# America is Great. I, however, am severely retarded.



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 10, 2010)

Christians claim hate crimes law an effort to &#8216;eradicate&#8217; their beliefs | Raw Story


This is hilarious and horribly depressing at the same time. All of these religious freaks need a good ol' baseball bat anus raping.


----------



## Origin (Feb 10, 2010)

And people wonder why I'm apprehensive about Christians...

Ugh.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 10, 2010)

Your title is retarded. The people trying to sue are Christians, not all of America.  Incorrect blanket statements FTL.


----------



## AySay (Feb 10, 2010)

Their beliefs should be eradicated...Its fucking 2010, its about time.
Just like we mock the ancient greeks for thinking the sun was a guy on a flaming chariot, humanity will look back at this pathetic era and mock them for believing EVERY LIVING SPECIES fit onto a wooden boat built buy a drunk among countless other things. I just hope that is sooner rather than later...



HighGain510 said:


> Your title is retarded. The people trying to sue are Christians, not all of America.  Incorrect blanket statements FTL.



America as Republicans always love to say "Is a Christian Nation."


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Feb 10, 2010)

AySay said:


> humanity will look back at this pathetic era and mock them for believing EVERY LIVING SPECIES fit onto a wooden boat built buy a drunk among countless other things.



You mean two of every species 


HOLY FUCK I JUST READ THE ARTICLE LMAO! 

Good fucking game.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 10, 2010)

The insensitivity displayed in this thread is incredible.

I'm a christian. I have no problem personally with homosexuals. After all, it is simply just one of a long list of possible sins, and being that I am most certainly NOT without sin, I am no 'better' in the eyes of God than a homosexual.

However, the way the world is going, there will come a time when it will be illegal for me to even SAY, "I believe homosexuality is wrong." Now, inciting hatred is one thing, the right to say what I believe is something else. If I were to say "RISE UP MY CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND KILL THE GAYS!"... that would be wrong. Very wrong. But when the time comes when I can no longer state what I believe because it is a hate crime... that's a world I don't want to live in. And when you think about it, that's not a world you want to live in either. Free speech goes both ways, and all parties have to respect the each other's right to it.

And because I know that it will come up, duh, there are obviously other christians who don't see things the way I do, but their extremist actions do not alter the underlying beliefs.

Always remember the golden rule. Otherwise you are no better. I have a right to believe what I do, and I have a right to state what I believe. You also have the right to disagree with me, and obviously many of you will. You have a right to state that you don't agree with me.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Feb 10, 2010)

Considering that you can still make racial slurs in public etc etc and other things that are easily comparable I don't see you having to worry about that. But remember when you say it people have the right to turn around and verbally rip you a new ass based on their own beliefs.

The thing most religious people seem to forget is your beliefs are *YOUR* beliefs for *YOURSELF* and no one else. If you practice any religion for anyone but yourself your doing it wrong.

Though! considering your beliefs are for yourself it may be best to keep them to yourself. Otherwise you become no better than the ignorant racist saying "being of X ethnicity is wrong" even though its his belief and hes entitled to it by the same standard.

(btw all the *you*s are in general not specifically you.)


----------



## Xaios (Feb 10, 2010)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> Considering that you can still make racial slurs in public etc etc and other things that are easily comparable I don't see you having to worry about that. But remember when you say it people have the right to turn around and verbally rip you a new ass based on their own beliefs.



Absolutely, that's the whole point.



> The thing most religious people seem to forget is your beliefs are *YOUR* beliefs for *YOURSELF* and no one else. If you practice any religion for anyone but yourself your doing it wrong.



Agreed, but this argument cannot be limited to religious beliefs, otherwise it's one-sided. All 'beliefs' have to be held accountable.



> Though! considering your beliefs are for yourself it may be best to keep them to yourself. Otherwise you become no better than the ignorant racist saying "being of X ethnicity is wrong" even though its his belief and hes entitled to it by the same standard.



Problem is that it's a double edged sword. There are lots of people in this world who believe there is a god and who believe there isn't a god. Generally, theistic religious folks 'know' that there is a god. Atheists 'know' there isn't a god. So, who decides what is 'right' to say and what is 'wrong'? If I'm not allowed to say that I'm a christian and I believe in god, then the hindu next in line isn't allowed to say "I'm hindu and I believe in reincarnation." The atheist isn't allowed to say "I'm an atheist and I believe in the big bang." The buddhist isn't allowed to say "I'm a buddhist and I believe in nirvana." The minute you say that ANY SINGLE ONE of these beliefs isn't allowed to be said in public, the whole thing goes down the toilet.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Feb 10, 2010)

You missed the part where he said "may be best" to keep them to yourself. Honestly, all the law is doing is PROTECTING people from attacks based on their sexuality. Free speech isn't the issue. You can say whatever you want, but the minute you act on it you're a criminal and a morally reprehensible one at that.

I could go down into the city (I live outside Baltimore city) and scream "I hate (n-word)" and I couldn't be arrested for saying that, (except perhaps under the "fighting words" clause for obviously incendiary speech) but I COULD expect anyone down there to respond with equally hateful speech or violence. Similarly, if a Christian in the company of homosexuals starts spreading hurtful, hateful speech, that is a protected constitutional right. But honestly I don't think any TRULY moral people would mind seeing your ass beat by the homosexuals in question.

Hate is hate. Religion is NOT an excuse for that. God may have said "kill the homosexuals" but his son said "Love thy neighbor".


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 10, 2010)

i think religious people need to stop trying to prove that they're right. i'm not saying everyone is like that of course. my point is that religion is a FAITH. you only believe it to be true, and you do so both despite any lack of proof, and in spite of proof against the opposite. that's what makes it a "faith", because it's kinda like a test. you have to trust it and stick with it.

so why do they keep insisting it should be "official"? it's like they've abandoned the word-of-mouth method that the bible speaks of, and are tricking their way through the legal system to cheat it into making their beliefs law.

again, not saying that "they" means every christian person, i mean the crazy extremist ones that are trying to change the educational system to be religious, trying to change all the laws to fit their BELIEFS. in my eyes they are failing to live a christian lifestyle, and are going against the spirit of what Jesus wanted.

and what's up with religion being such a damn sensitive subject? like richard dawkins says, it's the only belief/opinion that gets that insane amount of respectability in society. i think it's just a belief, a faith in something that is intentionally far-fetched and hard to believe. that's just what it is. political opinions or musical opinions aren't half as respected as that of religion. people are scared shitless of insulting religion, because people are apparently EXTRA hurt by it.

which brings me to the fact that religious people have a tendency to get very easily butthurt. everything gets taken personally, and they always believe they are under attack.

just for some context, i used to be a christian, so i know what it's all about. i also got confirmed in the church, and did the whole bible education thing beforehand. i have experienced the feeling myself.

my fiancè and her family are christians.

i respect religious people as long as they respect my non-religiousness. sadly though, it's largely expected that you're supposed to respect them, but if you're not a part of them, you should just back out and accept it. me being a non-religious person, most of my opinions being against theirs. surely, my opinions should be equally respected to theirs?

Xaios: first off, i think you've gotten it wrong about atheists/agnostics. we believe in what has been proven to be true through scientific non-biased studies, and only that. if a theory is proven wrong, and it's changed, then that becomes what we believe instead. this means that we don't KNOW that god doesn't exist, because there's no way of disproving such a thing. we only know that within science, there is no "room" for a god, because there's no role left for him to fill. there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god, and so we believe he most likely doesn't exist.

i'm sure you already knew all of that really, but i'm just stating the other side of it.

now, as for what is right and wrong, i think that should be simple to decide: religion is, as i stated earlier, a personal belief in something. it's not a list of proven facts to live by, it's a word-of-mouth kind of spiritual thing that is built on trusting your faith. i think personal beliefs like these should be kept personal. make gatherings, make churches, anything you like, just keep it between the people. as for what the system should provide, i think it should be non-biased and objective. a religion is biased, since it has a set of ideologies. that makes it unfit for use in an official legal system. it's the same as any other kind of belief, it's not just religion. i think the system should be entirely devoid of religious biases, so that no beliefs are imposed on anyone against their will and against their beliefs. the task of keeping a religion going should be up to the religious group, not the government that decides for everyone. simlpy because everyone doesn't have the same belief.

sorry if i'm coming across as an ass or anything, but that's just how it is.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 10, 2010)

Good post, well said. I do, however, have one issue.

You describe atheism in its most ideal form, which is well and good, but 'atheists' are not always this ideal type of person that seeks the truth through scientific means. For every intellectual atheist, there are probably at least two kneejerk atheists who don't have a clue about the actual science other than some guy somewhere who is apparently a scientist did a study and came to this conclusion. These people are incapable of forming their own scientific conclusions, so they blindly defer to the 'expert' opinion of other people who's credentials and reasoning may or may not be sound enough to actually conduct said research. Atheism is as much their blind faith practice as religion is to some people. These people are not any more fit to influence the word of law than religious people, and them saying "there is no God" holds no more water than me saying "there is a God," and yet their opinions are given more credence simply because it's in line with what the scientific community is _currently_ stating to be the truth. But then another 'scientific, non-biased study' is done and the people who were championing yesterday's 'truth' and jamming it down everyone's throat saying "this is right, and if you don't believe it, you're a fucking lunatic moron asshole who should be shot," do a complete about-face.

Re-reading that, yeah, you might say I sound a little bitter, but I have met MANY of that kind of atheist. I have nothing but respect for atheists who can back up their views with solid facts, but please don't tell me that all atheists can, because it just ain't true.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Feb 10, 2010)

Xaios said:


> Agreed, but this argument cannot be limited to religious beliefs, otherwise it's one-sided. All 'beliefs' have to be held accountable.



True, true.



Xaios said:


> Problem is that it's a double edged sword.



Its not so much that your not allowed to as much as you do it to avoid confrontation.

Either way I don't ever see speaking your mind becoming part of national law any time soon if ever. Its one of the biggest things the U.S. is founded on. It becoming part of the unofficial rulebook of *shit you just don't say* on the other hand yeah very likely if not already in place.

We got some good posts in this thread ^^

funny how it started off with a link about idiocy.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 11, 2010)

Xaios said:


> You describe atheism in its most ideal form



well of course, there are arrogant people in all the different areas. just as there are proper and respectable christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, and non-theists, there are people in all of those areas that are total asses.

i describe the "ideal atheist", because that's what an atheist is. some people are total dicks, but i don't think you can chart that up to them being atheists. they are dicks that happen to be atheist. if they couldn't claim superiority in that are, they would be claiming it in a different area.

i would just as well dismiss the intentions of an arrogant and careless atheist, as i would that of an arrogant and careless christian.

but yeah, i agree with you in one way, in that a person who doesn't believe in god, but who doesn't know the other options either, is just a man without a belief, without an opinion.

however, i think if someone learns in school that "gravity pulls stuff down, earth is round and circles sun, because scientists discovered it to be so", then they should confidently be able to trust that, because the source is one that only allows for proof, and not speculation. sure, they might not know the mechanisms, but at least they know the bare basics.

it's kinda different when it's about religion and stuff of course, because if all they have is "god doesn't exist, he just doesn't, because i just don't think so", then they aren't as much atheist as they are ignorant. they are technically atheist, but they have no idea what they really believe. they just know what they don't.

i myself know exactly what i believe and why, and i am very much a skeptic. i am quick to find logical explanations to "mysteries" posed by other people (urban legends, ghost experiences, all that stuff), and usually people are al l "aww, i never thought about that!". i wouldn't believe in the stuff i believe in if i hadn't given it lots of thought and consideration first. i wish this were true for all so-called atheists, but lots of people just aren't smart enough to raeson out an opinion, because they don't know the facts on either side.

the same actually goes for a surprisingly huge amount of christians (and probably others, but i have no experience with those) who simply don't know the facts of what they believe in. they only know the stuff told to them by their church/ministry, and don't really know the source material. i think it's sad, because it's such an interesting subject! i mean, there are people who believe the king james bible is the only correct scripture out there, because the other ones collide with it. i've seen people deny what's written in the original dead sea scrolls, because it didn't fit with what their king james bible said.

i also know that there are some extremely knowledgeable christians who know what they believe in, and are aware of what it came from, and who can do logical reasoning outside of their own beliefs as well. this is something i respect immensely.


----------



## mlp187 (Feb 11, 2010)

You should ask a mod to fix your title, OP.


----------



## BigPhi84 (Feb 11, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> i describe the "ideal atheist", because that's what an atheist is. some people are total dicks, but i don't think you can chart that up to them being atheists. they are dicks that happen to be atheist. if they couldn't claim superiority in that are, they would be claiming it in a different area.
> 
> i would just as well dismiss the intentions of an arrogant and careless atheist, as i would that of an arrogant and careless christian.





I just want to thank you for having a sound mind (wow, pardon the pun ). The fervor on both sides just scares me. I read the article thinking, "My God, these people are idiots". But these people are the exception, not the rule, and should rightly be dismissed. I am a Christian and I'm ashamed that anyone on this board might lump me in with "them". These Christian terrorists are what's wrong with America right now. The problem is, we peaceful, moderate Christians don't speak as loudly and rudely as these terrorists, so their radical ideology becomes "the voice of Christian America". I know that their message is hateful and retarded. But, for every one of those douchebags, there are 1,000 Christians that actually try to follow Jesus' teachings. I do not understand why these terrorists have this idea that "America is at War with Christianity". It's just dumb. "Christianity never changes," they say. Bullshit. It has flowed around every major change in modern history. 

On the flip side, there are people on this board that would call for the eradication of Christianity based on a few radical Christian terrorists' views.


----------



## Leon (Feb 11, 2010)

mlp187 said:


> You should ask a mod to fix your title, OP.



No need


----------



## 6o66er (Feb 11, 2010)

@ 'title fix'


----------



## BigPhi84 (Feb 11, 2010)

Wow, Leon, you are brutal.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 11, 2010)

Title fix is appropriate


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 11, 2010)

From what I've seen, the original title was appropriate regarding the average American. Tolerance/respect has gained in popularity, but it is not anywhere close to a virtue held by the majority of folks. Maybe if you only look at 'Americans attending secular universities' you will find a different opinion, but the majority of Americans do not respect gays at all. Even California voted definitively against affording them the rights of other citizens.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Feb 11, 2010)

HEY SARAH PALIN'S DAUGHTER IS RETARDED YOU uh... SHOULDN'T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT. 

Unless you're Rush Limbaugh, then it's ok


----------



## wannabguitarist (Feb 11, 2010)

AySay said:


> Their beliefs should be eradicated...Its fucking 2010, its about time.
> Just like we mock the ancient greeks for thinking the sun was a guy on a flaming chariot, humanity will look back at this pathetic era and mock them for believing EVERY LIVING SPECIES fit onto a wooden boat built buy a drunk among countless other things. I just hope that is sooner rather than later...
> 
> America as Republicans always love to say "Is a Christian Nation."



I personally am an Atheist but your comment really jumped out at me. "Their beliefs should be eradicated," really? I almost wanted to invoke Godwin's Law and compare you to Hitler lol. Do you feel the same about muslims, jews, buddhists, hindus, etc? Or is it just christians? I mean all those beliefs can be seen as equally ridiculous. Pull your head out of your ass man

Also; I don't think that part of the Bible was meant to be taken literally. I have yet to meet a single Christian/Catholic (I have clergy in my family) that really believes Noah put 2 of every living species on his boat. Maybe it's those Christians you're meeting in Vancouver that are retarded

And technically wouldn't any country where the majority of the population believes in the Christian god or practices some form of Christianity be a Christian nation?


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Feb 11, 2010)

AySay said:


> Their beliefs should be eradicated...Its fucking 2010, its about time.
> Just like we mock the ancient greeks for thinking the sun was a guy on a flaming chariot, humanity will look back at this pathetic era and mock them for believing EVERY LIVING SPECIES fit onto a wooden boat built buy a drunk among countless other things. I just hope that is sooner rather than later...



I couldnt agree more dude. Hit the nail on the head. 
I could believe with all my being i might take off and start flying, that doesnt mean its gonna happen.


----------



## Janiator (Feb 11, 2010)

I've always been curious as to how you would interpret the Noah story. When I read the story I feel it's pretty obvious that what's written is not a metaphor, because it's a very detailed description of said event. I'd love to hear your side of things. If you don't want to turn it into a religious discussion that's fine. Just curious.


Edit: While I strongly disagree with the reality that Christianity poses, making it outlawed just because the scientific community disagrees is extremly inhumane. It's making certain thinking outlawed. If there is one thing I hate above anything it's people telling you what you can or cannot believe.
Even if we could 100% disprove God and the bible, making the belief in it outlawed is one of the worst things you could do.
If someone today believes that the sun is a god, fine. Just because it's stupid doesn't mean we should control what people believe in.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Feb 11, 2010)

Janiator said:


> I've always been curious as to how you would interpret the Noah story. When I read the story I feel it's pretty obvious that what's written is not a metaphor, because it's a very detailed description of said event. I'd love to hear your side of things. If you don't want to turn it into a religious discussion that's fine. Just curious.



The priest at my local church explained it to me by saying he built a boat and put his family as well as animals from his farm/some local animals on it. So sheep, cows, pigs, (what was on a farm back then? ), I dunno. Think back to the time period of that story; wouldn't the farm you live on and the small area around it (and the animals in it) be the whole world to you? People probably didn't do much traveling back then.

I'm not saying any of this happened (or didn't happen) I'm just say what I've been told by a priest

Edit: I just saw your edit, that's exactly how I feel about the whole thing


----------



## AySay (Feb 11, 2010)

I just re-read my post and it DEFINITELY sounds unnecessarily harsh. 

It's just I don't like seeing anyone's freedom being shit on and I really do realize the hypocrisy in my original post saying religion should be eradicated . 

All in all...

I love all you guys regardless of religion or any other choice, but I would just rather not have social progress hindered by "faith"


----------



## Janiator (Feb 11, 2010)

I understand your point of view, but I disagree.
"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

The way I see it is that he took two of every animal on the planet.
I also wonder how you would have food to eat for 150 days when you can't eat the animals.
Is there a religious discussion thread on the forum somewhere? I feel that we kinda went off topic



AySay said:


> I love all you guys regardless of religion or any other choice, but I would just rather not have social progress hindered by "faith



Very well said. I however do not believe that religion really hinders scientific progress. Not every man on earth is a scientist. Science will allways continue, no matter if people believe in god, the sun, the flying spaghetti monster or whatever. It would just make Fox news a decent television channel.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 11, 2010)

Janiator said:


> It would just make Fox news a decent television channel.



I'm sure even atheists would agree that it's more likely that someone will prove that God exists than Fox News ever becoming a credible source of information.

Personally, if Fox ever we ever reached the point where Fox WAS considered a credible news source of journalistic integrity, even by folks on the left, now THAT would be proof positive that there is no God.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 11, 2010)

AySay said:


> I just re-read my post and it DEFINITELY sounds unnecessarily harsh.
> 
> It's just I don't like seeing anyone's freedom being shit on and I really do realize the hypocrisy in my original post saying religion should be eradicated .
> 
> ...



I love you too 


No homo.


----------



## BigPhi84 (Feb 12, 2010)

AySay said:


> I just re-read my post and it DEFINITELY sounds unnecessarily harsh.
> It's just I don't like seeing anyone's freedom being shit on and I really do realize the hypocrisy in my original post saying religion should be eradicated .
> All in all...
> I love all you guys regardless of religion or any other choice, but I would just rather not have social progress hindered by "faith"




Apology accepted. It takes a big man to admit mistakes and I respect you even more for that. Rep+1 Also, your avatar reminds me of Petrucci's old Ibanez guitars. 

As a Christian, I am well aware of the ways that Christianity has hindered social progress... in the past with women's suffrage, slavery in America, abortion, and even now with the discrimination of homosexuals. It has a dirty past, but doesn't everything in some fashion? America was founded due to rich people being bastards and not wanting to pay taxes. Australia was founded as a penal colony... thus all australians are criminals.  LOL  Just kidding, I love all you Aussies, especially Demoniac and Bungle!  Knowing the positive way Christianity influences my life, I choose to go against the grain and show the world love akin to Jesus's love. In my real life, I have no enemies, and I know that if any of you guys got to meet me in person, you'd see that I'm awesome just like you. 

Politics kill me. Politicians that use religion to gain leverage infuriate me. Just know that when you read articles like the OP, know that these people have strayed away from what Christianity is, and are the disdain of "normal" Christians. I'm definitely a person that keeps to the whole "don't discuss sex, religion, or politics" with people.


----------



## White Cluster (Feb 12, 2010)

Janiator said:


> I however do not believe that religion really hinders scientific progress.



It does however hinder intellectual and evolutionary progress.Idle minds become safe havens for beliefs.Once you believe something to be true there is no need to think about it anymore.True knowledge only begets more questions.Once you believe you have found the absolute, your mind stops searching for truth.These beliefs divide, define and confine us.They ultimately deny us the understanding needed to find that which will help us become more than we are today.Imagine a world with no religion..where there was no deities to war over.A world where people looked inside themselves and in others for the answers and comfort they hope to find in religion.We all have more brain than we're using.Religion is a crutch.

I may seem like a lunatic by this post but I'd like to think that opposable thumbs wasn't our grand finale.Just my $0.02


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 12, 2010)

wannabguitarist said:


> Also; I don't think that part of the Bible was meant to be taken literally. I have yet to meet a single Christian/Catholic (I have clergy in my family) that really believes Noah put 2 of every living species on his boat. Maybe it's those Christians you're meeting in Vancouver that are retarded



You may think that but tons of biblical inerrants would tend to disagree. Also, which parts don't you take literally? There's no disclaimer. If its the infallible word of god, its either all true or bogus. You cant pick and choose which parts of the infallible word of god are infallible. 



wannabguitarist said:


> And technically wouldn't any country where the majority of the population believes in the Christian god or practices some form of Christianity be a Christian nation?



They say its a Christian nation based on the belief that the founding fathers of the United States were Christians and tried to install christian principles in the country. Basic study about the people who wrote the constitution shows that they were mostly deists at best, and in some cases (Jefferson, f. ex), were harsh critics of Christianity. Generally, in my experience, those espousing the "Christian nation" thing generally don't like the separation of church and state part of the constitution, either. They also don't realize the "In god we trust" crap was added on during the cold war to separate us from the godless communists.


----------



## Origin (Feb 12, 2010)

If there's no CONCRETE, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for it, I refuse to believe in it. 

And with that logic (you know...one of....well..sense), it becomes infuriating when anyone uses such an ambiguous thing as religion as something of empirical value or another sort of 'ammo' against ANYONE else. 

This also applies to Atheists, Satanists...anyone who uses shit they can't (and won't be able to) prove as a platform and hurts or defames someone simply for believing otherwise or living differently than they do.

I'm not biased against Christians automatically, 90% of the ones I know are perfectly normal people. But when I see dickheads like this, it just puts a lump in my throat.



White Cluster said:


> It does however hinder intellectual and evolutionary progress.Idle minds become safe havens for beliefs.Once you believe something to be true there is no need to think about it anymore.True knowledge only begets more questions.Once you believe you have found the absolute, your mind stops searching for truth.These beliefs divide, define and confine us.They ultimately deny us the understanding needed to find that which will help us become more than we are today.Imagine a world with no religion..where there was no deities to war over.A world where people looked inside themselves and in others for the answers and comfort they hope to find in religion.We all have more brain than we're using.Religion is a crutch.
> 
> I may seem like a lunatic by this post but I'd like to think that opposable thumbs wasn't our grand finale.Just my $0.02



Absolutely agree with this. Think of how far stem cells would've gone, not to mention teaching birth control without who's in control telling us it's wrong to teach it to teenagers, and having rates of new STD infections and teen pregnancies decrease.

Religion is perfectly fine when it doesn't interfere with the state; anything else is a violation of their freedom as well.

But that's exactly the point, WHY THE HELL IS IT ALLOWED IN THE STATE? It's an absolute contradiction of free will and choice.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 12, 2010)

about the whole "literal/not literal" thing, i think it´s clear that the stories in the bible are a thick mix of these. if you think about it, these are personal interpretations of events that were passed down through word-of-mouth and storytellers for many many years before finally being written down. some of them were written down close to the actual events, some of them were written down a looooong time afterwards.

the parts about Jesus, for example, were mostly written down 45-50 years after his death, by people who never knew or saw him. the stories about him had been passed down through telling them verbally for all that time.

then you think about how verbal storytelling works: there are certain traits that are easier to remember than others, and so are used commonly in verbal storytelling. for example, the golden numbers: 3, 7, 12, etc. i´m sure you´ll find lots of them in the bible. another way of remembering stories like this, is through using "templates". a well-known set of traits that is applied because it´s easier to remember it. this could well easy explain why there are so many ancient god figures that were born by virgins, visited by three wise men who followed a star in the sky, performed miracles, had 12 disciples, walked on water, returned from the dead, etc. seriously, Jesus isn´t the only deity known for doing all those exact things.

the point is that the stories are guaranteed to have been distorted and warped compared to the actual events. the general idea and intent/morale behind it reminds, but details get mixed up. then, you add the "feather into five hens" effect. suddenly jesus is literally walking on water and turning water into wine with the snap of his fingers. then you add the fact that humans are NOTORIOUSLY BAD at remembering events, even just a couple minutes after it happened. we really suck at it.

so i would say the bible is a collection of old memories. they were all remembered and retold, and eventually written down, because they have moral lessons in them that people thought were important.

the interesting thing is that Jesus´ name wasn´t actually jesus (can´t rember what it really was), and who he really was, and what he really did, is quite different from what is represented by the christians today. it´s simply been withered away over time, and then rebuilt badly, until we get this fable that is loosely based on something real. for example, he was in a jewish group who called themselves "the sons of god". i guess you see where that went? the guy was known for being a good speaker, and he preached religious ideas to other jews. it was always meant to be for jews by jews though, as he believed non-jews were infidels. when people started writing down loose recollections of his story, and started a whole movement in his name, Jesus´ own brother was pissed, as he believed they were strongly misguided in their beliefs, and were using Jesus´ name and words to get across moral lessons that were totally wrong to what he really stood for when he lived.

it´s far from being a unique case, too. look at the mormons, for example. one guy tries tells people he was visited by a messenger of god, who told him about some ancient writings of god, that he found and transcribed. fast forward, and today there are really really close followers to this stuff. the guy was so obviously full of crap too, which just shows how it doesn´t even need to be credible, as long as you can be charismatic and get the ideas across to many people.


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 12, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> about the whole "literal/not literal" thing, i think it´s clear that the stories in the bible are a thick mix of these. if you think about it, these are personal interpretations of events that were passed down through word-of-mouth and storytellers for many many years before finally being written down. some of them were written down close to the actual events, some of them were written down a looooong time afterwards.


I agree with you. However, if you're going to take the bible as it says it is -- the inerrant word of god, than you can throw the literal/not literal thing out. That's the point I'm making. Anyone who seriously looks at it will see its a bunch of collections of stories assimilated from other cultures, etc., and as such is inconsistent with itself. 



MF_Kitten said:


> the interesting thing is that Jesus´ name wasn´t actually jesus (can´t rember what it really was), and who he really was, and what he really did, is quite different from what is represented by the christians today. it´s simply been withered away over time, and then rebuilt badly, until we get this fable that is loosely based on something real. for example, he was in a jewish group who called themselves "the sons of god". i guess you see where that went? the guy was known for being a good speaker, and he preached religious ideas to other jews. it was always meant to be for jews by jews though, as he believed non-jews were infidels. when people started writing down loose recollections of his story, and started a whole movement in his name, Jesus´ own brother was pissed, as he believed they were strongly misguided in their beliefs, and were using Jesus´ name and words to get across moral lessons that were totally wrong to what he really stood for when he lived.


You're right. It was supposed to be Joshua (Yeshua in Hebrew). The Greeks wrote it as Iesous (in the greek alphabet of course). And it was mistranlated into english as Jesus. So if they would have gotten it right, it'd be Joshua Christ. 

As far as a historical Jesus, there's no corroboration for one outside of the bible itself. There is no one from the time period who wrote of Jesus in the years when he was supposed to exist, and the closest texts mentioning anything about him, as you said, started to appear around 60-80CE. Historians started writing about him around the beginning of the second century CE. If Herod slaughtered babies to try to prevent jesus, than why is the only mention of such a supposed horrific event in the new testament and no where else? If, 30 years later, some dude was raising the dead and walking on water, why did no one else aside from a couple of dudes 50 years after the fact ever bother to write it down? If there was a giant earthquake and blackening of the sky and 3 days of darkness, etc., when jesus was resurrected, why did not one other source mention it?


----------



## TruthDose (Feb 12, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> As far as a historical Jesus, there's no corroboration for one outside of the bible itself. There is no one from the time period who wrote of Jesus in the years when he was supposed to exist, and the closest texts mentioning anything about him, as you said, started to appear around 60-80CE. Historians started writing about him around the beginning of the second century CE. If Herod slaughtered babies to try to prevent jesus, than why is the only mention of such a supposed horrific event in the new testament and no where else? If, 30 years later, some dude was raising the dead and walking on water, why did no one else aside from a couple of dudes 50 years after the fact ever bother to write it down? If there was a giant earthquake and blackening of the sky and 3 days of darkness, etc., when jesus was resurrected, why did not one other source mention it?



The only explanation i've heard for that is that the Devil destroyed it all


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 12, 2010)

TruthDose said:


> The only explanation i've heard for that is that the Devil destroyed it all



Old Nick is pretty effective, eh?  Sure it wasn't him who planted the dinosaur bones to test our faith?


----------



## PeteyG (Feb 12, 2010)

wannabguitarist said:


> technically wouldn't any country where the majority of the population believes in the Christian god or practices some form of Christianity be a Christian nation?



No, not in a country that was founded on the idea of seperation of church and state. Islamic countries are ones where the religion dictates a lot of the laws, however America is a country of laws that came out of the idea of freedom, and a lot of them fly in the face of some quite popular perceptions of the messages of the bible.

When you start calling it a Christian nation based on the majority of the population being of that particular belief, regardless of whether there are people of other religion living there or not, you begin on the path to great misunderstandings and disinformation. Doing this will essentially cause a lot more strain for the country in a lot of areas, from people being able to claim that the wars you fight are religiously biased, even holy wars, to religious people having another excuse to discount the scientific method.

The lines would become blurred, and there is a great possibility that eventually America would become a truly "Christian Nation" that is run on the beliefs in what a book says, as opposed to what we experience and discover, and actually debating and voting on what is best for the people, and then learning by experience whether we are right or wrong.



And besides, if we are to believe the statistics, America consists roughly of 78% Christians, just as I consist of about 75% water, however this does not simply make me "Water", just as America is not Christian.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 12, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> I agree with you. However, if you're going to take the bible as it says it is -- the inerrant word of god, than you can throw the literal/not literal thing out. That's the point I'm making. Anyone who seriously looks at it will see its a bunch of collections of stories assimilated from other cultures, etc., and as such is inconsistent with itself.
> 
> 
> You're right. It was supposed to be Joshua (Yeshua in Hebrew). The Greeks wrote it as Iesous (in the greek alphabet of course). And it was mistranlated into english as Jesus. So if they would have gotten it right, it'd be Joshua Christ.
> ...



thanks for the details 

this is what i was referring to, yeah. and what i said about jesus as an actual person is all based on the assumption that he was. he´s mentioned in the qur'an too, where he is named as a prophet. but yeah, there´s a chance he never existed at all, of course.

as for the insane happenings in the bible, i completely agree. they are isolated to the stories in the bible, and those words are the only things saying it ever happened. i think it´s a case of 1feather5hens most of the time, or hearsay and word-of-mouth type myths.


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 12, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> Generally, in my experience, those espousing the "Christian nation" thing generally don't like the separation of church and state part of the constitution, either. \



I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to challenge you to find separation of church and state in the constitution. You can't. It's not in there.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 12, 2010)

ddtonfire said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to challenge you to find separation of church and state in the constitution. You can't. It's not in there.



the founding fathers clearly intended it to be a non-theist country, where religion wouldn´t be a part of how the country was governed.


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 12, 2010)

ddtonfire said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to challenge you to find separation of church and state in the constitution. You can't. It's not in there.


Wrong. If you'd have read past the preample, you'd have found this:

First amendment--


Constitution said:


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


*
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." *


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Feb 12, 2010)

*high-five* the term "separation" is a legal one, not directly from constitutional language. My personal beliefs support the idea of NO religious idea influencing any part of the political process. An entirely secular state is the only one I can support.


----------



## ElRay (Feb 12, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> the founding fathers clearly intended it to be a non-theist country, where religion wouldn´t be a part of how the country was governed.


This is sad. SOmebody born outside of the U.S. has a better understanding of our Constitution than somebody born and raised in the U.S.

It's truly sad how many of us just want to piss-away The Constitution when it gets in the way of shoving their ideas down everybody's throats, but rally behind it when they're being asked to do something they don't like. There are far, far too many folks (especially young ones) that think The Constitution is irrelevant and the Federal Government should be allowed to pass any law that the majority of Congress Critters (not the majority of Citizens) want.

Remember, a pure Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The U.S. government was set up to be constrained to protect minorities from "The Tyranny of the Majority" and prevent the central government from becoming abusive and invasive, like every other large central government had in the past. Unfortunately, the folks we've entrusted to protect our rights have failed us, and the overwhelming majority of American are too F'in apathetic, or, even worse, like the idea of using the government as a club to get what they want, so they'll tolerate other folks abuses, in the pathetic hope that they'll eventually get what they want.

Ray


----------



## MikeH (Feb 12, 2010)

If Christians attempt to pass a law of religion, although the Constitution forbids it, I'm leaving this country for good. Even if it doesn't pass. That will show just how much Christians are shoving beliefs down everyone's throats. Por example, I was at work the other night and had gotten my duties done and was talking to a friend. He told me that one of my co-workers asked for some good music that he might be able to listen to. Being aware of the fact that he is a very prominent Christian (attends church 4 times a week and twice on Sundays), he tried to keep it mellow. So he suggested Green Day. So said co-worker buys a CD, takes it home, his mother finds it, and calls the kid threatening him saying that she's going to call the police and press charges on him for bringing such hateful slander into her son's life. Also, that he is going to burn in hell with his "devil music". (This made me ) That goes to show how religion has evolved (oxymoron?) into something hateful and that the majority, although not all, of Christians simply use it as a crutch to give themselves the upper hand in a confrontational situation.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Feb 12, 2010)

Janiator said:


> If someone today believes that the sun is a god, fine. Just because it's stupid doesn't mean we should control what people believe in.



Believing the sun is a "god" is far from stupid, I mean shit it exists it gives us light and energy. If it wasn't for the sun we wouldn't exist. 

Skip to 3:50 for greatness. 


The thing I find silly with the anti-oppressing beliefs is that at what point do you draw the line? What if my beliefs are completely ludicrous and seemingly made up yet I truly believe in them? What if my beliefs harm everyone around me or put people into an ignorant state of mind (cough) is it ok for me to believe in these things?


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Feb 12, 2010)

Personally I think both sides of this argument are spending too much time bitching about what the other sides does, instead of even attempting to do anything good for the country as a whole. Both sides have segments of their respective populations that are pushy. Faith and religion are open for interpretation by each person involved in them. The same is for atheists, so the whole we are "right" argument being lobed by both sides is getting extremely old. Until someone dies and come back to tell us what happens, then no one is ever going to know for 100% certain that either side is right. All this does is breed arguments and intolerance. 

The problem I see with the church involvement in the legislative arena, is they are trying to mandate and preach politics from the pulpit. This is in no way the place for such things, but alas this is how things are. I think a lot of Christians need to first be awakened to the fact that this is happening (I say this because a lot of ministers are really good at getting it in there without anyone really noticing), and then distance themselves from such things. Of course, some don't see anything wrong with preaching politics to a congregation, and this saddens me. To those in that category I would like to ask them to look at it this way, if you try to impose your beliefs on the entire country by whom you elect to public office, you also need to understand that if another group elects someone of their particular faith to office that you have to accept their right to impose. If you are going to live by the sword you are going to die by it, and sadly I think most of those radical types would rather live that way than learn to be tolerant.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 12, 2010)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> Believing the sun is a "god" is far from stupid, I mean shit it exists it gives us light and energy. If it wasn't for the sun we wouldn't exist.



I fully support this post. If I was going to worship something, it would be the Sun. Without it, everything dies, so to me it would make most sense to worship that which sustains all life.



Cheesebuiscut said:


> Skip to 3:50 for greatness.




May that man rest in peace


----------



## Randy (Feb 12, 2010)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> Until someone dies and come back to tell us what happens, then no one is ever going to know for 100% certain that either side is right. All this does is breed arguments and intolerance.



Ramen.


----------



## Ckackley (Feb 12, 2010)

To chime in ....

Worshiping the Sun as a god is how the whole Christianity thing got started anyway. Can anyone seriously look at Jesus or the Christian God, compare him to other gods worshiped before, during and after the start of Christianity and NOT think something is up? 
Christianity is a conglomeration of multiple belief systems. We can thank the Romans. It was Roman custom to conquer an area and leave just enough of the indigenous belief in place to make the people they conquered feel comfortable. Once Rome as a whole converted (thanks Constantine  ) that custom bled into religion. You honestly thing Easter is a Christian Holiday? Or that Jesus was the only "god" to die and be resurrected? NOTHING in Christianity is unique to itself. It's all borrowed fables stitched together and never intended to be presented as fact. The bible was written as a teaching tool to teach morality. It's not a history book. 

I'll stop now. I couldn't help myself as this topic is probably my biggest pet peeve ever. Oh yeah, before anyone jumps my shit , I grew up in the Church. Was about as devout as you could possibly be. Then I started studying history and Social Studies in college. It all made sense then. 

Love your neighbors. Help them out. Do nice things and hope for the same in return. This is the boiled down teaching of every major belief system after you strip the crap away.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 12, 2010)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> the whole we are "right" argument being lobed by both sides is getting extremely old.



well yeah, but i don´t think it´s really about who´s right. that´s a lost cause. the point is that one side wants everything to follow their beliefs, and the other side wants everything to be free of beliefs so everyone can feel welcomed.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 12, 2010)

Well, after seeing what horrors I have unleashed, I offer my sincerest apologies to everyone here.

And now, I vote for a group hug


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 12, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> Wrong. If you'd have read past the preample, you'd have found this:
> 
> First amendment--
> 
> ...



I was referring to the phrase "separation of church and state," (though yes, it is implied - in that no laws can be made "respecting" or "prohibiting.") And besides, that's the the Bill of Rights you quote  I'd have to read a long, long way pass the preamble. tl;dr

Opponents of separation would definitely shut up if their religion wasn't the only one integrated into and supported by the state. At least before they make a fuss that Congress is respecting the wrong religion.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 12, 2010)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Well, after seeing what horrors I have unleashed, I offer my sincerest apologies to everyone here.
> 
> And now, I vote for a group hug







I think we've had good discussion here, good points have been made all around, but now we're beating a dead horse.

Addressing the original title of the thread, I'd have to say America isn't dumb, but America is VERY sensitive and VERY complex. I think that's something we can all agree on.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 12, 2010)

Xaios said:


> I think we've had good discussion here, good points have been made all around, but now we're beating a dead horse.
> 
> Addressing the original title of the thread, I'd have to say America isn't dumb, but America is VERY sensitive and VERY complex. I think that's something we can all agree on.



I was just in an angry stupor caused by something happening that was against what I believed in... which is exactly what the opposing parties felt.

My logic switch turns off sometimes.

I need to get better at not getting angry. NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH!!!


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Feb 12, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> well yeah, but i don´t think it´s really about who´s right. that´s a lost cause. the point is that one side wants everything to follow their beliefs, and the other side wants everything to be free of beliefs so everyone can feel welcomed.



I have meet atheists that are quite the contrary to what you described and they have out and told me that they are "right". There are those types on both sides.


----------



## Randy (Feb 12, 2010)

^


There are a few "high and mighty" atheists out there, and I dare to say a few of them knock around on this board. Some of the shit they sling is just as bad as Xiphos' nonsense, but nobody ever calls them out on it.


----------



## polydeathsphere (Feb 12, 2010)

Having just read only the first 10 pages of the actual complaint after reading the initial article, I vote for making a complaint to the state of Michigan in that the complaint they filed is a vicious and uncouth attack on anyone who reads it. It is a clear example of assault on the brain cells of any individual who reads the garbage they spew. I'll need years of therapy and rehabilitation to get over what I've read tonight.


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 13, 2010)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> Both sides have segments of their respective populations that are pushy. Faith and religion are open for interpretation by each person involved in them. The same is for atheists, so the whole we are "right" argument being lobed by both sides is getting extremely old. Until someone dies and come back to tell us what happens, then no one is ever going to know for 100% certain that either side is right. All this does is breed arguments and intolerance.


Couple things on this part: 
-I'm gonna pull a page out of Dan Barker's line of thought: There's two kinds of atheists. There's *a*theists and *A*theists. Those with the lowercase "a" are just people who see there is no evidence to believe in a god and leave it at there. The capital "A" Atheist is the one on the crusade. Lowercase atheist is not a religion, its a lack of one. If you look at it that way, there's really 3 sides: "I'm right", "you're right", and "I dont give a rat's ass if you're right, dont force it down my throat". 

-Like it says in my sig:_Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling uswhere we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?_ ANd with that, i lump myself in the third group i listed above. 



ddtonfire said:


> I was referring to the phrase "separation of church and state," (though yes, it is implied - in that no laws can be made "respecting" or "prohibiting.") And besides, that's the the Bill of Rights you quote  I'd have to read a long, long way pass the preamble. tl;dr



my bad, i was in a hurry. Still it doesnt matter if the phrase itself appears in the constitution (Or bill of rights/amendments to the constitution), the actual concept is the very first part of the bill of rights. My glock doesn't say "gun" on it, but that doesnt change the fact its a gun 



Ibz_rg said:


> If Christians attempt to pass a law of religion, although the Constitution forbids it, I'm leaving this country for good. E



You'd better get the hell out then, cause lots of laws already exist like that on a state level. Some states have laws that don't allow people who don't believe in god to serve in positions of senators or governors, but no one actually enforces them. If they did, those laws would be thrown out promptly.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 13, 2010)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> I have meet atheists that are quite the contrary to what you described and they have out and told me that they are "right". There are those types on both sides.



again, this is on both sides, and have nothing to do with what your beliefs are. it´s about how you treat your beliefs. these are cocky people, and so they are cocky about their beliefs, no matter what those are. there are people who believe the most bizarre things who are still cocky about it.

an atheist saying he is right doesn´t mean he is representing atheism as a group of people that believe that they are correct. that just means he´s a high-and-mighty prick. he would´ve been the same if his beliefs were otherwise.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Feb 13, 2010)

Metal Ken said:


> Couple things on this part:
> -I'm gonna pull a page out of Dan Barker's line of thought: There's two kinds of atheists. There's *a*theists and *A*theists. Those with the lowercase "a" are just people who see there is no evidence to believe in a god and leave it at there. The capital "A" Atheist is the one on the crusade. Lowercase atheist is not a religion, its a lack of one. If you look at it that way, there's really 3 sides: "I'm right", "you're right", and "I dont give a rat's ass if you're right, dont force it down my throat".
> 
> -Like it says in my sig:_Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling uswhere we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?_ ANd with that, i lump myself in the third group i listed above.



 I  it!

I too am more of a lower case third group kinda athiest, though I could see myself getting all *A*thiest under the right conditions. (which *C*hristians love to provoke)


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 14, 2010)

I think I speak on the behalf of hundreds of thousands of 5th Century Scandinavians when I say:

LOL.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 22, 2010)

BigPhi84 said:


> Apology accepted. It takes a big man to admit mistakes and I respect you even more for that. Rep+1 Also, your avatar reminds me of Petrucci's old Ibanez guitars.
> 
> As a Christian, I am well aware of the ways that Christianity has hindered social progress... in the past with women's suffrage, slavery in America, abortion, and even now with the discrimination of homosexuals. It has a dirty past, but doesn't everything in some fashion? America was founded due to rich people being bastards and not wanting to pay taxes. Australia was founded as a penal colony... thus all australians are criminals.  LOL  Just kidding, I love all you Aussies, especially Demoniac and Bungle!  Knowing the positive way Christianity influences my life, I choose to go against the grain and show the world love akin to Jesus's love. In my real life, I have no enemies, and I know that if any of you guys got to meet me in person, you'd see that I'm awesome just like you.
> 
> Politics kill me. Politicians that use religion to gain leverage infuriate me. Just know that when you read articles like the OP, know that these people have strayed away from what Christianity is, and are the disdain of "normal" Christians. I'm definitely a person that keeps to the whole "don't discuss sex, religion, or politics" with people.



I'm the same way man. Despite being openly christian, I don't cram it down people's throats. I'm supposed to love and respect all of my fellow man, and I don't do a good job of that if I'm tying gay people to a fence and beating the hell out of them. I think a lot of these religious nutcases forget that they are representative of the church and that we are supposed to approach people with love and respect. Even if we disagree with them, they are still human beings (like ourselves) and are therefore worthy of that respect.

Not to get too preachy here, but I remember reading the bible and there was a part when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was. He said, "Love thy neighbor, as thou love thyself." Seems so many christians today really forget to follow what the founder of their religion says is the most important thing is.


The only thing that atheists say that kinda bothers me is that the absence of religion would somehow be a utopia and that the world would be this magically perfect place. (although I can see their disdain for the bible making the same claims) Knowing what I know about human behavior, I know this to be complete falsehood. People by nature will fight over the most petty and trival issues. I remember seeing this great episode of southpark where atheists were fighting other atheists over who first thought of atheism. There is so much truth to that. Even if religion were eradicated, people (being the warring species that we are) will continue to bomb each other into oblivion; whether it be over the existance of Jesus or a ham sandwich. The same hatred lies there, it's just replaced with a differen name.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 23, 2010)

+1 on christians forgetting what their religion is. it seems some people become kinda obsessed about the idea and identity of being a christian that they forget what it really means. it´s like people being all goth and vampire-like and listening to pop music. they kinda missed the idea bhind the identity they put on.

i have to correct you a bit on the atheists envisioning a world without religion bit though. i think the idea that it would be a utopia is a bit much. no-one really thinks that. the idea is that all the things that are justified through religion will stop. things like suicide bombers. they do it for entirely religious reasons, and they aren´t afraid of their own death because they know what awaits them. without their religion, this wouldn´t even be the case. there wouldn´t be an enemy, and there wouldn´t be justifications like that. the same goes for any other religion. they all have examples of terrible things justified by religious ideas, or inspired by religious ideas. of course, this won´t solve everything. the world won´t be spotless. people will be people. but religion is responsible for so many horrible acts and conflicts that getting rid of it would solve a huge amount of the conflicts going on in the world. the problem after that would be keeping it that way, i guess.

the thing is that religion cen either play nice or face opposition by atheists. religion hasn´t been playing nice for as long as it´s been in existance, and so it faces opposition. it´s a simple case of "keep it to yourself or face the consequences". of course, you have groups of people here and there being really respectful and true about their religion, and people aknowledging that it´s their belief, and nothing more. but sadly that seems to be the minority.

if all religious people could be happy just keeping it to themselves, and being peaceful about it, and just accepting the fact that they don´t rule the world, then all would be well. but sadly, people are furious about others not agreeing with them.


----------



## Evil7 (Feb 23, 2010)

"beliefs are nice.... cherish them, But dont spread them like they're the truth" - bill hicks.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 23, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> +1 on christians forgetting what their religion is. it seems some people become kinda obsessed about the idea and identity of being a christian that they forget what it really means. it´s like people being all goth and vampire-like and listening to pop music. they kinda missed the idea bhind the identity they put on.
> 
> i have to correct you a bit on the atheists envisioning a world without religion bit though. i think the idea that it would be a utopia is a bit much. no-one really thinks that. the idea is that all the things that are justified through religion will stop. things like suicide bombers. they do it for entirely religious reasons, and they aren´t afraid of their own death because they know what awaits them. without their religion, this wouldn´t even be the case. there wouldn´t be an enemy, and there wouldn´t be justifications like that. the same goes for any other religion. they all have examples of terrible things justified by religious ideas, or inspired by religious ideas. of course, this won´t solve everything. the world won´t be spotless. people will be people. but religion is responsible for so many horrible acts and conflicts that getting rid of it would solve a huge amount of the conflicts going on in the world. the problem after that would be keeping it that way, i guess.
> 
> ...



I get what you're saying, and in the end I think we're both right and it more or less comes to the same conclusion. My point is that people will just put a new face of justification on their heinous actions. Yes, saying that Allah/Buddah/Jesus/etc. told them to do it will stop, but instead will say "Darwin wanted it this way." It's still the same mindset. You see what I mean? It's not the religion itself, just the stupid, crazy bomber that should suffer from premature detonation. (just had to paraphrase Jeff Dunham there. )



Just a little rant:
I personally think christians are WAAAAAAAYYYYYYY over-interpreting what the bible says. It does say to spread the gospel to every corner of the world, but I think that has been achieved to be frank. I don't think there are very many people out there who have NOT heard about Jesus and christianity. The bible says to spread the good news, not beat the living hell out of people with it. If they choose not to believe it, then they've made their choice. If choose a different way, christians should open for answering questions they may have. To me, that's the way it should be. Not like those god-awful televangalists that assault you with a bible and expect you to be of perfect health when you just took a 20 lb. book to the face at full-force. That or tell you that if you don't fund their new cathedral of a church, you're going to hell.

On behalf of actual christians, I sincerely apologize for their stupidity, close-mindedness, and greed. They were NOT the values taught by christianity and according that religion, they will be among the first to burn in hell. I concede to you also that christianity has been plagued by these bastards since it's inception and are largely by and by the reason that the bible has suffered from gross misinterpretation which has lead to further suffering of the human race. Sadly, things are going to the crapper and probably will only get worse.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 24, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> I get what you're saying, and in the end I think we're both right and it more or less comes to the same conclusion. My point is that people will just put a new face of justification on their heinous actions. Yes, saying that Allah/Buddah/Jesus/etc. told them to do it will stop, but instead will say "Darwin wanted it this way." It's still the same mindset. You see what I mean? It's not the religion itself, just the stupid, crazy bomber that should suffer from premature detonation. (just had to paraphrase Jeff Dunham there. )
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i kinda doubt that people will find those kinds of justifications for doing heinous acts like that. i highly doubt anyone would ever blow themselves up in the name of something that is as open as science. nothing in science is ever set in stone, and is always open to change, and so when science changes, so does your idea of what science is, and how things work. there is no collision of ideas strong enough to warrant even a fistfight. there is only evidence. if you can measure or prove something, then that is correct. there´s no debating it, because if you disagree, you do your own study and present your own evidence.

the kind of dumbness we would be left with without religious motivation would be "hey, you touched mah girl!" and fights about money, etc. these are just the result of humans not being all that smart 

i´ll leave you with a little thought, from christopher hitchens:
name one heinous act done in the name of religion/that was motivated by religion. you have suicide bombings, spanish inquisition, people shooting abortion doctors... Now name one heinous act done in the name of atheism/that was motivated by atheism.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 24, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> i kinda doubt that people will find those kinds of justifications for doing heinous acts like that. i highly doubt anyone would ever blow themselves up in the name of something that is as open as science. nothing in science is ever set in stone, and is always open to change, and so when science changes, so does your idea of what science is, and how things work. there is no collision of ideas strong enough to warrant even a fistfight. there is only evidence. if you can measure or prove something, then that is correct. there´s no debating it, because if you disagree, you do your own study and present your own evidence.
> 
> the kind of dumbness we would be left with without religious motivation would be "hey, you touched mah girl!" and fights about money, etc. these are just the result of humans not being all that smart
> 
> ...




Stalin, Mao, Nero and many others come to mind.  
But I'm not trying to do the 'who's done worse to whom' argument. There's crazy people on both sides. It all comes down to psychos who take a good idea and go too far with it. That's my point.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 24, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> Stalin, Mao, Nero and many others come to mind.
> But I'm not trying to do the 'who's done worse to whom' argument. There's crazy people on both sides. It all comes down to psychos who take a good idea and go too far with it. That's my point.



now you´re doing what most religious people do on the other side of that argument. add hitler, and you have the typical list (although he was a roman catholic, so it doesn´t actually count). granted, they may have been atheist, but can you with all seriousness say that they were motivated by their atheism? did the atheism make them do these things? would they not have done it had they believed in a god?

the point here is that atheism hasn´t caused anything. atheist people may have done bad things, but they weren´t motivated by their absence of a belief.


----------



## PeteyG (Feb 24, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> i have to correct you a bit on the atheists envisioning a world without religion bit though. i think the idea that it would be a utopia is a bit much. no-one really thinks that. the idea is that all the things that are justified through religion will stop. things like suicide bombers. they do it for entirely religious reasons, and they aren´t afraid of their own death because they know what awaits them. without their religion, this wouldn´t even be the case. there wouldn´t be an enemy, and there wouldn´t be justifications like that.



I disagree with this, however purely because you were making a large generalisation, not all of the people who do the terrible things do them because of their religious leanings.

*The following statement is not meant to offend anyone, be them religious or mentally impaired.*
The belief in a higher being, who loves us, has a plan for us, and talks to some individuals is one that inherently has similarities to a number of psychological disorders, and believe me when I say that I have been to quite a few religious gatherings (from church on sunday to full on week long religious conferences) and I can honestly say that at times it had felt like being within the walls of a mental correction facility.

I think it's pretty safe to say that there are plenty of mental disorders that would be well hidden within the confines of a church, ones which would go unnoticed, where the sufferer feels perfectly normal and at home being told that the voices they hear are the voice of a loving all knowing god.



ghstofperdition said:


> Saying that Allah/Buddah/Jesus/etc. told them to do it will stop, but instead will say "Darwin wanted it this way." It's still the same mindset. You see what I mean? It's not the religion itself, just the stupid, crazy bomber that should suffer from premature detonation. (just had to paraphrase Jeff Dunham there. )



I agree with the idea that heinous acts would continue if there were no more religion, there will still be sociopaths, psychopaths, and many other types with many other kinds of psychological disorder (not to mention the intellectually sub par) that will unfortunately end up taking their own life and others with them. 

However I'm really not buying that there have been any atrocities done in the name of Buddhism, seeing as that would be more of a contradiction to the religion than the existence of Ken Ham is to Christianity. This is for the same reasons as why I sincerely doubt anyone would commit terrible heinous acts in the name of Darwin, purely because neither the theory of evolution, nor anything Darwin ever published, names an enemy, says anything remotely hateful, nor does it demand the need for it's message to be spread throughout the world and be believed otherwise damnation shall cometh your way.

While without religion in this world, heinous acts wouldn't cease to be, however it would become much easier to notice when someone isn't entirely mentally balanced, and therefore get them the right treatment and care, before they reach a point where they do something quite silly.

We're all familiar with stories of people killing their loved ones because of some religious reason, when in reality it just comes down to the fact that they lost control of their mental disability.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 24, 2010)

excuse my terrible phrasing for that, i didn´t mean that everything bad is motivated by religion. i was only referring to the bad acts that ARE motivated by religion, such as the suicide bombers in the middle east etc. i do not mean to say that religion is the cause of all heinous acts, i´m just saying that there are many heinous acts that are motivated and cause by religion.

and that´s an interesting statement that i´ve thought about myself. it´s easy for someone who is mentally ill to hide this behind religion, and religious thoughts and ideas can often make mentally ill people worse (i worked at a place with lots of schizophrenic patients, and one of them had a setback caused by religious ideas). i´m not saying that religion is to blam here of course, that´s like saying that video games CAUSE people to go on killing sprees. obviously these people were mentally ill to begin with, and simply took on board ideas from something as motivation where most people wouldn´t.


----------



## PeteyG (Feb 24, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> that´s an interesting statement that i´ve thought about myself. it´s easy for someone who is mentally ill to hide this behind religion, and religious thoughts and ideas can often make mentally ill people worse (i worked at a place with lots of schizophrenic patients, and one of them had a setback caused by religious ideas). i´m not saying that religion is to blam here of course, that´s like saying that video games CAUSE people to go on killing sprees. obviously these people were mentally ill to begin with, and simply took on board ideas from something as motivation where most people wouldn´t.



I don't think the case is so much that they hide behind religion, as much it is that they are easily mistaken with thinking that they don't really have a mental issue and that in fact they are perfectly normal as the people they see around them act in similar ways and speak of a disembodied higher power.

The other issue may come when noticing a person of this kind of mental issue, and in trying to help them you may come up against much resistance from their religious peers.

I don't blame religion either, my personal issues with religion are just that, personal, I'm perfectly happy for people to submerge themselves in whatever faith brings them comfort and happiness. It just comes down to this, religion can be a very apt camouflage and thriving ground for the mentally unfit, and this isn't really a good thing, it's just one more on a long list of reasons for myself, why religion isn't a healthy choice for everybody.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 24, 2010)

MF_Kitten said:


> now you´re doing what most religious people do on the other side of that argument. add hitler, and you have the typical list (although he was a roman catholic, so it doesn´t actually count). granted, they may have been atheist, but can you with all seriousness say that they were motivated by their atheism? did the atheism make them do these things? would they not have done it had they believed in a god?
> 
> the point here is that atheism hasn´t caused anything. atheist people may have done bad things, but they weren´t motivated by their absence of a belief.



O.k., I see where this is going....... *sigh*

My intention was never to start another pointless atheist vs. religion argument. I respect all points of view, but when I see it heading into one of these directions, I know it's about to get ugly (having been on both sides of the same argument mind you  ) and there will not be any profitable outcome of heading into this argument any further. Thus I will not press the point anymore. I will just admit that religions of the world (while being started with the best of intentions) has been responsible for untold repression and countless deaths and admit fault when/where it's due. 
Note that I'm not pulling out due to NOT having an argument for your point, but due to the pointlessness of it. There just are no right answers, so I'll leave it at that or face this:

vs.

But a good-natured discussion thus far and you have my respect for it....


----------



## MF_Kitten (Feb 24, 2010)

peteyG: that´s kinda what i meant. again, my wording sucks sometimes 

ghstofperdition (your nick is hard to write! ): i kinda agree, it can only become heated shit flinging (heheh... heated shit...) from here, so let´s agree to disagree, and move on. sevenstring isn´t really the place to cause a shitstorm over theological issues 

just know that i love you all (except for the idiots that sometimes linger around here causing shit. you know who you are... though i don´t.), and i think it´s really fascinating that it´s possible to debate such basic things as our own existence. let´s all shut up and enjoy how awesome the universe and life itself is, eh?


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 24, 2010)

Phew! This went much better than anticipated (trust me, people get really flared up over this stuff.....  ).

You call me ghost or Adam. Either works for me....


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 27, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> Yes, saying that Allah/Buddah/Jesus/etc. told them to do it will stop, but instead will say "Darwin wanted it this way." It's still the same mindset.



Not necessarily. Darwin observed something and based an assumption off of it, which was later supported by science. Jesus, Allah and Buddah all espoused a philosophy or way of living, or religion (Your call). Postulating a theory you happen to have observed in nature and telling people how to live =/= same thing.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 27, 2010)

People really should stop to assume who needs what, how they should live and in what they should believe.
As long as they believe for themselves, I am game.
But when someone tells "Gays are sinners, god will send his wrath on us like in Sodom" etc. I cannot take them serious as individuals, yet I take their threat serious, and would like to prevent such speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, since it is a call for violence to either stopping Gays to be gays, or killing them.

Mr W. was pretty honest when he stated those stupid things about New Orleans. And I don't want that these kind of people make any laws. Law makers should be sane people, who act with a clear mind, not with a delusioned mind!

Atheism could be a problem too, if they feel cornered. But that would be every religions or nations reaction except French!


----------

