How long until the plague of religion goes away?

[TheFinalWord]

In other words, you are literally preaching to the choir.

 

And you're not?

 

Telling us to read books by Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins? That's not exactly a novel idea. I agree people should watch the debates on YouTube in which Hitchens actually has to defend himself against people that know what they're talking about. From my perspective Hitchens gets rebutted in a good many of them.

 

The bible is replete with horrible messages. You cannot use the Lord of the Rings books to justify the existence of Elves.

 

Oh no, not the Lord of the Rings again. Is this Yellowshark resurrected?

 

I hope that when and if you come to realize that you were sold a pile of lies that you do not feel judged by atheists. I hope that you know that you are not alone even if it feels scary. They will tell you that we are the devil. They MUST say this. Think hard on this. Think hard on what you are spending your time, your money, your energy and your life on. Do what feels right to you and you will be ok. But defending the bible is not possible nor what seems to me to be the best use of your good energies.

 

I do feel a lot of judgement from certain atheists. Fortunately, the anti-theistic evangelism doesn't bother me.

 

I've been an atheist and converted to Christianity. I was addicted to drugs. God saved me. I'm not going back. I can understand why the bible is so difficult for you to understand. I can. But cherry picking and straw-manning it is not going to change my mind.

 

II hope that you know that you are not alone even if it feels scary. They will tell you that we are the devil.

 

I don't think you're the devil I think you are misguided, but I'm sure your intentions are good. What do you mean by scary? I'm definitely not afraid of you or any other man. You realize I'm a grown man right? Who is "they"? Trust me I can think for myself.

[TaraMaiden]

Not in my lifetime, unfortunately.

[strongnrelaxed]

In all honesty, NOTHING anyone says will get through to you, and that means all of this is basically pointless. You think the way you think (you're entitled to that) and it doesn't matter how valid, how well-thought out The Final Words (and they are well-thought out) points are, because you're just going to discredit them, but providing zero evidence of your own.

 

I could, and so could others provide plenty of pieces of Scripture (put into context as well) that defines a loving God, and a God that wants peace, but if you want to know about that, you can look it up yourself.

 

People are wasting their time in this discussion because you don't take anyone's points into consideration (that's not to say that you have to agree with them) but simply discrediting valid points based on the fact that you don't believe/agree is unreasonable.

 

I'm not disagreeing that genocide is bad. Of course, it is. Whichever way you cut it.The atom bomb was bad, no matter the justifications for it, but was it necessary? Yes. Just because something is bad, does not mean it is not just or necessary. Are we to assume that we have a monopoly on what is just (just does not mean good, just so you know) and God doesn't? After all, a lot of people would agree that the death penalty is not good, but it is just.

 

 

So are you suggesting that in order to be just, it must therefore be good for everyone? People who do bad things should not be punished accordingly? In order to stop the spread of their infection, and their corruption, God ordered them to destroy them. Sometimes, an evil serves a greater purpose, a greater good. Let's not be nambie-pambies about this. It was what it was, God ordered the destruction to serve a greater good.

 

Similarly, if the world had sat back and let the Germans have their way in WW2, simply because they don't want to step in and cause bloodshed, and be nambie-pambies, the world would be a very different place today, I've no doubt about that. If people can look at a string of events taking place around Germany, and into Austria, France, Poland etc, and say "let's fight against that, and do the right thing," why can't God? So it's OK to go to war, and cause bloodshed when we decide it's right, but not when God does?

 

I'm confused as to what you would expect God to order in these circumstances. He wasn't requesting they slaughter innocent people. He was trying to stop the spread of infection, and corruption. Just like we were trying to stop the spread of Nazism in WW2. No difference, except who ordered it.

 

Perhaps this might help. (I doubt it, but I will try).

 

What if you were to assume - just for one hour of your life - that the entity you call "God" does not truly exist. Just bear with me on this for a moment.

 

If one steps into that place and looks at the receding grasp that religion has on mankind and the complete trouncing of virtually every single one of its historical explanations for the natural world - no flat world (it is actually spherical), no more demons (we call this schizophrenia and other ailments), no more plagues from Satan (bacteria cause disease, not Satan, no ghosts (natural phenomena explain these things), no geocentrism (the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around), no creationism (evolution is no longer a theory, but a well documented phenomenon with an overwhelming amount of scientific, observable support from genetics, sociology, chemistry, anthropology, etc.), and no more 5,000 year old earth (you know the deal). I could go on, but these are some of the biggies.

 

If you accept for just that one hour of your life that there is no such thing as god, everything suddenly makes sense. How religions continue, why we have them, where they come from, how similar they all are (even ancient pre-bible religions) and how they can, and have been used for horrible purposes from the very beginning.

 

To claim that they are also used for good purposes is almost a childish ignorance. How the hell (pun intended) would they ever get people to believe this (quite literally) unbelievable nonsense if it did not at least contain some small grains of goodness? Re read this sentence a few times - I am asking nicely. Think hard on this. Why would you EVER support such evil atrocities if they did not give you a little goodness to go on?

 

When you go back to believing again, it should feel empty - and justifiably so.

 

I would suggest, as the late Christopher Hitchens and others have suggested, that YOU too are an atheist. I presume that you believe in one god, which implies that you do not believe in Horus, Ra, Aphrodite, Thor, Zeuss, Apollo, or any one of the several hundred other dieties cooked up by mankind over the ages.

 

If my presumption is correct, this makes you an atheist with respect to ALL of these other Gods.

 

I will just go you one further.

[strongnrelaxed]

You talk of science replacing religion, and the need for a God, a lot. Do you have any real evidence of this, or are you just throwing statements around that you think sound good?

 

In fact, science is no closer to doing away with the relevance of God now than it was one hundred years ago. In fact, what science has uncovered about how the universe began indicates that there could be a creator behind it all. What they found very closely matches the Bible's descriptions of the beginning of the universe.

 

I'd cite things, but I think you can dig around for it yourself if you're truly interested.

 

Also, if you take anything out of the context it was intended, it can be twisted into being something it wasn't. Again, going to use the atom bomb because if you pull it out of context, it was atrocious, and unjustifiable. However, put it into context, and some could say it was necessary. See what I mean?

 

You can't look at the Bible and pick and choose necessarily which part of which book makes sense to back up what you think without looking at the bigger picture. In that, you fail to grasp the actual point. Would you open any book at a random place, pull a few paragraphs from it and say it sums up the whole thing? I'd hope not, but that seems to be what you're advocating we do because it suits you.

 

Did God rape the little boy or the priest? Is the priest a human? Yes, you've just backed up my original point! God does not instruct priests to go about raping little boys (as a number of people pointed out in other threads, God is supposed to be strictly homophobic-right? ) so again, that's the evil of man, for you.

 

Do I distance myself from those atrocities? Gee, sure, I do. Does a Muslim distance themselves from 9/11? Does a German distance themselves from WW2 and the Holocaust? Gee, sure. Did I, as a Christian, have anything to do with the atrocities that have taken place over the years? Um, no. So why wouldn't I distance myself, and focus on what being a Christian means to me? Am I to repent for what others have done? Is every Muslim meant to repent for what a select few individuals did? Tell me, I'd sorely love to know what you're expecting we do.

 

Please don't try and say something is a bad thing for humanity when you don't really know what you're talking about. Don't subject a whole group of people to your own ignorance.

 

I bow out now, respectfully.

 

Do you really consider my statements to be ignorance?

 

If I were to claim that i believe in a diety that is represented as a pink unicorn that eats rainbows and poops butterflies, and that we each have one over our heads, would it not be a reasonable thing for others to call me on this and to ask for proof?

 

Who would be ignorant in this case - me for believing in pink unicorns or those who would call me out for it and demand proof.

 

Extraordinary claims DEMAND extraordinary proof.

 

You have done the right thing by bowing out. My comments are not aimed at you. Once a human has been indoctrinated so deeply I have rarely found it useful to try to reason with such a person. But I hope that in some small way I can contribute to a better world where the good and bad of human nature are seen as aspects of human nature with no supernatural beings necessary to explain it.

 

See my previous post about science. In this area I get a bit more strident. You and people like you have murdered scientists in the past for suggesting that these things were true. And NOW, when the rest of the world has moved on and the evidence is overwhelming and only the most fanatical lunatics still believe in a flat earth, I find it monumentally offensive that you would DARE to try to give credit to the church that killed the discoverers of these truths.

 

I can barely believe that I even have to say this.

[strongnrelaxed]

And you're not?

 

 

 

No I am not.

 

I've been an atheist and converted to Christianity. I was addicted to drugs. God saved me. I'm not going back. I can understand why the bible is so difficult for you to understand. I can. But cherry picking and straw-manning it is not going to change my mind.

 

I guess this says it all then.

[TheFinalWord]

I guess this says it all then.

 

PS: Welcome to LoveShack spirituality forum

[strongnrelaxed]

How dare you say I have murdered scientists! I can barely believe I was about to bow out, and you say rubbish like that? Think about that for a second. Mull it over what you just said.Consider how ridiculous and offensive it is. How would you like me to claim you'd murdered someone?

 

Who said I believed in a flat Earth? I don't. The Earth is round, we all know that. I find it monumentally offensive that you would have the audacity to think you have a monopoly over other's beliefs. Have you ever considered the possibility that YOU are wrong?

 

I'm not telling you what you ought to believe, because that it is entirely up to you and what is inside of you. Yet, you seem intent on beating others down for their beliefs, and imposing your own upon them. How dare you?

I can barely believe I had to say that because you ought to know that you have no right doing that. None at all.

 

If I'm to be honest (and this is one of the reasons I was bowing out) I would say you come across very arrogant, and seem to think you are intellectually superior to others. Do you think all religious people live backwards lives, and are dumb? You talk to people as though you think that. That's the most amusing thing about this whole thing. So many people talk of the arrogance of Christians (though we have nothing to be arrogant about, it is through the grace of God which we are saved, not our own works), yet your posts reek of arrogance.

 

Since you've kindly ignored most of my points, answer me this: Do you think you are somewhat more intelligent than others? Do you think the fact that atheistic scientists have turned to religion from their scientific findings makes them stupid? Of course you do, because you're right and all of us are wrong!

 

Have you even looked at the evidence for God? Or do you kindly ignore that because it's not in support of your views? That's fair enough, however, you can't debunk something without knowing the evidence for it. In that, again, you fail.

 

Do you have the right to believe in pink unicorns flying over your head? Sure, you do. You have the right to believe whatever you wish, and is in your heart to believe. Who am I to tell you what not to believe? Do I hold that monopoly over your life? No. Do you? Yes.

 

 

So, do I have the right to believe in God? Yes. Do you have the right to tell me no? No. Like I've said in a previous post, it's absolutely pointless conversing with you because in your world, you're 100% right, and we're 100% wrong. Nothing we say can change that, but don't ever presume to tell someone what they can and can't believe. And please, desist from making false claims that we are murderers. Atheists have killed people too, in case you didn't know-does that make you a murderer?

 

Harmful, I sense your passion and zeal. And I do not blame you for this. These are the norms with which you were raised. I really do get that.

 

I backed off your post in the other thread because you are very hostile and you are deliberately misrepresenting my comments. The good news is that others can see what I have written, and then see your interpretation.

 

You should know that I am not writing this to convince you of anything. My purpose for being here is to appeal to those who come here seeking comfort.People who are vulnerable and sad or depressed or recovering. You may not realize this, but there are many of your fellow believers who would be more than happy to offer religion as a source of comfort.

 

This sounds harmless. After all, what could be more comforting than Jesus, peace, prayer community, etc. I get that too.

 

You know damn well that I did not accuse you of killing anyone. I am glad you said that though because it allows others to see you. I stand by my statements. I am 100% convinced that there is no such thing as god. Just in the same way I do not believe in [spoiler ALERT!]Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. I also do not believe in Zeuss or any other dieties. Your god and all of those other gods are all the same to me. They are great stories with some moral tales and good old fashioned wisdom to sit and think about.

 

You can never get around the fact that if you claim there is a god, then you may do so. But you cannot expect others to believe without proof. You cannot use the bible to prove that the bible is true.

 

What burns my a$$ the most is that I spent 5 years in the Marine Corps infantry. I was willing to give my life to protect the Constitution and your freedom of religion. I did this willingly and was proud of my sense of duty But so many of your fellow religious folks want to turn our secular country, in which freedom of religion and FROM religion is an absolute and turn us into a theocracy. We are not a a Christian nation. I am willing to give my life to protect against this.

 

And I find it so strange that there are so many people who would stab be in the back as I fought for this constitutional right.

 

You seem like a very angry, bitter and confused person. I do not mean this as a personal attack. I just think that you may want to talk to someone.

 

I know it can be very scary when someone starts poking holes in your belief system. Scary indeed. I had to contend with this and came out the other side.

 

I wish you well. If you have an iota of character you will refrain from making inflammatory and unsupported posts that attempt to cast me as "arrogant"

and the other descriptors you use. It does not bother me, as your own words are your undoing. I think it helps others who are sitting on the fence in such discussions to read carefully. To think about the subtext of people's words and to use their reason and logic to come to their own conclusion. When all you have is name calling and baiting, it outs you and reveals the paucity of your perspective.

 

If you must know, I have a BS in Economics from the Wharton School, an MS in Strategy and Leadership, and just finished writing my dissertation in fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree from Columbia University (although I am not yet a doctor). My posting this may sound to you like arrogant bragging. The tenor of my posts must sound condescending to you. I get that. But that is not my intention. We should all be able to speak the truth as we see it and to meet the challenges that may come.

 

But to say that you will never change is a sad thing. I am always open to changing my perspective. Even on this matter. I just require proof and nothing said here rises to the level of acceptable proof.

 

Thank you honestly for taking the time to read my post and craft a response. despite my deep concern for your perspective and the honest disgust and contempt I have for the evils perpetrated, I do not hold that against you personally.

[strongnrelaxed]

How dare you say I have murdered scientists!

 

I checked again and saw where I said this. I didn't mean that YOU killed anyone. I was typing and backspacing to correct typos. I apologize.

 

Allow me to rephrase that.

 

It is people like you who are so strident in their beliefs that they were willing to kill scientists, women, warriors, fathers, local leaders, and artists to name a few. The list is so long and egregious that it boggles the mind.

 

Don't take my word for any of this. Look it up. But I suspect that you already know this to be true. Do not defend that HSweetz. You are better than that - and I can sense it. My father could not believe that those priests did all those things to all those little boys. But those little boys need grownups to step in and protect them from that evilness.

 

It may scare you and you may disagree with it. But they are Christians just like you. I don't care if that offends you or not. You must own this and there are people like me who are holding you all accountable for the horrors you support by continuing this insanity.

[pie2]

I have no idea, but I have given this honest though. If it took us arguable 2 thousand years to get here (on a widescale, Christianity has to be the benchmark) will it take as long to undo these crimes?

 

As an atheist, how are you able to define "crime"? What is a crime exactly, in your opinion? As a defender of evolutionism, has life not evolved from dust particles, carbon and water? Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' in any other species would accept the more powerful being overtaking the weaker as a natural progression (i.e. assault, abuse, murder, etc).

 

And, how do you explain love? And hate? Are they not just two sides of the same neuro-synaptic exchange? What is the difference, if we are reduced to purely chemical composition? Why is one chemical fire in the brain any better than another? What distinguishes us from a tortoise, an orchid, or the color green? Are we not just a meaningless thread in the fabric of this meaningless existence?

[Robert Z]

As an atheist, how are you able to define "crime"? What is a crime exactly, in your opinion? As a defender of evolutionism, has life not evolved from dust particles, carbon and water? Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' in any other species would accept the more powerful being overtaking the weaker as a natural progression (i.e. assault, abuse, murder, etc).

 

We have learned that cooperation increases the likelihood of survival. And we see this in the animal kingdom, for example, in pack animals that cooperate in a hunt for the good of the pack. But we have also evolved abstract concepts of justice and fairness that we apply to concepts like "crime". At the most basic level, one might define a crime to be anything that significantly detracts from the good of the pack. But now we most generally take it to mean anything that violates our sense of fairness.

 

And, how do you explain love? And hate? Are they not just two sides of the same neuro-synaptic exchange? What is the difference, if we are reduced to purely chemical composition? Why is one chemical fire in the brain any better than another? What distinguishes us from a tortoise, an orchid, or the color green? Are we not just a meaningless thread in the fabric of this meaningless existence?

 

Neurobiologist Semir Zeki, of University College London's Laboratory of Neurobiology, led a study last year that scanned the brains of 17 adults as they gazed at images of a person they professed to hate. Across the board, areas in the medial frontal gyrus, right putamen, premotor cortex and medial insula activated. Parts of this so-called "hate circuit," the researchers noted, are also involved in initiating aggressive behavior, but feelings of aggression itself—as well as anger, danger and fear—show different patterns in the brain than hatred does.

 

loathing can spring from positive feelings, such as romantic love (in the guise of a former partner or perceived rival). But love seems to deactivate areas traditionally associated with judgment, whereas hatred activates areas in the frontal cortex that may be involved in evaluating another person and predicting their behavior.

 

Some commonalities with love, however, are striking, the study authors note. The areas of the putamen and insula that are activated by individual hate are the same as those for romantic love. "This linkage may account for why love and hate are so closely linked to each other in life," they wrote in the October 2008 PLoS ONE.

The Origin of Hatred: Scientific American

Edited September 10, 2012 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

We will never be free of religion because the need to believe is in our nature. That is why almost every culture on earth has had some form of religion.

 

Some people seem to be happy with limited beliefs. They are fine with the constraints of science and what we can say with measured confidence. Though I believe most people like this do make a religion out of science. I have found that academics can be just as irrational as the most devout nutjob as soon as they are outside of their domain. In short, unless one can point to a book for an absolute answer, say something like a mathematical model, personal bias trumps logic almost every time. So my experience is that scientists are really no more rational than someone who believes in voodoo except where we can reference measured knowledge.

 

As for believers, we choose what we want to believe. No doubt our choice of religions correlates in some sense with our phychological profile. I can almost spot a fundamentalist by their dress and manner. There is definitely a type. And the arguments are always the same. Believe what I believe! I know the truth!! I can save you!!! No, you just picked what you liked. But that is what all of us do. It is in our nature. And it will always be this way.

[sally4sara]

I'm not telling you what you ought to believe, because that it is entirely up to you and what is inside of you. Yet, you seem intent on beating others down for their beliefs, and imposing your own upon them. How dare you?

I can barely believe I had to say that because you ought to know that you have no right doing that. None at all.

 

Do you have the right to believe in pink unicorns flying over your head? Sure, you do. You have the right to believe whatever you wish, and is in your heart to believe. Who am I to tell you what not to believe? Do I hold that monopoly over your life? No. Do you? Yes.

 

I think its an odd disconnect between the history of and the words of people (you for example)who believe in a religion like christianity that causes some people (myself included) to recoil from religion and religious people is highlighted in your posts.

 

For example it was discussed what happened in the verses offered up in NUM 31:7-31:19. You justified it by pointing out the necessity of the murders and the sex slaves taken because they were a people who didn't worship the christian god and a people who wished to share their dogma with others. It seemed you were saying "of course they killed off these people" because they believe what they wanted to believe but that it wasn't YOUR faith so they obviously needed to die.

But then you get indignant at the idea that someone's beliefs were being imposed on YOU and asked "How dare you? You have no right"

 

When really, the holy bible would suggest that not only is it just to impose its beliefs on others but to kill them if they have differing beliefs and shared them.

You say he has the right to believe what he wants, unicorns and all, but the religion you adhere to advises you and your congregation go drag him out of his home and murder him for it. Can you deny that? I would find it odd if you tried because in the NT Jesus states he did not come to alter or invalidate the old laws, but to uphold them and see them done. So nowhere in the holy bible does it ever apologize for what even you say was evil.

Its just weird is what I'm pointing out that you'd get indignant about someone treading on your constitutional right to believe and follow the faith of your choosing while the one you chose would have no respect for that same constitutional protection for anyone who believes in anything but the christian god. Do you not see how someone might be amazed that anyone who values a legal religious protection would be wooed in by a faith with a history of killing off anyone who doesn't believe as they do?

 

I too see it akin to someone saying well yeah killing off the jews was bad and all but I don't bother with that icky stuff when the Nazis gave us such cool fashion wear and a sense of unity. Whats a little genocide in the face of a club of hip dressed friends?

[sally4sara]

About proof:

 

So lets look at the Vatican and catholicism. We got who knows how many cases of child molestation over who knows how long what with all the cover up attempts. I get the attempt; a fear that such ugly acts might weaken the faith of believers and the power of the church. Hide away what might take away credibility. Okay I see the sense in the attempt despite how irresponsible. Credibility is a high commodity.

 

Lets now look at demonic possession. The Vatican claims to have evidence of demonic possession, proving it to be fact but WILL NOT SHARE THIS EVIDENCE. It would lend bone chilling credibility to the existence of a god and that god's counterpart - the devil. In the face of factual proof of the existence of demons who could then deny the existence of a god? I would drop to my knees a faithful believer in a christian god if I saw factual evidence of demonic possession. They could get rid of all doubters in a moment. So why hide such a powerful tool for credibility if credibility is so highly valued that an entire organization would seek to silence victims and cover up sexual abuse? The answer is pretty easy to see - there is no proof of demonic possession and the Vatican is very comfortable with lying to people in an effort to hold power over their follower's purses. There is a lot of money in tithes that would be lost if they did not do all they could to maintain the existence of a god.

 

Its like that Ethiopian Orthodox church that claims to actually have the Ark of the Covenant yet will not let anyone see it. Its much easier to lie and make bold claims if you never have to prove them. How funny it would be to hear the retort "well prove we don't have the Ark. HAHA you CAN'T (because we won't let you see it) so there goes your ability to claim the Ark doesn't exist!"

[KathyM]

As far as Christians forcing their beliefs on others through politics, the fact of the matter is that all people have a right to vote according to their own belief system. People allign themselves with the candidate that they believe holds the same or similar beliefs to them. People have a right to vote for whomever they want, and can elect to write in a candidate or not vote at all. The majority will determine the policies the U.S. will adopt. It's only fair that the policies adopted will reflect what the majority of the country wants. Why should the majority live with policies that only a minority wants? If you don't like the policies voted in by the majority, then you have the choice to move to a country whose policies are more in line with your own belief system.

 

As far as how long religion will be here, the answer is forever. It has been here since the beginning of man, and will continue into infinity, although eventually the religion based on truth will be the only one when the truth is revealed.

[sally4sara]

As far as Christians forcing their beliefs on others through politics, the fact of the matter is that all people have a right to vote according to their own belief system. People allign themselves with the candidate that they believe holds the same or similar beliefs to them. People have a right to vote for whomever they want, and can elect to write in a candidate or not vote at all. The majority will determine the policies the U.S. will adopt. It's only fair that the policies adopted will reflect what the majority of the country wants. Why should the majority live with policies that only a minority wants? If you don't like the policies voted in by the majority, then you have the choice to move to a country whose policies are more in line with your own belief system.

 

As far as how long religion will be here, the answer is forever. It has been here since the beginning of man, and will continue into infinity, although eventually the religion based on truth will be the only one when the truth is revealed.

 

Uhhh no, we have no record of any religion existing during our species beginnings. Religion required writing. Earliest religions said nothing about a christian god.

 

And this country was built on preserving a place for many different ideas and beliefs to be able to exist together. When you vote, you are to vote for the good of the people of this nation as a whole (even the minorities you'd seek to marginalize) because what happens to some effects us all and not what will keep your tush out of hellfire. We abolished slavery did we not? Do you think the MAJORITY of the population at that time was chattel? How did things change for the freeing of slaves when slaves didn't have the right to vote? Could it be perhaps because people were thinking of others rather than just their own gain?

Selfish selfish thinking out of yon christian gallery and I'm not surprised in the least. But at least its a step away from killing entire villages of people who don't vote your faith. Keep up the good work and maybe one day you will start actually thinking like what christians claim is the true meaning and teachings of Jesus.

[KathyM]

Uhhh no, we have no record of any religion existing during our species beginnings. Religion required writing. Earliest religions said nothing about a christian god.

 

And this country was built on preserving a place for many different ideas and beliefs to be able to exist together. When you vote, you are to vote for the good of the people of this nation as a whole (even the minorities you'd seek to marginalize) because what happens to some effects us all and not what will keep your tush out of hellfire. We abolished slavery did we not? Do you think the MAJORITY of the population at that time was chattel? How did things change for the freeing of slaves when slaves didn't have the right to vote? Could it be perhaps because people were thinking of others rather than just their own gain?

Selfish selfish thinking out of yon christian gallery and I'm not surprised in the least. But at least its a step away from killing entire villages of people who don't vote your faith. Keep up the good work and maybe one day you will start actually thinking like what christians claim is the true meaning and teachings of Jesus.

From my perspective as a Christian, Adam and Eve were the first people created by God. They had a religion based on their belief in God--the same God that later Christians believe in. There are written recordings of it, which is a part of the Bible, and the Bible describes how the religion evolved into the Jewish religion, and then the Christian religion. That IS a documented history of religion starting from the beginning of man. Other religions cropped up as time went on and people formed their belief system.

 

In the U.S., we have the right to believe as we wish, and we have the right to vote as we wish. People normally vote according to their own belief system, and therefore, the candidates and policies adopted will reflect the beliefs and desires of the majority. That's the way it is and always has been. People SHOULD vote according to what's best for the country as a whole, but there is a difference of opinion on what is best for the country, which is why there are different political parties in this country and a variety of belief systems. People will vote in allignment with the party they believe upholds their values and the direction they want the country to go in, and the way they think will benefit the country as a whole. I think everyone wants what is best for this country, they just have a different idea of what is best, or a different idea of how to accomplish what is best, such as how to accomplish getting the economy out of recession. I plan to vote for Obama because I like how he values education and wants to enable people to go to college by providing government funding for it. I also like how he wants health care to be affordable and available to everyone and has managed to get his health care bill passed. I also like how he has compassion for the poor and middle class and is trying to ease their burden while expecting those who can afford it to pay their fair share of taxes. How is that being selfish and only thinking of oneself? Obama IS a Christian, btw, and I do think he stands for Christian principles, although I don't agree on all of his policies, but I do agree on the majority of them.

[sally4sara]

From my perspective as a Christian, Adam and Eve were the first people created by God. They had a religion based on their belief in God--the same God that later Christians believe in. There are written recordings of it, which is a part of the Bible, and the Bible describes how the religion evolved into the Jewish religion, and then the Christian religion. That IS a documented history of religion starting from the beginning of man. Other religions cropped up as time went on and people formed their belief system.

 

In the U.S., we have the right to believe as we wish, and we have the right to vote as we wish. People normally vote according to their own belief system, and therefore, the candidates and policies adopted will reflect the beliefs and desires of the majority. That's the way it is and always has been. People SHOULD vote according to what's best for the country as a whole, but there is a difference of opinion on what is best for the country, which is why there are different political parties in this country and a variety of belief systems. People will vote in allignment with the party they believe upholds their values and the direction they want the country to go in, and the way they think will benefit the country as a whole. I think everyone wants what is best for this country, they just have a different idea of what is best, or a different idea of how to accomplish what is best, such as how to accomplish getting the economy out of recession. I plan to vote for Obama because I like how he values education and wants to enable people to go to college by providing government funding for it. I also like how he wants health care to be affordable and available to everyone and has managed to get his health care bill passed. I also like how he has compassion for the poor and middle class and is trying to ease their burden while expecting those who can afford it to pay their fair share of taxes. How is that being selfish and only thinking of oneself? Obama IS a Christian, btw, and I do think he stands for Christian principles, although I don't agree on all of his policies, but I do agree on the majority of them.

 

Well its kind of hard to have a decent discussion with someone about history when they've ignored fact and science to define it. I AM able to prove that our species existed well prior to where you believe it all started.

 

That you'd vote for the benefit of others is a good thing. However it is not what you first suggested. You said "Why should the majority live with policies that only a minority wants?"

Truly education benefits all who get it and healthcare benefits all who get it. When these things are funded with tax dollars more people get them. We could get into who we are each voting for but I've yet to see a candidate your average citizen could call a peer and simply vote for who I see as the least harmful overly wealthy liar. So I too will be voting in Obama again. But its not due to his faith - something I expect him to practice as it applies to him only and not as a bucket full of that which his holy book would have him trying to enforce. We have a separation of church and state for a reason and if a politician seeks change to reflect their faith without consideration for how many do not share that faith no matter how small that population might be, it is unconstitutional and criminal.

 

And yet with every election, we see religious groups trying to buy unconstitutional enforcement of their faith with the tax free earnings they enjoy. So they gain an earning, do not contribute any taxes toward policies of any kind let alone on education or healthcare and all the while claim their dogma is in the best interests of this country. Come on, does that not sound selfish?

[TheFinalWord]

In short, unless one can point to a book for an absolute answer, say something like a mathematical model, personal bias trumps logic almost every time. So my experience is that scientists are really no more rational than someone who believes in voodoo except where we can reference measured knowledge.

 

I agree with much of what you said. Not to derail the thread, but out of curiosity, what kind of mathematical models are you referring to?

[TheFinalWord]

We will never be free of religion because the need to believe is in our nature. That is why almost every culture on earth has had some form of religion.

 

Some people seem to be happy with limited beliefs. They are fine with the constraints of science and what we can say with measured confidence. Though I believe most people like this do make a religion out of science. I have found that academics can be just as irrational as the most devout nutjob as soon as they are outside of their domain. In short, unless one can point to a book for an absolute answer, say something like a mathematical model, personal bias trumps logic almost every time. So my experience is that scientists are really no more rational than someone who believes in voodoo except where we can reference measured knowledge.

 

As for believers, we choose what we want to believe. No doubt our choice of religions correlates in some sense with our phychological profile. I can almost spot a fundamentalist by their dress and manner. There is definitely a type. And the arguments are always the same. Believe what I believe! I know the truth!! I can save you!!! No, you just picked what you liked. But that is what all of us do. It is in our nature. And it will always be this way.

 

Reason I ask is b/c I create mathematical models (specifically structural equation models). SEM is a method for examining causal relationships between variables. There is quite a bit of subjectivity in terms of model fit indexes. There are entire journals dedicated to this topic b/c researchers have varying opinions.

 

As far as fundamentalists, I can see why you think that b/c as humans we like to compartmentalize. However, I know many "fundamentalists" with tattoos, long hair, and harley bikes. How is this dress and manner?

 

Edited September 10, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[KathyM]

Well its kind of hard to have a decent discussion with someone about history when they've ignored fact and science to define it. I AM able to prove that our species existed well prior to where you believe it all started.

Are you? Where is your proof?

That you'd vote for the benefit of others is a good thing. However it is not what you first suggested. You said "Why should the majority live with policies that only a minority wants?"

You are assuming that what the majority wants will only benefit themselves and not others. Both the major parties have ideologies that would benefit others. I just happen to think Obama's policies are more in keeping with what this country needs right now, for the most part. I'm just saying that the majority do have a right to have their policies be adopted, since they ARE the majority, and the government is supposed to reflect the values and adopt the policies that the majority desire. No one candidate is going to please everybody. No one candidate is going to have all of his ideas/positions supported by the people who vote for him. Most people try to chose the one who they think is most in keeping with their own values and beliefs.

Truly education benefits all who get it and healthcare benefits all who get it. When these things are funded with tax dollars more people get them. We could get into who we are each voting for but I've yet to see a candidate your average citizen could call a peer and simply vote for who I see as the least harmful overly wealthy liar. So I too will be voting in Obama again. But its not due to his faith - something I expect him to practice as it applies to him only and not as a bucket full of that which his holy book would have him trying to enforce.

Obama is the product of his faith. I don't think either candidate is sidestepping their own religious beliefs when adopting their policies. They just have different views on some of the Bible's teachings. I think it's pretty typical for politicians to legislate and promote policies based on their own belief system, and we elect them based on that. To do otherwise would seem hypocritical to me--promoting policy that you don't personally believe in.

We have a separation of church and state for a reason and if a politician seeks change to reflect their faith without consideration for how many do not share that faith no matter how small that population might be, it is unconstitutional and criminal.

No politician is going to be able to please everyone all of the time. The candidate who is elected president will represent what the majority wants, or at least the majority of what they want.

And yet with every election, we see religious groups trying to buy unconstitutional enforcement of their faith with the tax free earnings they enjoy. So they gain an earning, do not contribute any taxes toward policies of any kind let alone on education or healthcare and all the while claim their dogma is in the best interests of this country. Come on, does that not sound selfish?

Everyone has the right to support the candidate they wish to, both with their money and with their vote. As long as it doesn't go against campaign contribution laws, there's nothing wrong with supporting the candidate that you feel most closely represents your values and beliefs, whether it be groups of people supporting a candidate, or individuals supporting a candidate.

[sally4sara]

Are you? Where is your proof?

 

Well we could head on over to the Museum of Natural History if you'd like? Its free admission (paid for by tax dollars not contributed to by churches) and about a 20 minute train ride for me. Do you live close to DC?

If not, there are many many resources on the internet about the subject. The most familiar these days seems to be wiki so here is that link:

 

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Doesn't really line up with the Ussher estimate of Earth being roughly 6000 years old starting with the Eden story.

 

Ussher chronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here is some more on the history of religion if you'd like to consider all belief systems as religions whether they worshiped a god. The christian god was not first BTW and lots going on well before 6000 years ago or any mention of an Adam or an Eve.

 

Timeline of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Everyone has the right to support the candidate they wish to, both with their money and with their vote. As long as it doesn't go against campaign contribution laws, there's nothing wrong with supporting the candidate that you feel most closely represents your values and beliefs, whether it be groups of people supporting a candidate, or individuals supporting a candidate.

 

Yes every ONE of the register voters can vote how they wish and contribute their money to whomever they like, but churches have been using tithe money to sway politics illegally for a long time now. They are not a person and do not get to cast a vote as a person so they try to influence politics by using the untaxed offerings of their followers who already get their one vote. Case in point and more recently would be the way the mormon church bought an overturning of gay marriage in California. Fortunately is was reversed again later. I wonder how many parishioners tithes got wasted on that one?

[BetheButterfly]

By some estimates, mankind (Homosapien) is about 100,000 years old (give or take).

 

The Bible goes back approximately 5,000 years. New Testament about 2,000, the Koran about 1,500.

 

How long do you think it will take for mankind to undo the horrible harm that has been done to mankind by the Abrahamic religions over the past few milennia?

 

What does horrible harm to mankind = people who hate, who lust, who are greedy, who are sadistic, who think they are superior to others and can therefore treat other people horribly. This is found not just in people of Abrahamic religions, but in other religious groups as well as Atheists. By the way Abrahamic religions are not the only religions that continue to exist today. Hinduism, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Native American beliefs, and other religions have existed for a long time and exist in various forms today as well.

 

I don't mean rectifying the rapes, tortures, murders, genocide, incest, and slavery. Nor the wholesale genital mutilations or witch hunts (which still go on in Africa today) nor the numerous scientists who have sacrificed their lives to speak the truth to make the world a better place - to prove that the world is NOT flat, that it is bacteria that make us ill - NOT demons, etc.

The Bible is not a science book. Many of the authors of the Bible used poetic language concerning God and concerning the earth. Because the Bible is not a science book and contains poetry as well as different figures of speech, it should not be taken as a science book where every word is translated literally.

 

I mean the effects of breaking our human reason and rationality. The centuries of indoctrination of children and the fear that still makes it virtually impossible to mount a defense against this insanity?

 

I have no idea, but I have given this honest though. If it took us arguable 2 thousand years to get here (on a widescale, Christianity has to be the benchmark) will it take as long to undo these crimes?

The Great Reformation, when Christians begin to read the Bible for themselves, slowly but surely set the wheels into motion (this is figurative language) to help the Western nations understand that people are equal. I personally believe that although sadly many Christians have done bad things, other Christians, such as the Christian abolitionists and those who established the Red Cross, along with other helpful groups, have blessed the world. Atheists as well have good people who bless the world, as well as bad people. It all depends on the person, not on the belief in God or not, interestingly.

[strongnrelaxed]

 

Where is your proof?

 

 

I just threw up in my mouth. I cannot believe a religious person would ever dare to use the word "proof"

 

Man, it just gets better and better.

 

Wow!

[pie2]

At the most basic level, one might define a crime to be anything that significantly detracts from the good of the pack. But now we most generally take it to mean anything that violates our sense of fairness.

 

Thank you for your reply Robert. I was interested to read about the love/hate study!

 

However, I don't quite agree with your opinion about crime.

 

Voilating my sense of fairness = crime? That's a stretch. People feel that life is 'just not fair' ALL the time, but a "crime" (as modern society defines) most certainly may not have been committed.

 

You say that people promote the ultimate good of the group.

 

But, the good of the pack is always being violated...people don't care about taking advantage of one another. It's not a crime to push cigarette and alcohol ads and hook people on vices that lead to their destruction. Not that it's hard to get people to self-destruct! Humans are amazingly adept at adopting habits, behaviors, patterns that voilate the progression of mankind. Have you seen birthrates in richer, more educated societies? Procreation is not exactly the goal these days!

 

So are we meant to die out, to give rise to a more superiour species, seeing as how we are so naturally self-destructive anyway? I don't think that most atheists, "knowing" our place in this world, would just lay down and die for what they believe to be the natural order of things.

 

No, survival of the fittest/evolutionary theory just doesn't really answer the questions surrounding human interaction, IMO. Too many missing links, too many unanswered questions.

[strongnrelaxed]

What does horrible harm to mankind = people who hate, who lust, who are greedy, who are sadistic, who think they are superior to others and can therefore treat other people horribly. This is found not just in people of Abrahamic religions, but in other religious groups as well as Atheists. By the way Abrahamic religions are not the only religions that continue to exist today. Hinduism, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Native American beliefs, and other religions have existed for a long time and exist in various forms today as well.

 

The Bible is not a science book. Many of the authors of the Bible used poetic language concerning God and concerning the earth. Because the Bible is not a science book and contains poetry as well as different figures of speech, it should not be taken as a science book where every word is translated literally.

 

The Great Reformation, when Christians begin to read the Bible for themselves, slowly but surely set the wheels into motion (this is figurative language) to help the Western nations understand that people are equal. I personally believe that although sadly many Christians have done bad things, other Christians, such as the Christian abolitionists and those who established the Red Cross, along with other helpful groups, have blessed the world. Atheists as well have good people who bless the world, as well as bad people. It all depends on the person, not on the belief in God or not, interestingly.

 

I appreciate your positive spin and sentiment Butterfly, but you are completely ignoring the atrocities of your cult. It is like being a neonazi and trying to distance yourself from Hitler. Some people will let you get away with that but I will not let that crap pass.

 

As nice as you seem, there is not one thing. NOT ONE good thing that you can claim, that I cannot. You can claim a proprietary right to any of the moral edicts of the bible (less the first few commandments) that an atheist or buddhist cannot.

 

But there are a whole host of bad things that you can claim from the bible and from modern practice that most atheist would reject outright. Genital mutilation, child molestation. Aw hell, I am tired of typing all of these f-ing attrocities.

 

The sad cold truth is that no amount of evil, science or proof will ever dissuade an indoctrinated believer from their delusion. It is just that way.

 

I respond here not to convert anyone, but to serve as a beacon of reason for young people who have grown up hearing nothing but this sickness stuffed down their throats.

 

This crap needs to be confronted at every turn.