posted numerous topics, which he apparently ignored, which were critical about other religions.

BTW, am I the only one who thinks it's bizarre to respond, to a story about someone making death threats, by stating that they'd find conversation about such terrifying thinking and behavior more acceptable... if only there were topics about other faiths making death threats?

Sorry, but I think that terror is its own news item. 

I remember all the outrage when the Scandanavian right-wing Christian killed those kids, and Fox News and posters on SS.org didn't like those facts either.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 13, 2014)

ElRay said:


> I would, but there's not many non-Christians violating the 1st Amendment/Establishment Clause, using their majority position to demand/expect special privilege or have their mythology indoctrinated in the schools as being equal to actual history/science/reality in the U.S..



My comments are about objectivity and presentation, as I addressed in post 86.





Explorer said:


> I pointed out to tedtan (before Ignoring him for just being incapable of logic) that I had posted numerous topics, which he apparently ignored, which were critical about other religions.
> 
> BTW, am I the only one who thinks it's bizarre to respond, to a story about someone making death threats, by stating that they'd find conversation about such terrifying thinking and behavior more acceptable... if only there were topics about other faiths making death threats?



There you go trying to put words in my mouth again, Explorer. 

I never said that the topic itself or the conversation surrounding it were unacceptable. I merely pointed out that you are giving the appearance of being as biased a source as Fox news, even though you lean in the opposite direction. If you can't get that from what I've posted, the logical failure is entirely your own.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 26, 2015)

I didn't find out about volume 2 having come out until today!

http://www.amazon.com/Awkward-Moments-Found-Average-Childrens/dp/0692264981/

This is just the thing to remind us that the Islam isn't the only religion with a text full of horrible stuff.


----------

