1. Post #81
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    7,931 Posts
    Virtually everyone is religious to some degree. The bible largely asks you to ignore common sense.

    Rationally speaking, we ought to see the mutual benefits of co-operation. That means we should be going to every length to let man's rationality flourish. Clearly such a deep betrayal of rationality as religion is doing no favours.

  2. Post #82
    DERAILER OF THREADS DESTROYER OF IDIOTS
    Emperor Scorpious II's Avatar
    February 2009
    23,615 Posts
    Virtually everyone is religious to some degree. The bible largely asks you to ignore common sense.

    Rationally speaking, we ought to see the mutual benefits of co-operation. That means we should be going to every length to let man's rationality flourish. Clearly such a deep betrayal of rationality as religion is doing no favours.
    In regarding the bold, are you sure you don't mean spiritual instead of religious?

  3. Post #83
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    7,931 Posts
    In regarding the bold, are you sure you don't mean spiritual instead of religious?
    Possibly. I just searched for a quick percent of people who are 'religious' and I got 80%.

  4. Post #84
    Lilyo's Avatar
    October 2011
    1,772 Posts
    If "love your neighbor" is such a common sense idea, why does it seem virtually no one do it?
    Technically that's supposed to mean "Love your fellow Jew". The same as how "thou shall not kill" actually means "thou shall not kill Jews". Jesus was a passionate Jew and had no intention of affiliating with or respecting/ loving the Gentiles or hold the same levels of compassion for these groups as he did for his own fellow Jewish people.

  5. Post #85
    DERAILER OF THREADS DESTROYER OF IDIOTS
    Emperor Scorpious II's Avatar
    February 2009
    23,615 Posts
    Technically that's supposed to mean "Love your fellow Jew". The same as how "thou shall not kill" actually means "thou shall not kill Jews".
    Where in the world did it ever say that?

  6. Post #86
    Lilyo's Avatar
    October 2011
    1,772 Posts
    Where in the world did it ever say that?
    http://www.inner.org/responsa/leter1/resp22.htm

    Most of the morals promoted in both the old and new testaments are meant to apply to a narrowly defined in-group. John Hartung has written a paper on the evolution and biblical history of in group morality, if you wish to read it.
    http://strugglesforexistence.com./?p=article_p&id=13

  7. Post #87
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    uh no this is pretty wrong

    the laws are against suicide because suicide is a very bad thing, both for the perpetrator and for the community. also not all religions do this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_suicide
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_suicide
    Notice how a cult that commits suicide isn't going to last long is it? Its memetics. Suicide is a very bad thing for the community and a religion requires a community to survive doesn't it. Now if you showed me a big religion that promotes suicide then that would be a different thing.
    as for gays, again, not all religions decree against homosexuality. a minority even encourage it. regardless, the argument doesn't hold water because childless heterosexual couples were/are not persecuted with the fervour that gays are/were, nor are sterile individuals, nor are post-menopausal women. the reasoning cannot be that they don't procreate because it violates occam's razor.
    They were definitely encouraged to have kids though and back in the day they couldn't really tell if someone was sterile or not. Some religions do encourage homosexuality but again most will discourage it because having kids mean more followers. A religion that promotes child birth will out number the ones that don't. This is also why the jews don't eat pork or shellfish. Both meats used to be very uncleaned and unhealthy and because of that were banned.

  8. Post #88
    DERAILER OF THREADS DESTROYER OF IDIOTS
    Emperor Scorpious II's Avatar
    February 2009
    23,615 Posts
    http://www.inner.org/responsa/leter1/resp22.htm

    Most of the morals promoted in both the old and new testaments are meant to apply to a narrowly defined in-group. John Hartung has written a paper on the evolution and biblical history of in group morality, if you wish to read it.
    http://strugglesforexistence.com./?p=article_p&id=13
    I'm kind of on the fence about this now. Because all of that focuses on what the Old Testament says. Jesus said it too - but I doubt that part was recorded in Hebrew and thus "tough to translate" like your links say. So, going by what Jesus said like I was doing, was Jesus saying the exact quote of "love your fellow Jew" or did he literally mean "everyone" as is thought today?

  9. Post #89
    Lilyo's Avatar
    October 2011
    1,772 Posts
    Jesus was referring to the teachings of the Torah when he said "love thy neighbor (fellow jew)". He never meant for it to mean "neighbor" in the sense of the word that we think of today. How could he? He only knew of the teachings of the Old Testament. It's what he grew up with and believed in. He never meant to radically change the teachings of the old Testament, his whole purpose was to restore the Kingdom of David, not move people away from Judaism and create a new organized religion. I bet he wouldn't have been too pleased if he would have known that Paul was going to bring the Jewish God to the Gentiles either. And for that matter, the New Testament is in no way better than the old, though today's Christian theologists would strongly argue against that. Its teachings are as confused, random, and abruptly contradictory to each other as they were in the old testament. The Bible in general is a jumbled mess of contradictions and fallacies with little true value to today's society in terms of moral teachings. It's just not a good basis for anything imo, especially not the basis of moral philosophies and teachings, as its obvious by the fact that everyone picks and chooses which part of the bibles to believe in and which to view as "outdated" or "symbolic".

  10. Post #90
    What fun is it being cool if you can't wear a sombrero?
    Combineguy's Avatar
    June 2006
    2,181 Posts
    Your post reminds me of that quote by Gandhi, "I like your Christ. But I do not like your Christians" (paraphrased)
    it's actually a quote from bara dada,
    "Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians -- you are not like him."

  11. Post #91
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    11,185 Posts
    If "love your neighbor" is such a common sense idea, why does it seem virtually no one do it?
    There are people who wouldn't even hurt a fly, some all-around decent and civilized, normal people.

    In my BOOK, those "kinda" people are as RELIGIOUS as you could ever get. And an absolute submission to God wouldn't change that, or wouldn't even be needed.

  12. Post #92
    Notice how a cult that commits suicide isn't going to last long is it? Its memetics. Suicide is a very bad thing for the community and a religion requires a community to survive doesn't it. Now if you showed me a big religion that promotes suicide then that would be a different thing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido

    (yeah it's not a religion per se, but empirically it shares a lot of the characteristics)

  13. Post #93
    Roukan's Avatar
    April 2011
    647 Posts
    Free will cannot possibly exist if god knows the future. If your actions are already known by god then you do not have the ability to act otherwise when you do an act.

    Your idea of god allowing terrible things to happen to teach people a lesson and "to get their shit together" at the expense of the innocent is not compatible with the idea of an all-good god. His intervention would not have to be direct, as in smiting a murderer before your eyes. He could simply have arranged for the murderer to instead be a good man who wouldn't harm anyone, which would solve a lot more problems than allowing an innocent person to suffer horribly to teach others a lesson. You would never even have to know that he intervened.

    I mean that whole idea is just so circular, that god wants people to be taught a lesson and to form foundations of defending themselves from the evil that he allows to exist in the first place.
    It is circular. I whole-heartedly agree. Looking at it from a religious perspective: God told Eve not to eat the apple, for it contains knowledge of evil and there will be consequences. She ate it, that was free will. As for the bolded, in the Bible, God blinded Saul (who then changed his name to Paul) for his persecution of Christians. Later, he wrote a load of the Bible, including Revelations. I'm sure such other occasions have happened throughout the Eons, recorded or not.

    Humans, in my opinion, need a kick to the head to jump start their brains towards a certain direction. Here in Vegas, the local news channels band together often to fight against Traffic crime (hit & run, texting/talking while driving, etc.), but how? It was because some children couldn't get out of the way of a drunk driver or some idiot teen. It's always been like this.

    And God (if he exists) does know your actions, yes, but does that mean we are stuck in the position he has appointed to us? He appointed Saul (another one) to rule the Jews, and Saul got beheaded because he constantly defied God's words. That is a debate meant for Fate, I think.

    On the point of the thread: I think the Holy Books could be wrong. All of them. I mean, the church stole Christmas from Romans who celebrated the birth of Sol Invictus, and just slapped Christ's name on there. I take the Bible, as a Christian, with a grain of salt. Most of it can be viewed as metaphorical teachings, much like the Parables Christ taught. Do I believe it's all wrong? No. I believe the holy books of the world just went through a massive game of Telephone.

  14. Post #94
    Hunter890's Avatar
    February 2011
    190 Posts
    On the point of the thread: I think the Holy Books could be wrong. All of them. I mean, the church stole Christmas from Romans who celebrated the birth of Sol Invictus, and just slapped Christ's name on there. I take the Bible, as a Christian, with a grain of salt. Most of it can be viewed as metaphorical teachings, much like the Parables Christ taught. Do I believe it's all wrong? No. I believe the holy books of the world just went through a massive game of Telephone.
    Agreed,the Bible was written down by people after all. How can we be absolutely sure that it was the Word of God.

  15. Post #95
    Gold Member
    Secrios's Avatar
    March 2011
    1,000 Posts
    I don't care if the bible is right or wrong, I want to do what I want to do; and no society of bible belts are going to tell me otherwise.

  16. Post #96
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido

    (yeah it's not a religion per se, but empirically it shares a lot of the characteristics)
    Buts thats different. It doesn't require the follower to have children in order to spread. Thats the difference. Having the believer live long enough to have children or to tell others of the belief is the key to a religion spreading.

  17. Post #97
    Gold Member
    Chrille's Avatar
    August 2005
    5,333 Posts
    Buts thats different. It doesn't require the follower to have children in order to spread. Thats the difference. Having the believer live long enough to have children or to tell others of the belief is the key to a religion spreading.
    I think there's a higher chance that homosexuality being shunned is a case of it being practiced by some of the tribes and religions that competed with the Israelites, thus being bad.

  18. Post #98
    also buttsex is a more potent vector for disease transmission

  19. Post #99
    The Jack's Avatar
    August 2011
    3,257 Posts
    But oral is even less...


    And in evolutionary terms- The vagina doesn't have as much disease potency as the anus because of the anti-bacterial juices which came into prominence due to those people not getting disease.

  20. Post #100
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    But oral is even less...


    And in evolutionary terms- The vagina doesn't have as much disease potency as the anus because of the anti-bacterial juices which came into prominence due to those people not getting disease.
    The anus has more vulnerability to spreading disease because the tissue in the ass is not biologically meant for sex. It rips and tears more easily, making it easier for contaminated bodily fluids to spread into the blood stream and spread the infection/disease.

  21. Post #101
    Torjuz's Avatar
    January 2011
    3,646 Posts
    From a bible perspective (since I never read the Torah or Quran) I would say that it's a cultural text that tells the story off an old society. Personal ain't a big fan of religion but I find it cool with Job's book in general. I think some stuff is bullshit though, but how did they think of it? That's a question I ask myself sometimes.

  22. Post #102
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    There is evidence for the existence of early Christianity, but not Jesus (also just curious, do you have a source for the claim about Tacitus and these documents?).

    Again though, my guess is that there was Jesus upon whom these stories were based, though I don't really have any solid evidence to prove that, it's just a guess at this point.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

    I don't know how you think about Wikipedia or its credibility but I decided to shed some light, also read the gospels that is all the evidence you need.

    Also, *takes off mask The Bible is concrete and every book is a testament to God. I do believe Hell is a scare tactic to control society. If Jesus did not hate sodomy then God didn't either. We can learn a lot from God from Jesus' life and ministry.

  23. Post #103
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

    I don't know how you think about Wikipedia or its credibility but I decided to shed some light, also read the gospels that is all the evidence you need.

    Also, *takes off mask The Bible is concrete and every book is a testament to God. I do believe Hell is a scare tactic to control society. If Jesus did not hate sodomy then God didn't either. We can learn a lot from God from Jesus' life and ministry.
    The gospels are not really evidence, they are Christian sources, not neutral/unbiased historical documents. It would kinda be like trying to use J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books to prove that Hogwarts exists.

    I also read the entire article, I don't see where it says anything about Tacitus obtaining documents through Pilate about Jesus (the poster I was responding to made that claim). Tacitus does not even name his sources for the claim about Jesus, he also gets the rank of Pilate wrong, and he couldn't possibly have witnessed it himself given that he was born over 20 years after Jesus is supposed to have died. It is merely assumed that due to Tacitus' political status he would have had access to some official documents, but there is no solid evidence anywhere that such documents existed or what they said.

    There's also reason to believe the passage was tampered with (which is in the article you posted). I don't really believe that this passage adds much, if any, credible evidence to the existence of Jesus.

    I have to disagree and say the bible is also not concrete, there are numerous contradictions throughout it. One off the top of my head would be the death of Judas, there are two different accounts of how he died after betraying Jesus. I have heard Christian apologists try to make excuses for that particular one, but there are still a mind-boggling number of contradictions even if you ignore that.

    You are right about Hell. There is little description of what "hell" actually is in the bible, and most descriptions/images of it are just completely made up by Christians.

    Jesus did not mention homosexuality explicitly in the Bible, but St. Paul clearly speaks out against homosexuality, and you said it yourself that "every book is a testament to God."
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...27&version=NIV

  24. Post #104
    joes33431's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,297 Posts
    I think some stuff is bullshit though, but how did they think of it? That's a question I ask myself sometimes.
    Imagination.

    Political agenda.

    Personal, subjective morality.

    Bias against minority groups.

    Simple human stupidity.

    All these things have contributed at least mildly to the creation of religious texts, because religious texts are created by many, many people over spans of centuries.

  25. Post #105

    December 2011
    33 Posts
    In the beginning.............man created God.

    "Religion is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance"

    - Neil deGrasse Tyson

  26. Post #106
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,530 Posts
    There's no evidence that any texts that claim to be holy, are.

  27. Post #107
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    The gospels are not really evidence, they are Christian sources, not neutral/unbiased historical documents. It would kinda be like trying to use J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books to prove that Hogwarts exists.

    I also read the entire article, I don't see where it says anything about Tacitus obtaining documents through Pilate about Jesus (the poster I was responding to made that claim). Tacitus does not even name his sources for the claim about Jesus, he also gets the rank of Pilate wrong, and he couldn't possibly have witnessed it himself given that he was born over 20 years after Jesus is supposed to have died. It is merely assumed that due to Tacitus' political status he would have had access to some official documents, but there is no solid evidence anywhere that such documents existed or what they said.

    There's also reason to believe the passage was tampered with (which is in the article you posted). I don't really believe that this passage adds much, if any, credible evidence to the existence of Jesus.

    I have to disagree and say the bible is also not concrete, there are numerous contradictions throughout it. One off the top of my head would be the death of Judas, there are two different accounts of how he died after betraying Jesus. I have heard Christian apologists try to make excuses for that particular one, but there are still a mind-boggling number of contradictions even if you ignore that.

    You are right about Hell. There is little description of what "hell" actually is in the bible, and most descriptions/images of it are just completely made up by Christians.

    Jesus did not mention homosexuality explicitly in the Bible, but St. Paul clearly speaks out against homosexuality, and you said it yourself that "every book is a testament to God."
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...27&version=NIV
    Using a small section of a book does not take away its meaning/purpose as a whole. That's like only reading Draco Malfoy being mean to Harry Potter but the books as a whole are about friendship.

    And Paul, the way I see it was explaining how their acts were wrong... But homosexuality isn't wrong in itself and should never be condemned. But maybe their acts of lust? To a certain degree? What if lust in general is bad? Is that not the purpose? Or am I missing something?

    As for the Wikipedia article I honestly didn't read it, I just googled Tacitus and that came.. It was just to shed some light...I replied to your old comment because I was in the wrong section so I'm sorry if that wasn't something you haven't seen before.

    http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html
    Again, I'm shedding some light... I don't know how credible you'll find this either.. As for the many contradictions.. I have no doubt that they were modified or whatever, but the Bible is not all contradictions. Humans are erroneous and have the tendency to be. But do I believe in Jesus? The man that was written about performing miracles, loving all, being the son of God, and being perfect? Yes, I do.

  28. Post #108
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,530 Posts
    Humans are erroneous and have the tendency to be. But do I believe in Jesus? The man that was written about performing miracles, loving all, being the son of God, and being perfect? Yes, I do.
    So Jesus is logically not a human?

  29. Post #109
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    So Jesus is logically not a human?
    Not in spirit but in form, yes. Hence, the Holy Spirit replaced him after he died.

  30. Post #110
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    Not in spirit but in form, yes. Hence, the Holy Spirit replaced him after he died.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Jesus specifically said "if I go... I will send to you the comforter" (referring to the Holy Spirit, which is made pretty obvious in other passages). Jesus physically ascends into the clouds and a few weeks later, the Holy Spirit makes his first "appearance" at pentecost. So the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, Jesus still has a body, but is in Heaven.

    This kind of topic begins to get all metaphysical, since Jesus is referred to as the Last Adam, (the first Adam introduced death and rebellion to mankind, the Last Adam brought life). So Jesus is Human, but theologically, He is also God. He is the GodMan. Able to empathize with our plights because He has endured them along with us, borne our sorrows as His own, but also able to forgive, to love perfectly and live righteously, because He is God.

    There are plenty of groups that deny this (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Mormons and plenty of atheist trolls who say dumb stuff like "Jesus is a zombie lololol. Bible disproved."), who claim Jesus was the archangel "Michael", or the brother of Satan, but in doing so, I think they undermine the purpose of Jesus death and resurrection, and the sacrifice. Basically, if Jesus is not God, then God is pretty rubbish for punishing someone else for our sins. If Jesus is God, then God willingly took the punishment himself for our sins, which I see as an act of love, to sacrifice self for the sake of others.

  31. Post #111
    Gold Member
    metalhand's Avatar
    July 2009
    380 Posts
    I saw a movie a few days ago, called "Zeitgeist", which was discussing about religion itself. I haven't checked up on any of the facts yet, but here you go:
    (It starts at 13:15)

  32. Post #112
    Lilyo's Avatar
    October 2011
    1,772 Posts
    Most of the facts are skewed or wrong.

  33. Post #113
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    Not sure what you mean by this. Jesus specifically said "if I go... I will send to you the comforter" (referring to the Holy Spirit, which is made pretty obvious in other passages). Jesus physically ascends into the clouds and a few weeks later, the Holy Spirit makes his first "appearance" at pentecost. So the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, Jesus still has a body, but is in Heaven. This kind of topic begins to get all metaphysical, since Jesus is referred to as the Last Adam, (the first Adam introduced death and rebellion to mankind, the Last Adam brought life). So Jesus is Human, but theologically, He is also God. He is the GodMan. Able to empathize with our plights because He has endured them along with us, borne our sorrows as His own, but also able to forgive, to love perfectly and live righteously, because He is God. There are plenty of groups that deny this (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Mormons and plenty of atheist trolls who say dumb stuff like "Jesus is a zombie lololol. Bible disproved."), who claim Jesus was the archangel "Michael", or the brother of Satan, but in doing so, I think they undermine the purpose of Jesus death and resurrection, and the sacrifice. Basically, if Jesus is not God, then God is pretty rubbish for punishing someone else for our sins. If Jesus is God, then God willingly took the punishment himself for our sins, which I see as an act of love, to sacrifice self for the sake of others.
    I was trying to say that but I didn't want to make a long comment... Probably should explained better. Hmmm

  34. Post #114
    Gold Member
    nemmises5's Avatar
    May 2010
    1,894 Posts
    I am a Tolerant Atheist. however I have limits, such as these



    keep in mind it has 9 LIKES I do know this chick personally and she is absolutely beautiful! To bad though :(

  35. Post #115
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,530 Posts
    I am a Tolerant Atheist. however I have limits, such as these



    keep in mind it has 9 LIKES I do know this chick personally and she is absolutely beautiful! To bad though :(
    'Tolerant Atheist'

    Since when were atheists non-tolerant? Almost all my Facebook friends are religious, and I even have a minister on it. Generally people's religions aren't your business.
    Also, I don't get why you write 'too bad though'. Is her faith upsetting you? What.

  36. Post #116
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    He judges a persons worth by their beliefs. Evidently she places a lot of faith in God, so her beauty is wasted or something like that... only atheists should be beautiful

  37. Post #117
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    7,931 Posts
    Surely judging people based on their beliefs is one of the more preferable ways of judging people?

    Obviously everyone deserves a certain amount of respect, but I think the whole process of judgement is intimately tied to your perceived idea of someone's beliefs. It's only when your judgement is irrational or affects your behaviour adversely that it's something dangerous, I imagine.

  38. Post #118
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    Yeah, I'm not interested in dating someone who is a Christian. It's just a personal preference.
    Kind of limits your options though.

  39. Post #119
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    7,931 Posts
    Maybe it's just the environment I live in, but I think there's actually very few people my age who have any sort of religious conviction. And the sorts who do tend to be the sorts I wouldn't be particularly interested in just due to the kind of people they are. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something instantly noticeable in church going people and doesn't agree with my sensibilities much. I wouldn't really let it affect my behaviour and it's definitely not grounds for not associating with someone altogether; its just something subtle.

  40. Post #120
    little.sparrow's Avatar
    June 2010
    4,788 Posts
    It is an extremely slim chance that any currently existing religion is correct.
    think, there's 50 trillion billion million and 86 possibilities. Simply looking at one and saying "this sounds about right" is kind of silly in my eyes, and we should go and find out, rather than guess and cross our fingers.