Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/26/07 11:00 PM, AngelaStar wrote: There is something bigger than us. Sad that few still think that.

I don't see it as sad, really. I see the the refusal to accept the common belief of a being or collection of beings responsible for the creation of the universe as inquisitive nature, if anything.

However, I don't understand why people view atheism as illogical or delusional. As far as I'm concerned, the universe may be just as powerful of a deity as those described in text. In fact, as far as I see it, the universe shares many of the same possible properties that gods posses. If a god does not need to have a start or end, than I don't see why the universe does. Gods give and take away life, as does the universe. I hardly see any difference really (afterlife descriptions aside).

............... if any of that makes sense.

Well I don't now what u guys think but can we create our own history, leader, world, belifes back and forward in time using our minds? They say the mind is a powerful thing so I thought that mabye... are we divines? I don't think much about religion not Muslim, Islam, Budhism, Jewish, or Christianity or any other. Then comes time and I belive that time is unlimited and it go's on forever, think about space, time, parrarel dimensions and others.

At 12/26/07 09:59 PM, The-Gus wrote: Just in case anyone was off ranting when history was being taught, here's a brief reminder. The reason the Christianity is so dominant in the west is because of those lovely romans. When the emperor converted so did the roman empire, and the empire was huge. Italy, France most of the UK, Spain, what would eventually be Germany, and you get the picture. When the "New" world was discovered, the countries that were wealthy enough to go were; surprise, surprise: Italy; France; UK; Spain; etc. so now you have all the wealthiest countries calling the shots in the media, which sadly does seem to rule over us more so than the Orwellian "Big Brother " and dictates to us that the Christian view is the "right" view. Oh and by the way, there were many Jesus's at the time, Jesus Barabas was released instead of Jesus Christ when Pilate asked the crowds who to release. So enough already, this is a hijacked Pagan festival anyway, the message is still solid, goodwill and peace on earth. Might be flawed but does have a point.

P.S I'm an atheist who only wants to stop idiots shouting dogma at each other

Religion is being used in the wrong way. If there is a G-d why don't all religious leaders have the same dream one night? Why are there so many different religions? Why has a so-called G-d allowed this insanity to persist? What is wrong with everybody anyway?

At 12/27/07 06:51 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Dude SadisticMonkey, you got your ass handed to you on a different religion post and now ur just making ur own, I will enjoy checking on this n seeing you be reduced to tears.

If I recall, you got your ass handed to you. Don't get it twisted.

At 12/26/07 08:10 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: It used to be out of respect, but now it's because I take part in Mass and appreciate what the Priest has to say.

You can still go to Mass if you choose without being Catholic. Indeed, if you stopped being Catholic you could go to Synagogue and Mosque and see what those guys have to say, too. Maybe you'd be spiritually enlightened.

to what extent do you believe the argument that religion is bad and so is the Catholic church,

The Catholic Church is somewhat misguided, in my view. I'm a believer in the poverty of Christ, and that if Christ was poor, The Pope should be poor.

Yeah true. Despite agreeing with you and Jesus, I'm more concerned about... well... this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_o f_the_Catholic_Church
condoms in Africa being the easiest thing to argue, but all of it really, and I can't help but think you're supporting all this by calling yourself a Catholic. The more people who call themselves Catholic, the more the world is forced to listen to the Pope.

So no, I don't think it's "bad", but I disagree with aspects of it theologically.

And what do you mean by "bad" anyway? If you can be more specific, I'll tell you if Religion is "bad".

Well in regards to 'religion' as a whole, I totally believe that it fucks up war. The only reason billions of people care about the Gaza strip is because of religious differences, and if it was purely about land, then it would be easier to resolve and WW3 might not seem like a likely occurrence. Religion has time and time again made war go pear-shaped, and in the current world where we could all die in nuclear holocaust at the push of a button, maybe it's time to get rid of religion.

I could continue by talking about the oppression of sex and women, and how horrible it is that there's a religious opposition to stem cell research, let alone Creationism... and I'm sure I can think of countless more, if I put my mind to it.

or that any good it can do can be duplicated by many other organisations without any ulterior motive, and

?

Well of course the Church is good in that it goes out and helps the homeless. It's just, loads of organisations do that, too, and they don't give them Bibles, tell them not to wear condoms, and stay out of Muslim countries, and we could give our money to them instead.

do you plan on sending your kids to a religious school and bringing them up in the same atmosphere?

Yep. Never done me any harm - I went to a Catholic Primary School and a Catholic High School and they were great places to grow up.

I'm sure they were, I wanted to go to a Catholic high school. Although my dad went to the Christian Brothers in Newry in Ireland and there was sexual assault and vicious beatings. And it didn't really help the peace process.

In fact, I know you'll hate this, but my dad maintains that, in his Christian Brothers school, sexual assault was the norm and loads of the priests were filth. and I just wikipediad his school and it's the same deal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Chris tian_Brothers_Grammar_School

On 4 May 2004 it was discovered that the senior management of the school had placed CCTV cameras in a P.E. locker room where boys as young as 10 were in a state of undress.

By sending your kids to a Catholic school, while being a deist who believes in the Big Bang, evolution, the true representation of the scope of the universe, and as Jesus as the Son of God for some reason and is going to send his kids to a school where they learn the same thing, it really seems to emphasise the compartmentalisation of your mind. tbh I don't see how you can square there being 10^20 stars, and the universe being made so Jesus can walk in the desert and write inaccurate books.

But I don't see how your version of Catholicism will last many generations anyway

the Old Testament is also essential to all three abrahamic faiths

and religious people are often deeply interested in what atheists believe

I think an issue is, moderates like you can't understand how fundamentalists are fundies, so you defend them. Whilst the fundies will attack you, quite happily. Moderates are like a smokescreen for fundies, especially when they oppose criticism of religion

Bhutto! Religion extremists strike again! Sick world!

At 12/27/07 11:29 AM, ImagineNoReligion wrote: Bhutto! Religion extremists strike again! Sick world!

It's funny, but religious people will never allow an atheist to assert that other religious people wouldn't do suicide attacks without religion.

Kinda tasteless for me to use Bhutto to bolster my argument

if ur not a christian, then literally go to hell. mwahahahahaha!

At 12/27/07 11:44 AM, chancereed6 wrote: if ur not a christian, then literally go to hell. mwahahahahaha!

y'see

rest assured I would not be anti-religion if religion did not warrant being disliked

At 12/27/07 01:50 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: Why would I give up being a Catholic if I wanted to keep going to Mass? I can go to a Synagogue or Mosque whilst still being a Catholic, so why relinquish a faith I believe in?

I kinda answered this in my next paragraph

condoms in Africa being the easiest thing to argue, but all of it really, and I can't help but think you're supporting all this by calling yourself a Catholic. The more people who call themselves Catholic, the more the world is forced to listen to the Pope.

The Pope tells people to get married and puts forward the idea that sex outside of marriage with many partners is sinful. I don't see how you can blame him for AIDS when that's what he's saying.

You can't seriously believe that; that's incredibly naive. To start, they don't say 'condoms are immoral because sex should be to procreate', they say 'condoms don't work'. If one person gets AIDS based on bad advice, straight from the Catholic Church, then their blood is on the Vatican's hands.

The Gaza Strip is about land that has been taken away from arabs who have suffered years of persecution so that we in the West could create a superstate of Israel; making banking more convenient for those with power to wet their beaks.

And why do BILLIONS of people care about this? Let me re-assert my point - billions of people care about the Gaza strip because their 'tribe' has divine claim to it. Why do Muslims and Jews thousands of miles away have divisive opinions over it? Why is this problem not confined to the West Bank? Because there are BILLIONS of Muslims and Jews, and they all REALLY CARE.

Y'see?

I am not at all contesting the origins of the war, just how many people care about it.

Show me a poor man with his finger on the button - money causes war, Religion is only used to supplement it.

What's interesting is how rich and educated a lot of suicide bombers are. It's not the poor and hopeless, it's the devout.

If you really believe that getting rid of a Religion is a one-size-fits-all solution to world peace then your head must be filled with mush.

Straw man, the amount of times I've told you that there'd still be war in a secular world and the amount of times you've said that, that's not what I believe at all

there'd just be less war

Yes, but that would be like tarring anyone who is Religious with the same brush, which would be painfully idiotic.

No, it would just be stating that this kind of dogmatism is what religion is bound to do.

"Hello, I'm a Buddhist."
"YOU PRICK, IT'S A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!"
"Excuse me?"

Buddhism is a Hell of a lot more placid and harmless than Catholicism. Astute observation.

Okay, you give your money to secular charities then - but maybe some people see the saving of a soul as important as shelter and bread.

How unfortunate, since it's not.

Also, do you really think that a Christian Mission is going to turn away a starving child at the door if he tells them he's an atheist? To say that would just be plain false, although you lot probably would to demonise the Church.

They'd be a whole lot more likely to focus on Christian countries than on Muslim countries or Buddhist countries or Shintoist countries

Oh well. I live in Scotland where a Catholic Official has never been convicted of a sex crime, and I had a very happy childhood in my Catholic schools.

It just goes to show you how experiences in life are completely random.

Or maybe another instance of religion being used for evil. In this instance as an easy front for child molesters.

You can't say that Priests are paedophiles, Priests are just men like you and men. Paedophiles become Priests, Janitors and Teachers to get easier access to children, it's not that these occupations inherently give you the warrant to molest children.

Of course.

I want my child to receive the Sacraments, if he thinks it's all bollocks when he turns sixteen and starts boring the arse off every Tom, Dick and Harry on an internet forum then I'll accept his wishes. Until then, he'll be brought up in the same way as me, My Dad, His Dad, blah blah, blah.

Great.

Religious schools help sectarian divides. I think religious schools are really contributing to ethnic barriers in Manchester, most notably in the Jewish area, although I hear Islamic schools do the same. And I'm sure it's just as true in Glasgow.

I mean, if you're seriously suggesting that Catholic Education in this day and age is some sort of brainwashing tool, then how can you account for the dwindling members of people attending Church? You can't? But of course.

cos Western secularism is a better brainwashing tool

Hows about you find one eminent sociologist who says religion isn't a tool of social control

I think an issue is, moderates like you can't understand how fundamentalists are fundies, so you defend them. Whilst the fundies will attack you, quite happily. Moderates are like a smokescreen for fundies, especially when they oppose criticism of religion

Fuck right off, when have you ever heard me defend those lunatic fundamentalists? I don't even consider them Christians.

There you go then - you deflect any frank criticism of religion by calling Fundamentalists non-Christian. "I believe in the literal truth of Genesis," "I believe in the prohibition of homosexuality, as stated in the Bible," they say.

"Well then you're not a Christian."

Stop generalising, you'll end up looking like a twat.

lol where are the generalisations

IN GENERAL, OVERALL, religion is bad

At 12/26/07 11:12 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/26/07 08:52 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

When your belief system believes that potentially hundreds of millions of innocent people, if not more, will be tortured for all eternity, I think it's a fair enough enough question.

But the people that don't worship my God don't believe they will suffer, just as they don't believe in my God.
So, according to them, they wouldn't suffer.

It may seem I am singling out christians here, which I guess I am, but only because the overwhelming majority of the NG religious population are Christians.

Oh, come on man.
How many people have you actually met here that are Christians. Hell, I would say that were a minority on this board compared to other believers.

So really, I guess, the question could more accurately interpreted as "Why one belief over another?".

Since I'm not at liberty to say why other people believe or not believe for that matter, I couldn't answer that for them.

In my case, a personal conviction( a feeling in my gut so to speak), and just subtle signs of God's power.

At 12/27/07 07:38 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: It's naive to believe that if people kept to one partner their whole life there would be less AIDS?

More like, scientifically accurate.

It's scientifically inaccurate, and morally reprehensible, to say that condoms don't work to people whose only source of information about condoms is from this particular institution, in a country that is rife with AIDS. It's also naive to think that people will have sex with one person over the course of their life. People are fucking, they're fucking a lot in Africa, and if the church can't condone that, then the least they can do is shut the fuck up about condoms.

Preach abstinence all you like, but leave the condoms out of it. I can't see how you can claim publicising that condoms don't work in a country riddled with AIDS is not a bad thing.

And anyway, even if they are preaching abstinence:

In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence_
only_sex_education#Criticism

It is shocking that you defend this aspect of the Catholic Church. Honestly. It really offends me.

Not only because I deeply believe in giving people proper sex education, and letting them make up their own minds about what they do with their genitals, rather than feeding them dangerous crap to get them to conform to some old fucking books and some moral standards that have never even existed, and failing to - Jesus Christ, it really touches a nerve. Putting AIDS into the equation just makes it even worse. Like, people are actually contracting AIDS, and dying, based on faulty advice given to them by the Catholic Church, and Catholics are defending their actions.

They also tell people to stick with one sexual partner. Don't forget that bit.

Hurrah.

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7 369,1059068,00.html

"I condone this."- You.

Doesn't change the fact that money is the root of the problem, not Religion.

And religion is exacerbating it.

Okay. Many people care about a crisis that when it boils down to it, is just about money.

And religion is exacerbating it. Would they be teaching the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Muslim schoolkids if Israel was a secular nation?

So...why are you blaming Religion and not money?

I'd rather get rid of religion than Capitalism, or the principle of money. Do you think this is fair, on my part?

The rich and educated are the guys who sit back and go; "Yeah Bahir, on you go and blow up West Basra - you'll get your 72 virgins and all that. Unfortunately I'm not that up for 72 virgins this weather, since I've got a bad back, so you go on without me."

Nope. They were all doctors in the failed one this year where the guy went into the airport in the burning car - you know what one I'm talking about.

STOP!

Conjecture time!

Based on logic and reasoning. And it's false, and y'all know it. And believing in a falsity is never going to be good. Take up cosmology if you want to be spiritual.

No, it would just be stating that this kind of dogmatism is what religion is bound to do.

People can be just as dogmatic about Marxism and Fascism. Perhaps we should stop people thinking at all, you know. Maybe install some kind of chip?

Perhaps Marxism and Fascism are based on evidence and reasoning. And can be discussed and debated rationally, on a reasoned plain of discussion.

Buddhism is a Hell of a lot more placid and harmless than Catholicism. Astute observation.

It's a fair observation, but it doesn't stop you from moaning at them as much as you moan at us, or the Jews, or the Muslims .etc.

I change my stance on all different world religions, so if I find myself arguing with a Buddhist I'll change my tactics somewhat. Like, arguing with a Muslim, I'd bring up many different points than I'd bring up with you. I'm not that moany with Buddhists, or people who believe in their own personal religion. But Catholicism, you've got to have a somewhat moany argument. I mean, there aren't any other religions that are like a monolithic block in world affairs.

They'd be a whole lot more likely to focus on Christian countries than on Muslim countries or Buddhist countries or Shintoist countries

Ummm...aren't you kind of contradicting yourself there?

Nah man, religious countries are more likely to help their fellow religion. Or Africa, where they're easy to convert. Like Muslims often give that bit of their money that they've got to give to charity, to help fellow Muslims. Looking out for each other, y'see. Another effect of tribalism. Islam seems to be the most notorious for it at the moment, I have to say.

In the same way that a post-grad in teaching can be used for evil and as an easy front for child molesters.

Schools in general must be bad. MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that you can easily find examples of religious people acting in a bad way. And your institution covering it up, or turning away. For generations.

People segregate themselves anyway, so why not cater to specific faiths in the school system?

That's like saying, why not accommodate for different political viewpoints in the school system. Because it's indoctrinating, it's segregating, it creates divides with ease... look, I remember some Jews getting stick from some arseholes on the school bus, and really, if Jews weren't Jews, they would've been safe. They didn't need to be indoctrinated.

The only multidenominational schools in Scotland are in Edinburgh, though.

Well that's proof of the need for more secularism.

There'll be plenty of Post Modern Sociologists who would argue to the contrary.

Suppose. Post-Modernism sure doesn't apply to the Middle East. Or the Americas, in this respect. And the Catholic Church is a pretty big target for anyone like me.

I can call them non-Christian because they are inherently anti-Christian, alot of the time even more than you are - preaching greed, ignorance and hate over kindness, truth and love.

They still read the Bible. Just because they have a different interpretation of Christianity than you - people in the Middle Ages did, too, and they were Christians. Muslims are particularly bad for this - it's patently obvious the violent people in the Middle East are Muslim, they just interpret it differently. And y'all have got a lot of rules, in both the Old and New Testament, and for the Muslims the Qu'ran and Hadiths as well, and following all of them is a recipe for disaster. Some long passages in all the books have some brutal or dictatorial themes.

Again, you're being too literal and a bit of a cunt. I was refering to sects, not statements.

What are 'sects'? Evangelical Christians? The Religious Right in America? Christian Voice?

lol where are the generalisations

You made the assumption that I would defend fundamentalists.

Of course you wouldn't defend them, perhaps I phrased it badly. Neither would most Christians. But you would defend religion by disavowing their relationship with the text.

Lol I believe in a higher power not a set "god"

At 12/27/07 07:04 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: But the people that don't worship my God don't believe they will suffer, just as they don't believe in my God.
So, according to them, they wouldn't suffer.

Yeah, but I don't know your religion is false, and I'm just trying to see why peopel may think it is true.

It may seem I am singling out christians here, which I guess I am, but only because the overwhelming majority of the NG religious population are Christians.

Oh, come on man.
How many people have you actually met here that are Christians. Hell, I would say that were a minority on this board compared to other believers.

There's plenty, and if you read it I said overwhelming religious population.

At 12/27/07 09:38 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: condoms

Well you did ask what aspects of religion bothered me. I just think, you're supporting this behaviour by being a Catholic. I wouldn't talk like this to my relatives, but you're someone on the internet who bothered to reply. And of course there's no real point to it other than to hone debating skulls.

It's not even atheism that bothers me - it's the notion that alot of atheists have on here that only their way is right.

Well maybe it is. Or maybe organised religion is all wrong, at least. But the topic always deviates from that issue.

You're blaming the Catholic Church like it's the only cause of the AIDS epidemic

of course I'm not, sheesh
Why blame the Church when people only regard half their message?
cos they say condoms don't work

And religion is exacerbating it.

Saying there would be less war without Religion is pure assumption.

can you see faults in it

If you're saying Religion cannot be discussed and debated rationally,

the topic of religion is completely different to other topics and on a completely different level of rationality and skepticism

for most people, there are some lunatics

why are you even bothering with me?

cos you're on the internet and you replied

You should direct your criticism at the Vatican then,

I'll just phone them up

rather than sneering at ordinary Catholics

maybe I'll change your mind. That would be a success story. Or maybe all this religious arguing will come in useful some day.

Well, yes? Human nature and all that?

perhaps a higher frequency in such schools?

People like you seem to forget that it's come on leaps and bounds in the last twenty years.

then it must be the divine word of God
still doing shit in Africa

No it isn't.

Yes it is. "Go to this school where we'll tell you how it is in line with your parents beliefs and with a bunch of like-minded kids". I know it's less like that in practice, but still kinda.

If they weren't Jews, the same arseholes on the bus would've picked on a couple of lads

less often

You'd rather leave faith and diversity out of it, wouldn't you?

Kids can wear headscarves, talk about religion, I don't give a fuck. But diversity of opinion is good.

I.E. Anti-Christian messages.

And everyone in the Middle Ages had the Bible wrong, too? It couldn't be that you adapt it all to fit the times?

What are 'sects'? Evangelical Christians? The Religious Right in America? Christian Voice?

Among others.

They're all large groups.

I'm only calling their preaching anti-Christian because it is blatantly anti-Christian.

How you define Christianity.

you cunts would be licking your lips, looking for a fight and screaming at everyone who doesn't think like you.

You did ask questions back. "How is religion bad."

But hey, at least I know which one of us is going to be a misanthrope in five years time.

Don't feel inclined to respond.

AT LEAST I WONT BE CATHOLIC

And by the way, that's the whole point of the secular humanist outlook - humanity's great, religion's shit.

At 12/27/07 09:38 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: It's not even atheism that bothers me - it's the notion that alot of atheists have on here that only their way is right.

You're only one religion, so I can't see how you're any different.

That for the world to be perfect, everyone must think as they do.

Only because religion does, we just counter it.

At 12/27/07 09:03 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/27/07 07:04 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Yeah, but I don't know your religion is false, and I'm just trying to see why peopel may think it is true.

I'm a Christian, you're no longer one. It's safe to assume that you believe it to be false, is it not?

There's plenty, and if you read it I said overwhelming religious population.

Oh I'm sorry, this just seemed to be more dedicated to Christianity as a whole.

At 12/27/07 07:16 AM, Togukawa wrote: What is the key to eternal salvation then?

It's quite simple. All you have to do is know, love and serve God. Mainly, love God. If you love Him, you will serve and of course, you would have known him.

A Catechism helps a lot... one of the Baltimore Catechisms is a good genuine one which is designed for littler kids for learning their Catechism but it's very simple and is good for anyone who is eager to learn and for starting off.

You don't need to be the holiest person for eternal salvation, don't need to be the most intelligent or anything either, just need to love God. If you love God, you won't commit mortal sin, you will believe in him, pray and do all that is necessary for eternal salvation (which isn't that much. The only thing that makes it very hard nowadays is the world's pressure to commit mortal sin).

I think I'll leave this topic now. I'm probably wasting my time by posting here.

At 12/26/07 04:03 PM, Slick-Rob wrote:

At 12/26/07 10:53 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

Exactly - if you're an educated person who has read up a bit on Theology then you're going to have your own personal reasons for your outlook. Reasons which are no concern of anyone elses, particularly not those who are looking for a fight.:

Thank you, I couldn't have said such a profound statement any better. Bravo!

Memorize said:

And it's ignorance like that that come from other people like you which is why i'm a Christian. Though the biggest problem with Christians today are people who are "Christian" (ie. I'll go to church today, but i'll go home and beat my wife tomorrow!)

Exactly! The "Sunday-Christian" is what I call them because most of them are nice on Sunday, but then they come home the next day and they beat the shit outta their wife and kids.

Then there's the just plain "Psycho-Christians" who give every Christian on this planet a bad name (i.e., eg: the KKK, Fred Phelps, and Westboro Baptist Church).

Follow the chain: Secular Humanists = Church of [Country] -> Abolish all other religions, especially symbols out in public -> Liberals do this such as the ACLU & Slavery was a founding institution of the Democratic Party = KKK

KKK != (=/=) Christianity

At 12/26/07 06:08 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I want to know what makes you think that your religion is so much more plausible than every other.

I have a question. What makes you think every Christian is a militant non-Christian hater?

I find your disgust for Christianity just as hypocritical as a Christian hating someone simply because they're Atheist. Not bashing you, I just want to know your rationale.

Hating someone based on religion, or lack there of is pretty arbitrary. This goes for all sides of the argument.

At 12/28/07 01:17 AM, LadyGrace wrote: I have a question. What makes you think every Christian is a militant non-Christian hater?

Never said that. This thread wasn't meant to be hostile, and I'm sorry if the Angry faic has indicated otherwise.

I find your disgust for Christianity just as hypocritical as a Christian hating someone simply because they're Atheist. Not bashing you, I just want to know your rationale.

I have disgust for Christianity, yes, but not for Christians based purely on the fact that they are Christian, unlike what your response would seem to indicate, as you wrote "...disgust for Christianity just as hypocritical as a Christian hating someone simply because they're Atheist"

Hating someone based on religion, or lack there of is pretty arbitrary. This goes for all sides of the argument.

I don't hate Christians, necessarily, nor do I 'hate' anybody really; dislike would be a better word. . If I do it's not because they are Christian, but it is if they are total idiots. That being said, there are many stupid atheists I strongly dislike.

At 12/28/07 01:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I don't hate Christians, necessarily, nor do I 'hate' anybody really; dislike would be a better word. . If I do it's not because they are Christian, but it is if they are total idiots. That being said, there are many stupid atheists I strongly dislike.

lolk. Just wanted to clear that up.

At 12/28/07 08:10 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 12/27/07 10:12 PM, Earfetish wrote:
How you define Christianity.

As a Church founded on the principles of Kindness, Truth and Love;

Based upon truth? Do you think there is ever a religion in the entire history of earth that didn't claim to be true? Kindness and love are things you can base yourself on, since they are values that you can have clear opposites of (somebody might base themselves on might and power instead). But adding truth in there? It just doesn't make sense. It's like saying a religion bases itself on breathing air. Everybody does that, it's nothing special.

sects like Westboro who directly contradict Christ's message surely must be called anti-Christian.

Other parts of Christianity also contradicts some parts of the Bible, yes, even Christ message. How many Christians in America today practices turning the other cheek?

Here, let me quote the Bible.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. [b]And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.[/b] If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
[bold emphasis mine]

How many Christians will do this? Even if it's symbolical, why does Christians tend to be republicans with a strong gun support, for defending themselves? The Bible says to "do not resist an evil person".

Now, if you start coming with different interpretations of this, like saying "this is only that you aren't to be violent, you are still to guard your own life" or something like that. Then, how are you to say that these "Christian sects" as you call them don't also just interpretative Christ's message too?

And by the way, that's the whole point of the secular humanist outlook - humanity's great, religion's shit.

Well yes, but you seem to detest each and every Religion - which is going to isolate you greatly from alot of humanity.

Actually, he got it wrong. Secularism doesn't talk about religion. It simply says that humanity is great. The conflicts tends to arise when religion says that humanity is sinful and wicked. It's not that they attack each other, but that they collide in what they claim.

At 12/28/07 08:24 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/28/07 08:10 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 12/27/07 10:12 PM, Earfetish wrote:

Now, if you start coming with different interpretations of this, like saying "this is only that you aren't to be violent, you are still to guard your own life" or something like that. Then, how are you to say that these "Christian sects" as you call them don't also just interpretative Christ's message too?

Now, I don't want to get wrapped up in the giant quagmire of an argument that you two have going, but I felt compelled to respond to this.

Now, there might be a slight difference in, "Yes, Christ does speak of showing forgiveness and redemption to all, even enemies, but protecting your life from death is a worthwhile cause," in comparison to a Church group that just completely ignores several parts of the New Testament and Christ's promises for redemption and that anyone can achieve salvations and redemption.

The whole, the last shall be first and the first shall be last deal.

I can see where your going with your argument, but you should have used something else. Like the large christian support of the death penalty.

At 12/28/07 08:36 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/28/07 08:24 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/28/07 08:10 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 12/27/07 10:12 PM, Earfetish wrote:

Now, if you start coming with different interpretations of this, like saying "this is only that you aren't to be violent, you are still to guard your own life" or something like that. Then, how are you to say that these "Christian sects" as you call them don't also just interpretative Christ's message too?

Now, I don't want to get wrapped up in the giant quagmire of an argument that you two have going, but I felt compelled to respond to this.

Now, there might be a slight difference in, "Yes, Christ does speak of showing forgiveness and redemption to all, even enemies, but protecting your life from death is a worthwhile cause," in comparison to a Church group that just completely ignores several parts of the New Testament and Christ's promises for redemption and that anyone can achieve salvations and redemption.

The whole, the last shall be first and the first shall be last deal.

I can see where your going with your argument, but you should have used something else. Like the large christian support of the death penalty.

Hmmmh.

But, I think there is more to this point than you see. Because, the Bible does not contain any interpretations instructions.

This can mean several things.

1. You are to read it literal, not interpret it.

2. If you are to interpret it, there is no way to find out if you do it right or wrong, or if your interpretation is closer to the truth than other interpretations.

I'll argue from point 2. You see, you are saying that small interpretations like defending yourself despite Jesus telling you not to resist an evil person are more correct to the interpretations of "a Church group that just completely ignores several parts of the New Testament and Christ's promises".

But here is the deal. There is no guides, rules, or anything, for interpreting it. Thus, you cannot back up your statement that A is right and B is wrong, because you have nothing to prove this but your personal opinion.

At 12/28/07 01:17 AM, LadyGrace wrote: Hating someone based on religion, or lack there of is pretty arbitrary. This goes for all sides of the argument.

Hating someone because of their religion is sooo a religious person thing

Atheists just hate religion. I have to be very caeful with my opinions around a lot of my friends, because I love them (but hate their religion, and their attitude to it) (Muslims especially).

Notwithstanding that it says nowhere in the New Testament 'ignore the Old Testament' and despite that Jesus speaks very highly of the Old Testament, would it be fair for me to say that a true Christian could believe that the Jews were Christ-killers, gayness is immoral and gay sex should be forbidden, and Creationism is accurate? Or are these non-Christian views?

"Hate the sin but love the sinner," quite a popular saying. Doesn't rebutt anythin, doesn't make homosexuality alright, the Jews guiltless, or Genesis metaphorical.

I also totally hate how y'all act like the Christians in the Middle Ages weren't Christian, or the Catholic Church wasn't 50 year ago, when they patently were. But if you deny that I ain't ever gonna convince you otherwise.

It's also worth saying that Muslims use the exact same argument as Mick, say 'Islam is a religion of peace and the terrorists are non-Muslim', but the terrorists are all deeply devout, and if you read the Hadiths you can find plenty of martyr justification.

All they're really saying is, 'my liberal Islam is peaceful. Read all the material through properly, and you might find violence. Which I ignore.'

For the moderates who claim to follow Jesus' hippie message only, do you live like the lillies and the birds, taking no thought for the morrow? Or do you care about what happens tomorrow, work to improve your future? Are thrift and a happy family life... positive?

At 12/28/07 09:08 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 12/28/07 08:24 AM, Drakim wrote:
Based upon truth? Do you think there is ever a religion in the entire history of earth that didn't claim to be true? Kindness and love are things you can base yourself on, since they are values that you can have clear opposites of (somebody might base themselves on might and power instead). But adding truth in there? It just doesn't make sense. It's like saying a religion bases itself on breathing air. Everybody does that, it's nothing special.

I'm going by the word of Christ in the Gospel - truth is in there. It's not refering to truth as in "GENESIS IS LITERALLY TRUE AND SO IS ALL THIS".

No, you still don't get it. >>

You say that "Truth is in there", but that is your opinion in this matter, not a global fact that we all agree on. It's a claim you make.

And you know what? Everybody makes that claim. All Muslims will say that truth lies in the Quran. So will Hindus, and Jews. Everybody, to put it simply.

So, saying that your religion is based on truth is worthless. Since, all religions claims to be based on truth.

Don't you see what I mean? If you ask a Muslim if Islam is based on truth, what do you think he will answer?

I mean ask any philosopher the meaning of "truth" and you've opened yourself a Hell of a can of worms.

Indeed. But not really the case here. I was simply pointing out that you where essentially saying was "Yeah, but the difference with my religion from other religions is that mine is true", as if it was something special and unique, when in fact everybody says so.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

How many Christians will do this? Even if it's symbolical, why does Christians tend to be republicans with a strong gun support, for defending themselves? The Bible says to "do not resist an evil person".

Yep, I agree with everything you're saying here. What's your point? Feeding me an easy one there, mate.

My point was that nobody follows their religion completely. Thus, it seems kinda wrong to say that somebody is doing it wrong because they aren't doing X, while you yourself aren't doing Y. Who decided that skipping this and that is okay, but skipping these other things are completely wrong?

Now, if you start coming with different interpretations of this, like saying "this is only that you aren't to be violent, you are still to guard your own life" or something like that. Then, how are you to say that these "Christian sects" as you call them don't also just interpretative Christ's message too?

They can call themselves Christian all they like, all I'm saying is that to my mind alot of the things they preach and value are inherently anti-Christian.

You are still thinking a bit too small. They could equally say that you are anti-Christian with your values. God wants you to get rid of gay people, etc...Since the Bible says so. So not doing it is anti-Christian.

So, on what grounds do you get the power to decide who reads the Bible correctly? You can't say that you "just know it".

Actually, he got it wrong. Secularism doesn't talk about religion. It simply says that humanity is great. The conflicts tends to arise when religion says that humanity is sinful and wicked. It's not that they attack each other, but that they collide in what they claim.

Well then it comes down to personal belief, what's your point?

He was saying that Secularism was anti-religion, which is incorrect, and I pointed it out.

At 12/28/07 09:08 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: Yeh, basically. I mean I do have a computer, but other than that I'd rather stick my head in an oven than climb some corporate ladder.

It's not necessarily about that. I maintain a 'don't give a fuck' attitude, but I always think of the morrow. I wouldn't go to university or bother studying and trying to get good foundations for my life if I lived like the lilies.

And you are right in saying the whole capitalist consumerist meritocratic dream would crumble if people didn't live for the morrow. You would have no PC if we followed Jesus' teachings. 'Live like the lilies' is bad advice for society.

It is worth pointing out such a statement, about not living for money, fits in comfortably with the Marxist view of religion, in that it's a way to keep the proletariat down.

And Drakim was right, and you can speak for all secularists in that secularism is a defined political philosophy, that does not necessarily agree with the statement 'fuck religion'.

At 12/28/07 11:31 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 12/28/07 11:06 AM, Drakim wrote:

You say that "Truth is in there", but that is your opinion in this matter, not a global fact that we all agree on. It's a claim you make.

I am NOT saying that the New Testament is truth, I am saying that Jesus PREACHES truth, or honesty, as a way to lead your life.

Ah, now I see what you men. You didn't mean that Christianity stood for truth, but the search for truth?

And you know what? Everybody makes that claim. All Muslims will say that truth lies in the Quran. So will Hindus, and Jews. Everybody, to put it simply.

That's nice, but you didn't understand my point. Even though I was very clear about it in my previous post, which you wiped most of when replying.

I wouldn't really agree that you where so clear about it, but, nevermind. I read it wrong, and I'm sorry. the minsunderstanding is cleared up. No hard feeling eh?

My point was that nobody follows their religion completely. Thus, it seems kinda wrong to say that somebody is doing it wrong because they aren't doing X, while you yourself aren't doing Y. Who decided that skipping this and that is okay, but skipping these other things are completely wrong?

I'm not saying that I am the perfect Christian, what I am saying is that the very MESSAGE they are spreading is, to me, the opposite of Christian.

Yes, to you. But it seemed to me that you weren't talking simply from your own standpoint. It wasn't "I think these people aren't very Christian", but rather "There people are not Christian", with a lot more absolute resolve around it. Sorry if this was not correct.

I'm not saying they're anti-Christian because sometimes they lose their temper, or they don't go to Chapel every Sunday - I'm saying that alot of what they stand for would be abhorrent to Jesus Christ, Things like, as Pengu mentioned, The Death Penalty.

The Bible has a long list of sins that are to be punished by death. Such as homosexuality. Although, not necessary intended for our society, but, the societies of the past where Judo-Christian too, so I'd see it as a Judo-Christian value.

You are still thinking a bit too small. They could equally say that you are anti-Christian with your values. God wants you to get rid of gay people, etc...Since the Bible says so. So not doing it is anti-Christian.

Ask anyone on the Evangelical Right what they thing of Catholics, they'll tell you that The Pope is Satan.

My point exactly. You can't out anybody from a religion because nobody holds such a standing past their own personal opinion.

He was saying that Secularism was anti-religion, which is incorrect, and I pointed it out.

So, on what grounds do you get the power to decide what your fellow Secularists stand for? Teehee.

Uhm, heh, good point. But, how am I then to say that Secularism isn't about the worship of goblins? Who am I to make such a claim?

I bet the Westboro Baptist Church, or any right wing Christian Fundies, could out-argue Mick on what Christian ethics should be, any day.

I bet if you ever tried to argue to a fundamentalist that they were non-Christian and you were, you'd quickly find them arguing from a Biblical standpoint and you arguing from a Humanist standpoint.