Bill Maher called an Islamophobe for acknowledging reality

[DarrinS]

WjwMWfWnd1k

[jag]

It's incredibly intolerant and insensitive of people to state the obvious.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Bill Maher was pretty much dead on. People who try to equate Islam with Christianity are kneejerk liberal retards who let equality bullshit get in the way of reality. I hate Judaism, Christianity and Islam and think all three have an extremely negative impact on Western civilization but of the three Islam is by far the most violent, backwards and primitive.

What I don't get is why right wingers who agree with me about Islam supported a war that removed what was a secular dictator in Iraq, and also supported a president who allied America with the biggest Islamic theocracy in the world.

[Blake]

Maher seems pretty Islamophobic to me too

[jag]

Had a similar discussion about this with Lefty, of all people, in the MIT thread:


You know, since Quran was written, a lot of things have changed but the content hasnt changed

Thats why it's dangerous to associate terrorists to the religion

Terrorists are not real Muslims; a real Muslim will do the right thing; a terrorist kills, rapes and does not know jackshit about Islam .... they use Islam to justify their acts


I agree to an extent with what you said, but that doesn't change some of the underlying messages and teachings. Whether or not violence is practiced, a Muslim is perfectly justified in doing so based on the teachings.

People always come back with the same tired lines..."Not all muslims are violent." That's not the point. It never has been. It's all about the teachings of Islam, and the underlying messages. I'm not sure how anyone could objectively view the Quran and deny the violence it justifies its followers.

[boutons_deux]

Muslim terrorists are as cherry-picking of their sacred texts as US/"Christian" terrorists/haters are of the (OT) Bible.

Top Ten Ways Islamic Law Forbids Terrorism


1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.

5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes (http://www.hartsem.edu/sites/default/files/macdonald/articles/jacksonart1.pdf), “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”

7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.

8. The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you andis said to have commanded (http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/a/terrorism_fatwa.htm), “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]

10. The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.

Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”

http://www.alternet.org/belief/top-ten-ways-islamic-law-forbids-terrorism?paging=off

And of course all "religious" men use their religion to oppress/abuse/2nd-class women

[TDMVPDPOY]

islam today is what the catholic church during the roman empire, dunno why people listen to these clowns how they should live their life....

[jag]

Why is boutons so worthless? His parents must be so ashamed.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Religion in general is what enables narcissistic people to justify their crazy beliefs. Islam enables people to justify their violent beliefs and brainwash naive people into committing violent acts. There isn't anything in the bible (I don't think) about how you can kill someone for drawing a bad picture of Jesus.

Meanwhile Christianity leads to stupidity more than it does violence. It's what Angel_Luv used to convince Bo he should drop out of college and work at Jiffy Lube for the rest of his life in order to support her desire to sit on her ass all day. This leads to plenty of problems like an extremely uneducated and backwards population who throws their money into megachurch ponzi schemes, but not very much violence.

[redzero]

The Bible is full of shit about murdering people, too, but Christians either justify it or don't know about it at all. Since Islam is the only thing a lot of Muslims have going for them, they take their religion far more seriously.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Bible is full of shit about murdering people, too, but Christians either justify it or don't know about it at all. Since Islam is the only thing a lot of Muslims have going for them, they take their religion far more seriously.

Good point tbh, the one group of Christians in this country with the guts to interpret the bible completely (the Westboro Baptists), are pretty hateful people who have incited violence :lol

[jag]

The Bible is full of shit about murdering people, too

Find a passage where believers are told to murder nonbelievers, simply for being nonbelievers.

[Blake]

Find a passage where believers are told to murder nonbelievers, simply for being nonbelievers.

easy money

[boutons_deux]

Find a passage where believers are told to murder nonbelievers, simply for being nonbelievers.

Christians believe, teach if you aren't baptized and "accept Christ as your Lord God and Savior", you can't go to heaven.

[jag]

easy money

Go

[jag]

Christians believe, teach if you aren't baptized and "accept Christ as your Lord God and Savior", you can't go to heaven.

This is above your head.

[jag]

The entire basis for Christianity is God's love. By showing God's love to nonbelievers, they can also become believers. How exactly would murdering nonbelievers, simply for being nonbelievers, accomplish that?

[Blake]

Go

$100?

[jag]

$100?

We'd have to define some terms here. You can't go Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac as an example of Jihad.

[Blake]

The entire basis for Christianity is God's love. By showing God's love to nonbelievers, they can also become believers. How exactly would murdering nonbelievers, simply for being nonbelievers, accomplish that?

the basic tenet of christianity belief is that God sends the non believer to hell/death

[resistanze]

If the Bible is all about love and peace, it's even more ridiculous that Christianity probably outstrips all other religions in terms of atrocities committed throughout world history. By that token, at least Mulisms are consistent in their batshit-crazy barbarism.

[Blake]

We'd have to define some terms here. You can't go Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac as an example of Jihad.

No, that would be an example of a God playing a sick joke on a faithful servant.


Leviticus 24

16*And he that blasphemeth the name of the*Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

[jag]

the basic tenet of christianity belief is that God sends the non believer to hell/death

You're oversimplifying. But you know that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol the crusades and sending non-believers to hell being god's love.

That's some tough love tbh.

[jag]

No, that would be an example of a God playing a sick joke on a faithful servant.


Leviticus 24

16*And he that blasphemeth the name of the*Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

I knew you were coming with that. Give me a second. You could also go Jericho with it, where God tells the Israelites to go HAM on the women and children in Jericho. You have to understand the context of it though.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No, that would be an example of a God playing a sick joke on a faithful servant.



Na man, he was just "testing his faith," similar to all the amputees god never heels while he's helped countless people get over cancer and other diseases.

[ChumpDumper]

You're oversimplifying.So are terraists.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol the crusades and sending non-believers to hell being god's love.

That's some tough love tbh.

Send 'em. I could use the company.

[jag]

So are terraists.

I don't recall Jesus calling for an all-inclusive order to kill nonbelievers.

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191"

Seems pretty straightforward.

[2centsworth]

the basic tenet of christianity belief is that God sends the non believer to hell/death

The basic tenet is everyone is a sinner and deserves to go to hell. However, Jesus is the atonement for anyone who will accept it, free of charge.

Anything beyond that is man made.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Send 'em. I could use the company.

I'll see you there. We'll have a party.

[ChumpDumper]

I knew you were coming with that. Give me a second. You could also go Jericho with it, where God tells the Israelites to go HAM on the women and children in Jericho. You have to understand the context of it though.The context of genocide?

Look, I freely acknowledge that, due to various reasons, Islamic fundamentalism is currently the most backwards of all the fundamentalisms, but so what? The other religions merely had a head start and fortunately mostly outgrew the concept of religious government.

[LnGrrrR]

Religion in general is what enables narcissistic people to justify their crazy beliefs. Islam enables people to justify their violent beliefs and brainwash naive people into committing violent acts. There isn't anything in the bible (I don't think) about how you can kill someone for drawing a bad picture of Jesus.

Well, there is the version with the translation that says not to make any carved image, and the other that says you should not take the Lord's name in vain... put together, that would somewhat be the same as saying you can't make a drawing of God, especially an offensive one. After all, this is the same God that got pissed when people were working together to build a tower to come see him.

[jag]

These are the Christian beliefs:

The God of the New Testament is very different than the God of the Old Testament. The reason for that is Jesus. It is through Jesus that Christians are saved. Before Jesus, the world was very different.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

However, Jesus is the atonement for anyone who will accept it, free of charge.

No, the charge is 10% of your income.

[resistanze]

"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you." Deut. 22:13-21

lol @ stoning a girl (probably 12 years old) for not being able to prove she's a virgin at marriage.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The context of genocide?
:lmao

[jag]

The context of genocide?

Look, I freely acknowledge that, due to various reasons, Islamic fundamentalism is currently the most backwards of all the fundamentalisms, but so what? The other religions merely had a head start and fortunately mostly outgrew the concept of religious government.

The context of the NT verses the OT and the requirements for Salvation.

[LnGrrrR]

I knew you were coming with that. Give me a second. You could also go Jericho with it, where God tells the Israelites to go HAM on the women and children in Jericho. You have to understand the context of it though.


I don't recall Jesus calling for an all-inclusive order to kill nonbelievers.

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191"

Seems pretty straightforward.

Not quite sure how you can claim that context is needed for the passage in the Bible, but not for the Qu'ran.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't recall Jesus calling for an all-inclusive order to kill nonbelievers.Is Jesus the only person in the Bible who suggested anything?


"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191"

Seems pretty straightforward.About as straightforward as Deuteronomy.

"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

[Blake]

I knew you were coming with that. Give me a second. You could also go Jericho with it, where God tells the Israelites to go HAM on the women and children in Jericho. You have to understand the context of it though.

I'm just going google. You should be able to predict every verse I'm coming with.


Deuteronomy 17

2*If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the*Lordthy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the*Lord*thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3*And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4*And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5*Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

[2centsworth]

No, the charge is 10% of your income.

Not at all. Tithing has nothing to do with salvation.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'll see you there. We'll have a party.

In my version of hell, boutons is the bartender.

[jag]

No, the charge is 10% of your income.

:lol

There is not one passage in the Bible that requires a person to pay 10% of their income to the church. Ministers misuse verses that reference a 10% figure to get tithes. That is not required for Christian salvation.

[ChumpDumper]

The context of the NT verses the OT and the requirements for Salvation.Ah,. yes the Mulligan Covenant.

Who forgives God for ordering all that genocide?

[Big Empty]

The Quran was written in hell

[redzero]

Find a passage where believers are told to murder nonbelievers, simply for being nonbelievers.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Take your pick.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ah,. yes the Mulligan Covenant.

Who forgives God for ordering all that genocide?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/daily_gifdump_20_zps7fc9ad5e.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/daily_gifdump_20_zps7fc9ad5e.gif.html)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol

There is not one passage in the Bible that requires a person to pay 10% of their income to the church. Ministers misuse verses that reference a 10% figure to get tithes. That is not required for Christian salvation.
Why would ministers do that? They're charitable men of god, conning people into giving money to them isn't a very godly thing to do.

[redzero]

These are the Christian beliefs:

The God of the New Testament is very different than the God of the Old Testament. The reason for that is Jesus. It is through Jesus that Christians are saved. Before Jesus, the world was very different.

God is perfect, though, so why would he change?

If murdering gays, "witches," and non-believers was fine before Jesus was born, why isn't it fine now? God's the one who gave those instructions, so he could not have possibly been wrong, right?

[Blake]

These are the Christian beliefs:

The God of the New Testament is very different than the God of the Old Testament. The reason for that is Jesus. It is through Jesus that Christians are saved. Before Jesus, the world was very different.

Problem for Christians is that Jesus hitched his wagon to the Old Testament.

You can't be a fundamental Christian without acknowledging Jesus' crazy OT Daddy.

[Blake]

In my version of hell, boutons is the bartender.

:lol :lol :lol

Gfy Cocktails

[coyotes_geek]

I don't recall Jesus calling for an all-inclusive order to kill nonbelievers.

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191"

Seems pretty straightforward.

And yet there were Christians who read the book where Jesus never said to kill nonbelievers and ended up deciding they needed to kill nonbelievers. Similarly, there are Muslims who read the book for they were told to kill disbelievers wherever they find them and they decide not to kill disbelievers. Seems to me the only thing that makes a religion "good" or "bad" are the people who believe in it and how they choose to interpret their holy text.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol :lol :lol

Gfy Cocktails

gin & koch (get it!)

[jag]

Ah,. yes the Mulligan Covenant.

Who forgives God for ordering all that genocide?

Fair enough. I should have been more specific in my initial request. I was referring more to Jesus ever asking believers to murder or hurt nonbelievers. Christian Salvation is through Jesus. That's more the direction I was headed. It's a very different ballgame to start pulling OT verses. That's not difficult to do.

Again, in the context of Christian faith, I don't see how anyone could ever compare the violence associated with it to that of Islam. Sure, call it a Mulligan, but at least they used their Mulligan. For the record, I don't blame a single person for questioning the Christian faith and their basic beliefs. Christians are the people most responsible for making people not want to be Christians.

[2centsworth]

The best explanation of God ordering the killing of Men, Women and Children in the Old Testament. (http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/why-would-god-order-destruction-men-women-and-children) Christians were born from the New Testament.

"
God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc.

When God authorizes the nation of Israel to wipe out a people, it is a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God. Furthermore, such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become "utterly sinful".2 (http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/why-would-god-order-destruction-men-women-and-children#footnote2_gt3nbbq) Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.
Finally, one of the reasons that the Lord is so strong in the Old Testament and orders the killing of people is to ensure that the future messianic line would remain intact. The enemy, Satan, began his attempt to destroy God's people in the Garden of Eden, by also trying to corrupt the world (which led to Noah's Flood), by trying to destroy Israel with attacking armies, and by encouraging Israel to fall into idolatry by exposure to other cultures as well as intermarrying women from those cultures. The result of both the idolatry and the interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies that foretold of the coming Messiah which specified which family line the Messiah would come through. The Messiah, Jesus, would be the one who would die for the sins of the world and without that death there would be no atonement. Without the atonement, all people would be lost. So, God was ensuring the arrival of the Messiah via the destruction of the ungodly."

[boutons_deux]

Find a passage where believers are told to murder nonbelievers, simply for being nonbelievers.

Christians believe, teach if you aren't baptized and "accept Christ as your Lord God and Savior", you can't go to heaven. And it was "Christian" Euro-Americans that nuked non-Christian, non-white Japan.

[Clipper Nation]

Again, no religion is inherently violent, the violence is a result of how individuals choose to interpret the teachings/texts of their religion of choice....

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

This thread needs some jack sommerset. God bless.

[jag]

Problem for Christians is that Jesus hitched his wagon to the Old Testament.

You can't be a fundamental Christian without acknowledging Jesus' crazy OT Daddy.

:lol true. But in a Christian worldview, the violence was a requirement before Jesus because no person on the earth was blameless. Salvation could only be achieved through the sacrifice of something sinless (a lamb or other sacrificial animal). Jesus changed that.

[ChumpDumper]

Fair enough. I should have been more specific in my initial request. I was referring more to Jesus ever asking believers to murder or hurt nonbelievers. Christian Salvation is through Jesus. That's more the direction I was headed. It's a very different ballgame to start pulling OT verses. That's not difficult to do.That's the whole point. It's not like that stuff isn't still in the Bible, which is supposed to be the Word of God after all.


Again, in the context of Christian faith, I don't see how anyone could ever compare the violence associated with it to that of Islam. Sure, call it a Mulligan, but at least they used their Mulligan.Who's to say the Muslims won't at some point? If they ever decide who their Mahdi is, that dude could do the same thing.
For the record, I don't blame a single person for questioning the Christian faith and their basic beliefs. Christians are the people most responsible for making people not want to be Christians.I don't blame anyone for questioning any religion. Fortunately "none of the above" is a choice for religion as well.

[boutons_deux]

:lol true. But in a Christian worldview, the violence was a requirement before Jesus because no person on the earth was blameless. Salvation could only be achieved through the sacrifice of something sinless (a lamb or other sacrificial animal). Jesus changed that.

American "Christian" dominionists/supremacists/End Timers obviously prefer, priortitize the OT to the NT, almost to the point of ignoring the NT's revolutionary lessons.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol true. But in a Christian worldview, the violence was a requirement before Jesus because no person on the earth was blameless. Salvation could only be achieved through the sacrifice of something sinless (a lamb or other sacrificial animal). Jesus changed that.But Jesus is God and God was already perfect. Why did he need to change his whole business plan?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Again, no religion is inherently violent, the violence is a result of how individuals choose to interpret the teachings/texts of their religion of choice....

I think religion inherently encourages narcissism which lead to violence. It leads people to think they're on this planet for a greater, idiosyncratic reason and god intends for them to accomplish something.

George W. Bush used Christianity to justify it and convince himself he was put on this planet to become president and go nation building in the middle east when he was the family fuck up who found Christianity because of an AA meeting which fed his extreme narcissism. The fact 30% of this country believes the rapture will occur before their deaths demonstrates more extreme narcissism, because the logic behind thinking the rapture will definitely come before you die is that there's NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO way Jesus is gonna miss out on the opportunity to meet someone as awesome as me!

[2centsworth]

But Jesus is God and God was already perfect. Why did he need to change his whole business plan?

He never changed it. He ensured its completion.

[DarrinS]

People missing the point here.


If there is a cartoon published of Jesus, we don't expect a violent backlash. Maybe in the middle ages, but not TODAY.

[Blake]

Fair enough. I should have been more specific in my initial request. I was referring more to Jesus ever asking believers to murder or hurt nonbelievers. Christian Salvation is through Jesus. That's more the direction I was headed. It's a very different ballgame to start pulling OT verses.

I imagine God got tired of Jesus questioning his decisions to kill during OT times, so he booted Jesus down to earth and had him killed too.

[jag]

That's the whole point. It's not like that stuff isn't still in the Bible, which is supposed to be the Word of God after all.

Who's to say the Muslims won't at some point? If they ever decide who their Mahdi is, that dude could do the same thing.I don't blame anyone for questioning any religion. Fortunately "none of the above" is a choice for religion as well.

It's still in the Bible, yes. But the requirements for Salvation are no longer the same. For Christians, the OT serves as more of a historical record of the difficulties associated with salvation before Jesus.

The Islamic requirements for salvation haven't changed. As backwards and archaic as Christianity sounds, to even the most diehard atheist, Islam is like a more violent, more brutal, bastardized version of it. That's what really gets me, because you get some of the most liberal atheists who hate Christianity but go out and pimp Islamic faith. Maybe one day they change their basic belief system (mulligan if you will), but until then it is what it is.

[2centsworth]

I think religion inherently encourages narcissism which lead to violence. It leads people to think they're on this planet for a greater, idiosyncratic reason and god intends for them to accomplish something.

where do you get this from? By definition, Christians believe in something greater than themselves, the antithesis of Narcissism.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

People missing the point here.


If there is a cartoon published of Jesus, we don't expect a violent backlash. Maybe in the middle ages, but not TODAY.
Agreed 100%. The thread basically just went off on a tangent, but I think the consensus was current day Islam is much more backwards and brutal than current day Christianity.

[jag]

But Jesus is God and God was already perfect. Why did he need to change his whole business plan?

His business plan required a living sacrifice, a being.

[jag]

He never changed it. He ensured its completion.

Better way to put it.

[Blake]

He never changed it. He ensured its completion.

neh. The contradictions are there for all to see.

[rjv]

seems the easy way out to refer to religous belief or a specific faith as the primary impetus for certain types of terrorism. if one were to eradicate zealotry, i'm pretty certain that inevitably some other catalyst would gladly subsitute itself for religion as inspiration for violence. if given a choice to examine the nature of rebellion i'd be far more compelled to reread camus than entertain anything a narcissistic half-ass comedian would have to say about it.

[jag]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

where do you get this from? By definition, Christians believe in something greater than themselves, the antithesis of Narcissism.

If you didn't just quote that part I gave examples of what that belief stems from.

I'm not saying the bible/Qu'ran/whatever directly encourages narcissistic behavior, I'm saying religion leads to it, regardless of what the actual beliefs of the religion are. Believing that the rapture is coming during your lifetime epitomizes narcissism.

[Blake]

His business plan required a living sacrifice, a being.

I appreciate you tossing up these ethical/moral soft balls. Fun. :tu

[Blake]

There are currently 21 users browsing this thread.*(19 members and 2 guests)Blake,*TinTin,*Winehole23,*Crookshanks,*Dar rinS,*DUNCANownsKOBE,*Brazil,*2centsworth,*_JaG,*r jv,*Th'Pusher,ChumpDumper,*The Reckoning,*Big Empty,*LnGrrrR,*Clipper Nation,*SpurCapita,*redzero,*resistanze*

Hi Crookshanks. How are you?

[coyotes_geek]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

If you consciously believe in something as a fallback, you're just trying to fool yourself. You don't believe.

[ChumpDumper]

He never changed it. He ensured its completion.


It's still in the Bible, yes. But the requirements for Salvation are no longer the same. For Christians, the OT serves as more of a historical record of the difficulties associated with salvation before Jesus.:lol You guys need a minute to straighten this out?


The Islamic requirements for salvation haven't changed.If you are going to apply the Judeo-Christian development timeline to Islam, they still have a few years to work on it.
As backwards and archaic as Christianity sounds, to even the most diehard atheist, Islam is like a more violent, more brutal, bastardized version of it. That's what really gets me, because you get some of the most liberal atheists who hate Christianity but go out and pimp Islamic faith. Maybe one day they change their basic belief system (mulligan if you will), but until then it is what it is."Christians: At least we're not Muslims."

[jag]

I appreciate you tossing up these ethical/moral soft balls. Fun. :tu

No problem. Christianity is, and has always been, an easy target.

[ChumpDumper]

His business plan required a living sacrifice, a being.Which was the perfect way to do it.

As was all that genocide.

Perfect, godly genocide.

[The Reckoning]

middle east is a complete clusterfuck because of radical islam as well as prior cold war politics. one could argue it was all aggravated by the latter.

this is something that has been prominent throughout history...

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game.

it makes me wonder what would have happened if alexander the great didnt die? would the middle east have been the world's first superpower in Hellenistic fashion? that would have been a sight to behold...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

Pascal's wager has had countless holes poked in its logic. If I choose monotheism, what if the Greeks were right and I should have been a polytheist who worships countless gods? Should I wear magic garments to hedge my bets just in case the mormons are right? Should I make my wife cover all of her skin when she's in public just in case the Muslims are right? There are countless religions and beliefs as to what happens after death. The only reason I'd feel choosing one religion is an effective way to hedge my bets is if I was programmed to subconsciously practice that particular religion, like Pascal was with Christianity.

Honest question for you, if when you were a child your parents read the story of Jonah and the Whale to you as a fairytale and your pastor read the story of Jack and the Bean Stalk as gospel, would you honestly know the difference?

[Crookshanks]

Hi Crookshanks. How are you?

Doing okay. Haven't been in here for ages, and just thought I'd check in and see what's up.

[2centsworth]

If you didn't just quote that part I gave examples of what that belief stems from.

I'm not saying the bible/Qu'ran/whatever directly encourages narcissistic behavior, I'm saying religion leads to it, regardless of what the actual beliefs of the religion are. Believing that the rapture is coming during your lifetime epitomizes narcissism.

Churches and believers continue to evolve. I attended a fundamentalist christian church as a kid in the 80s, and yes, the church isolated itself from the world. Scarred me for a while, but people evolve and my experience with organized worship for the past 10 years is major outreach, charity and kindness. Of course, people are not perfect.

[jag]

:lol You guys need a minute to straighten this out?

If you are going to apply the Judeo-Christian development timeline to Islam, they still have a few years to work on it."Christians: At least we're not Muslims."

It was referred to as a "business plan." I'm not sure how you can take any responses to that as an indictment on the consistency of our ongoing discussion.

Maybe they still have a "few years to work on it." In the meantime, people are having their legs blown off with ball bearings.

[ChumpDumper]

it makes me wonder what would have happened if alexander the great didnt die?If he were still alive, I would strongly consider calling him God.

[Blake]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

If there was a belief system out there that wasn't completely full of shit, I might hedge my bets on it.

Let me know if you find one please.

[The Reckoning]

If he were still alive, I would strongly consider calling him God.


other than the fact he claimed divinity....you know what the hell i meant.

[Brazil]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

not sure I understand your question but let me give it a try. I'm atheist / materialist, I don't believe in god, I don't believe in soul, I don't believe anything supra natural. why an atheist / materialist would need a fallback option ? For me there is no after. no need for system to hedge my bets.

On a side note I consider atheism, materialism as a belief not more valuable than the other options, it is just mine. I respect people who believe in something if it helps them to live.
Also violence is not the consequence of a religion, religion is a conductor of that violence. Violent people or society would have been violent with or without religion interference. Hate, economic interests, frustration... are the motor of violence not the religion.

[2centsworth]

:lol You guys need a minute to straighten this out?

Not sure when I became JaG? A sacrifice has always been required.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Churches and believers continue to evolve.

Agreed, they went from hating black people to hating gay people to hating rape victims, just in the last 50 years. The persecution of non-Christians is a constantly evolving process.

[ChumpDumper]

It was referred to as a "business plan." I'm not sure how you can take any responses to that as an indictment on the consistency of our ongoing discussion.Yeah, I referred to it as a business plan. Religion is by its very nature inconsistent. I don't mind it.


Maybe they still have a "few years to work on it." In the meantime, people are having their legs blown off with ball bearings.Eh, Christians are still genociding too. There are varying degrees of politics involved, but no religion has the market on violence cornered. I'll agree one of the main problems with Islam is that it has explicit political tenets; Christians should take note when they are tempted to indulge their theocratic tendencies.

[jag]

Pascal's wager has had countless holes poked in its logic. If I choose monotheism, what if the Greeks were right and I should have been a polytheist who worships countless gods? Should I wear magic garments to hedge my bets just in case the mormons are right? Should I make my wife cover all of her skin when she's in public just in case the Muslims are right? There are countless religions and beliefs as to what happens after death. The only reason I'd feel choosing one religion is an effective way to hedge my bets is if I was programmed to subconsciously practice that particular religion, like Pascal was with Christianity.

Of course you could choose wrong. But the point is that you've at least chosen something. You say you weren't "programmed" so you chose Nothing. Other's were "programmed" so they choose their god. How are you any different?




Honest question for you, if when you were a child your parents read the story of Jonah and the Whale to you as a fairytale and your pastor read the story of Jack and the Bean Stalk as gospel, would you honestly know the difference?

If Jack and the Beanstalk was in the Bible, then a Christian should believe it. That's the whole basis for Salvation through faith. There are far crazier things in the Bible than Jack and the Beanstalk.

Atheists are also dependent upon faith. They believe in what cannot be proved.

[ChumpDumper]

Not sure when I became JaG?You didn't; that's why I said "you guys."
A sacrifice has always been required.And always perfect.

Until it wasn't.

Or is the genocide still perfect?

[jag]

not sure I understand your question but let me give it a try. I'm atheist / materialist, I don't believe in god, I don't believe in soul, I don't believe anything supra natural. why an atheist / materialist would need a fallback option ? For me there is no after. no need for system to hedge my bets.


How do you know?

[ChumpDumper]

other than the fact he claimed divinity....you know what the hell i meant.I do. It's difficult to see things being much different from the way they played out. I mean it's possible he could have had a solid successor and held the empire together for awhile, but it was really too far flung and the Greeks ultimately weren't interested in the kind of synthesis of cultures Alexander was pimping.

[Blake]

No problem. Christianity is, and has always been, an easy target.

not always.

[Blake]

How do you know?

Why aren't we there in the "after" already?

What's the logic of creating a "before"?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Of course you could choose wrong. But the point is that you've at least chosen something. You say you weren't "programmed" so you chose Nothing. Other's were "programmed" so they choose their god. How are you any different?
The fact you feel choosing a religion just for the sake of it accomplishes something demonstrates a religious bias. If I have no logical reason to choose a religion and every other belief I have is dictated by logic/emperical evidence, why would I make a random exception?


If Jack and the Beanstalk was in the Bible, then a Christian should believe it. That's the whole basis for Salvation through faith. There are far crazier things in the Bible than Jack and the Beanstalk.
Lets say you were part of a social experiment where you were raised in an alternative environment where the Jack and the Beanstalk and Jonah and the Whale switched places as fairytale and Gospel. Would you be able to call ass and know that Jack and the Beanstalk was really a bullshit fairytale being taught to you as gospel?


Atheists are also dependent upon faith. They believe in what cannot be proved.
Faith isn't believing in anything that can't be proven. The genetic similarities between chimps and humans (as well as countless other things) make it so believing in evolution is hardly faith based. Comparing evolution and creationism as two equally faith based beliefs is a falsely equating the two.

[jag]

Why aren't we there in the "after" already?

What's the logic of creating a "before"?

I hope for your sake you're right.

[Blake]

A sacrifice has always been required.

God loves watching people die. He even wanted to see himself/son die.

He's a maniac.

[2centsworth]

You didn't; that's why I said "you guys."

then there's no point.




And always perfect.

Until it wasn't.

Or is the genocide still perfect?

"God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc."

[resistanze]

Agreed, they went from hating black people to hating gay people to hating rape victims, just in the last 50 years. The persecution of non-Christians is a constantly evolving process.

:lmao

[2centsworth]

God loves watching people die. He even wanted to see himself/son die.

He's a maniac.

I know, right.

[Blake]

I hope for your sake you're right.

what do you think will happen to me if I'm wrong?

[Clipper Nation]

Atheists are also dependent upon faith. They believe in what cannot be proved.
Ugh, not this shit again.... this argument was retarded last summer when Y:lolniv:lolre was using it, you're better than that, B....

Anyway, atheists by definition cannot be dependent upon faith - just break down the word atheism.... a = without, theism = religion/faith....

Atheists actually reject faith by refusing to subscribe to any religion, tbh....

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I hope for your sake you're right.

Hopefully for your sake god isn't an Islamic extremist who punishes Christians in the afterlife, tbh.

[2centsworth]

:lmao
straw man arguments appeal to you? I thought Christians were the naive ones.

[Blake]

I know, right.

I don't think you do.

[RandomGuy]

I don't recall Jesus calling for an all-inclusive order to kill nonbelievers.

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191"

Seems pretty straightforward.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)


Seems to be a whole lot of instructions on how one needs to kill non-believers and so forth in the Bible as well.

Luckily most ingore these parts.

[Blake]

then there's no point.




"God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc."

The bully makes the rules to apply to everyone but himself.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

straw man arguments appeal to you? I thought Christians were the naive ones.

Christian persecution of blacks, gays, and rape victims all within the last 50 years isn't a strawman argument. Just a truth bomb, tbh.

[2centsworth]

Ugh, not this shit again.... this argument was retarded last summer when Y:lolniv:lolre was using it, you're better than that, B....

Anyway, atheists by definition cannot be dependent upon faith - just break down the word atheism.... a = without, theism = religion/faith....

Atheists actually reject faith by refusing to subscribe to any religion, tbh....

to say anyone is without faith is naive. We all have faith in something, whether it's in the plane landing safely or the light turning on when we flick the switch. You just mean you have no faith in a power greater than yourself.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Ugh, not this shit again.... this argument was retarded last summer when Y:lolniv:lolre was using it, you're better than that, B....

Anyway, atheists by definition cannot be dependent upon faith - just break down the word atheism.... a = without, theism = religion/faith....

Atheists actually reject faith by refusing to subscribe to any religion, tbh....

:lol Yonivore
:lol evading this forum after the election more than clergymen evade taxes

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

We all have faith in something, whether it's in the plane landing safely or the light turning on when we flick the switch.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[2centsworth]

Christian persecution of blacks, gays, and rape victims all within the last 50 years isn't a strawman argument. Just a truth bomb, tbh.

It was a Christian that led the Civil Rights Movement. It's a Christian who is leader of the free world today. Like me saying Athiest have been cannibals for the last 50 years.

[RandomGuy]

I hope for your sake you're right.

There are hundreds of religions, many of which also give very grave consequences for non-belief.

I hope for your sake you picked the right one.

Personally, I don't think that anything that could cause the universe would make it so ambiguous. I am almost certain that if the universe was created/made by something it would not be the vindictive, venal dick of the OT. But that is just my opinion.

[resistanze]

to say anyone is without faith is naive. We all have faith in something, whether it's in the plane landing safely or the light turning on when we flick the switch. You just mean you have no faith in a power greater than yourself.

...How are these even comparable?

[redzero]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

Pascal's wager is weak as shit. I'm not going to believe in bullshit out of fear of going to hell.

What if I believe in the wrong God and go to hell anyway?
What if I believe in the right God and go to hell anyway?
What if I believe in the wrong God but there is no hell?
What if I believe in the wrong God period?
What if there is a God but no afterlife?

There's this mistaken belief that just because one can either believe or not believe, that there is a 50/50 chance that the theist is right. That's wrong because the theist has to be right about believing AND has to correctly choose from the infinite amount of theological beliefs.

[jag]

Ugh, not this shit again.... this argument was retarded last summer when Y:lolniv:lolre was using it, you're better than that, B....

Anyway, atheists by definition cannot be dependent upon faith - just break down the word atheism.... a = without, theism = religion/faith....

Atheists actually reject faith by refusing to subscribe to any religion, tbh....

I get that. I guess I've always felt it takes a fair amount of faith to believe anything about an afterlife, or the absence of an afterlife. One way or another, it's outside the bounds of science. Questioning these type of things is not an indictment of someone's intellect. Stephen Hawking spent years of his life struggling with the concept of a Creator as his studies delved further into the origin of the universe.

[2centsworth]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

I thought enlightened atheist post more than "They" and :lmao

[redzero]

Not sure when I became JaG? A sacrifice has always been required.

Bullshit. God makes the rules. God chose for there to be a sacrifice. There is no requirement.

[baseline bum]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

If any of those belief systems are right and I pick the wrong one, that's about the worst thing I could do. Followers of false gods aren't dealt with too charitably tbh.

[2centsworth]

God makes the rules. God chose for there to be a sacrifice. There is no requirement.

Do you not see the contradiction?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It was a Christian that led the Civil Rights Movement.
Christianity is a big reason why we ever needed a Civil Rights Movement.


It's a Christian who is leader of the free world today.
America being a Christian Nation is why it's falling behind the rest of the free world.


Like me saying Athiest have been cannibals for the last 50 years.
Are these cannibals who happen to be atheist, or people who used atheism to justify cannibalism? Christianity was used to justify the KKK (a Christian organization!) and is the driving force behind marriage inequality and the belief that rape victims should be forced to have their baby.

[coyotes_geek]

to say anyone is without faith is naive. We all have faith in something, whether it's in the plane landing safely or the light turning on when we flick the switch. You just mean you have no faith in a power greater than yourself.

You're confusing "faith" with "expectation".

[Clipper Nation]

I get that. I guess I've always felt it takes a fair amount of faith to believe anything about an afterlife, or the absence of an afterlife. One way or another, it's outside the bounds of science. Questioning these type of things is not an indictment of someone's intellect. Stephen Hawking spent years of his life struggling with the concept of a Creator as his studies delved further into the origin of the universe.
The difference is, atheists put faith in proven scientific facts.... theists put faith in a fairy-tale book....

[redzero]

We all have faith in something, whether it's in the plane landing safely or the light turning on when we flick the switch.

:lmao this is the same dishonest bullshit that Christians always pull.

One can believe that a plane will land safely and base that belief on thousands upon thousands of planes landing safely over the last century.
One can believe that a light will turn on based on one's own experience of clicking on and off lights.

Does that mean that those things will always happen, though? No, but there is a mountain of evidence supporting that conclusion. There is no evidence that supports your belief in a god, so trying to equate my beliefs and your beliefs with the label faith because, "hurr durr they're both beliefs!" is complete nonsense.

[RandomGuy]

to say anyone is without faith is naive. We all have faith in something, whether it's in the plane landing safely or the light turning on when we flick the switch. You just mean you have no faith in a power greater than yourself.

There is a diffence between trust and faith.

Trust is earned, faith is not.

Airlines have earned my trust (US airlines at least) because they operate many millions of passenger miles without killing people every year. I trust them to keep me alive, because I have a good reason to, i.e. their past performance.

I trust that a light will come on when I flip the switch because the power companies that have provided me with power to run light bulbs have done so my entire life, i.e. their past performance. That isn't to say I don't keep a flashlight though.

Faith is believing in something without having a good reason to.

[jag]

I hope for your sake you picked the right one.



That makes two of us. Although, if I were to believe in predestination, I wouldn't have to worry about that because I wouldn't be the one doing the picking. But then that leads back to a discussion of free will. If God knows who and who will not believe, then does anyone really have free will? And if people don't have free will then what's the point of God creating people to worship Him?


We could go in circles all day, bro. This is why I haven't responded to boutons in this thread.

[ChumpDumper]

then there's no point.There absolutely was.


"God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc."Oh, so God can kill anyone he wants because God says he can.

Pretty convenient for him.

There are fundamentalist of just about every religion who extend that lawfulness to themselves to justify their own murder. Go figure.

[redzero]

Do you not see the contradiction?

No, I don't. You said that a sacrifice is required. I don't think that's true. If God makes the rules, God can choose for there not to be a sacrifice. I'm not going to cry and be thankful that because God impregnated a woman with himself to kill himself thirty years later to fix a problem that he caused.

[redzero]

http://rlv.zcache.com/jesus_tah_dah_greeting_cards-r5762f4cea2db43ff94e50bba2ef45198_xvuat_8byvr_512. jpg

:cry Thanks, God!

Image didn't post.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://pigroll.com/img/ta-dah.jpg

:cry Thanks, God!

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/stash-1-50f8b4895f553.gif

[baseline bum]

Back on point, Maher is dead-on when he gets on the media for being apologists for Islam. Dawkins goes into the same point in The God Delusion when he details the response to those Danish cartoons a few years ago, when even the moderate Muslim clerics in Europe were bending over backwards to justify the execution order for the artists and the vandalism of the newspaper's office that published them. He killed the media for expressing an understanding with the Muslim 'hurt' from these cartoons as if people should have to respectfully tip-toe around Islam.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Back on point, Maher is dead-on when he gets on the media for being apologists for Islam. Dawkins goes into the same point in The God Delusion when he details the response to those Danish cartoons a few years ago, when even the moderate Muslim clerics in Europe were bending over backwards to justify the execution order for the artists and the vandalism of the newspaper's office that published them. He killed the media for expressing an understanding with the Muslim 'hurt' from these cartoons as if people should have to respectfully tip-toe around Islam.
The media is equally to blame for making it socially unacceptable to make fun of religion in general. People who believe shit like the world is 5,000 years old or the superbowl power outage was an act of god (etc.) should be tarred and feathered just like Christians used to tar and feather people for believing the world is round and not the center of the universe.

[redzero]

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0565db26176.jpg

An even better version.

[RandomGuy]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

Not the first time this bit has been used (hundreds of years old):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Canned question gets canned response:


There are many problems with the reasoning in Pascal's Wager, as well as the unsavoury theological assumptions it makes. Like most arguments for the existence of God, it seems more about reassuring existing believers than converting non-believers. This is because in order to convince a non-believer, a theological argument must both prove that the god it argues for is the One True God and disprove all other possibilities. People lacking a belief can see the potential for multiple gods existing, in fact an infinite number, but believers are constrained by their existing view that there is their god or no god. Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager make any sense.

In Bayesian terms, this can be stated as saying non-believers attribute uniform prior probabilities to the existence of any particular god; all equal, and all infinitesimal. Pascal's Wager alone cannot update these probabilities as the reasoning applies only to the One True God out of an infinite number of possible gods. Without any further information to whittle this down, the odds of inadvertently worshiping the wrong god is a practical certainty. Only when the probability of a particular god existing increases does Pascal's Wager become useful. For instance, if you could assign one god even a mere 1% chance of being the One True God then it would make sense. Hence for anyone constrained by a bias towards a particular god, the Wager is far more clear cut and supportive of their belief.

The biggest irony of Pascal's Wager as far as Christian apologetics go is that even if it was completely sound it should then suddenly become a huge disincentive for convincing an unbiased party to worship YHWH specifically. By definition worshiping the Judeo-Christian God requires you to give the finger to every other deity or potential deity thanks to the intolerance that is the First Commandment. In the absence of evidence for a specific deity, the theist-to-be would be better off directing some worship to one or more proposed deities that do not require exclusive worship. Pascal's Wager being a lynchpin of Christian apologetics (rather than being a shibboleth that must be denied at all costs) is simply yet another case of cognitive dissonance engendered by Christian privilege.

More response here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

[2centsworth]

Christianity is a big reason why we ever needed a Civil Rights Movement.

Christianity is the reason why we continue to morally evolve for the better. Christian arguments are almost always used against evil. “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God cannot retain it.”
― Abraham Lincoln (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/229.Abraham_Lincoln)

Here's how Christians continue to free Slaves Today!!!

http://youtu.be/9rQ_T8zfKsk


America being a Christian Nation is why it's falling behind the rest of the free world.

These generalities are not very intelligent.


Are these cannibals who happen to be atheist, or people who used atheism to justify cannibalism? Christianity was used to justify the KKK (a Christian organization!) and is the driving force behind marriage inequality and the belief that rape victims should be forced to have their baby. You've already stated you believe the Westboro Baptist are true christian organization, so there's not that much hope for you.

[resistanze]

If you want to talk about the media tiptoeing around Islam, we should talk about how those primates in Saudi Arabia stone women for driving cars and behead their African/Filipino slave workers for witchcraft.

But then again, the US government has no problem with it either.

[baseline bum]

The media is equally to blame for making it socially unacceptable to make fun of religion in general. People who believe shit like the world is 5,000 years old or the superbowl power outage was an act of god (etc.) should be tarred and feathered just like Christians used to tar and feather people for believing the world is round and not the center of the universe.

Still think it's funny our nation is controlled by a religion that began as a way for some slut to convince her cuck husband that she didn't cheat and in fact wasn't carrying a bastard child.

[resistanze]

You've already stated you believe the Westboro Baptist are true christian organization, so there's not that much hope for you.

No True Scotsman, FTW.

Osama wasn't a real Muslim!

[Clipper Nation]

Christianity is the reason why we continue to morally evolve for the better.
Yeah, because when I think of evolving for the better, gay marriage bans and outright rejection of science come to mind :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

You've already stated you believe the Westboro Baptist are true christian organization, so there's not that much hope for you.Why aren't they Christian? Who are you to make that judgment? God?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Christianity is the reason why we continue to morally evolve for the better. Christian arguments are almost always used against evil. “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God cannot retain it.”
― Abraham Lincoln (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/229.Abraham_Lincoln)
A quote from the 19th century that not's backed by any evidence but said by someone people respect a lot...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority



Here's how Christians continue to free Slaves Today!!!

http://youtu.be/9rQ_T8zfKsk
too lazy; didn't watch



You've already stated you believe the Westboro Baptist are true christian organization, so there's not that much hope for you.
Are you saying the KKK wasn't a Christian organization?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you want to talk about the media tiptoeing around Islam, we should talk about how those primates in Saudi Arabia stone women for driving cars and behead their African/Filipino slave workers for witchcraft.

But then again, the US government has no problem with it either.
Those primates even poured millions into 9/11 and we tucked that under the rug pretending they had nothing to do with it.

:lmao 'murica getting punked by an Islamic theocracy

[2centsworth]

No, I don't. You said that a sacrifice is required. I don't think that's true. If God makes the rules, God can choose for there not to be a sacrifice. I'm not going to cry and be thankful that because God impregnated a woman with himself to kill himself thirty years later to fix a problem that he caused.

You said God makes the Rules, God Requires a Sacrifice (or payment for sin), but then you go on to say there is no requirement.

If, according to you, God makes the rules then there is a requirement.

[RandomGuy]

That makes two of us. Although, if I were to believe in predestination, I wouldn't have to worry about that because I wouldn't be the one doing the picking. But then that leads back to a discussion of free will. If God knows who and who will not believe, then does anyone really have free will? And if people don't have free will then what's the point of God creating people to worship Him?


We could go in circles all day, bro. This is why I haven't responded to boutons in this thread.

I would agree.

Religions tend to use a lot of circular arguments. Talking about the subject almost invariably leads to the underlying circular reasoning implied by faith in such a being.


Personally I think faith is kind of corrosive. Once you open the door to believing in something without evidence it is a bit like doing that first line of heroin or cocaine, as it makes other things that follow seem so much easier. You can so easily put your faith in snake-oil salesmen who are out for nothing more than their personal enrichment, simply because they say pretty things that are emotionally appealing.

That, to me, is why I think religion in general is a bad thing.

Sure religious people might feel themselves called to help the poor, and do some good, but the balance on the scale due to this tilts negative, IMO.

We will do better off as a species when we can give up the safety blanke of a magic man in the sky.

[jag]

The media is equally to blame for making it socially unacceptable to make fun of religion in general. People who believe shit like the world is 5,000 years old or the superbowl power outage was an act of god (etc.) should be tarred and feathered just like Christians used to tar and feather people for believing the world is round and not the center of the universe.

:lol

Let's get to a point here where we understand that not everyone who questions the possibility of a creator believes the superbowl outage was an act of God. Or that Tim Tebow's pass to Demaryius Thomas was an act of divine intervention.

[resistanze]

Those primates even poured millions into 9/11 and we tucked that under the rug pretending they had nothing to do with it.

:lmao 'murica getting punked by an Islamic theocracy
:lol 80% of the terrorists from 9/11 being Saudi
:lol Let's attack Iraq (a secular state)

[boutons_deux]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0173gzn#programme-broadcasts) and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis (http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obamas-rush-judgment-was-boston-bombing-really-terrorist-act) of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/ex-cia-deputy-director-boston-bombing-more-c) that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.

Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.

In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.

More significantly, there is no known evidence, at least not publicly available, about their alleged motives. Indeed, Obama himself - in the statement he made to the nation (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/19/statement-president) after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured on Friday night - said that "tonight there are still many unanswered questions" and included this "among" those "unanswered questions":



"Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook

[vy65]

Attempting to reconcile religious belief with scientific methodology is about as stupid as institutionalizing religion and believing that said institutionalization is a good thing ...

[vy65]

Boutons!! sup mah nigga

[2centsworth]

too lazy; didn't watch


not sure if you're always lazy, but you sure have been in this thread.



Are you saying the KKK wasn't a Christian organization?

Are you saying the Majority of Christians are in the KKK? what %, 80, 90?

[LnGrrrR]

I have a legitimate question for atheists:

From a logical standpoint, does it not make more sense to believe in something as simply a fallback option for eternity? We can pretend like we know what happens after death - which depends on whether you believe a soul really exists - but we really don't know. So why not, at the very least, accept a belief system to hedge your bets?

Probably already answered, but this is a logical fallacy known as "Pascal's Wager". There's just as much a chance that there is a God up there that is cool with atheists, but pissed off at believers who followed the "wrong" God.

Edit: DoK already pointed that out. Thanks!

[RandomGuy]

Christianity is the reason why we continue to morally evolve for the better. Christian arguments are almost always used against evil. “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God cannot retain it.”
― Abraham Lincoln (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/229.Abraham_Lincoln)

Bullshit.

Secular ethics and morals are why we continue to morally evolve for the better.

Indeed, we have advanced morally precisely because we have continuously substituted secular morality for that of the Christian Bible.

Tell me how many witches you have stoned to death, or children for dishonoring their parents. If the number is zero, you are not, by the definition of the Bible, a good Christian, i.e. not obeying God's laws.

I could go on. The Bible is not a source of morals, and anyone thinks it is, really hasn't read it closely.

[LnGrrrR]

Atheists are also dependent upon faith. They believe in what cannot be proved.

Really Jag? Really? I thought better of you.

You can't "prove" the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists; therefore, shouldn't you believe in him, just to hedge your bets? See how fun this can be?

[jag]

Really Jag? Really? I thought better of you.

You can't "prove" the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists; therefore, shouldn't you believe in him, just to hedge your bets? See how fun this can be?

Yeah, we've done this already.


I get that. I guess I've always felt it takes a fair amount of faith to believe anything about an afterlife, or the absence of an afterlife. One way or another, it's outside the bounds of science. Questioning these type of things is not an indictment of someone's intellect. Stephen Hawking spent years of his life struggling with the concept of a Creator as his studies delved further into the origin of the universe.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol

Let's get to a point here where we understand that not everyone who questions the possibility of a creator believes the superbowl outage was an act of God. Or that Tim Tebow's pass to Demaryius Thomas was an act of divine intervention.
According to polls, 27% of America believes the superbowl power outage was an act of god, while 30% of America believes a rapture is coming in their lifetime and that the world is only 6,000 years old. Additionally, 28% of the people who voted for Romney believe Obama is the anti-Christ.

It's not everyone, but it's a significant amount of people in this country who have absolutely batshit Christian-based beliefs.

[redzero]

You said God makes the Rules, God Requires a Sacrifice (or payment for sin), but then you go on to say there is no requirement.

If, according to you, God makes the rules then there is a requirement.

I am saying that God was not bound by anything and therefore did not have to sacrifice anybody. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand this? If there was a God, and if he took human form and died on the cross to save us, he chose to go that route, making the sacrifice meaningless.

[jag]

According to polls, 27% of America believes the superbowl power outage was an act of god, while 30% of America believes a rapture is coming in their lifetime and that the world is only 6,000 years old. Additionally, 28% of the people who voted for Romney believe Obama is the anti-Christ.

It's not everyone, but it's a significant amount of people in this country who have absolutely batshit Christian-based beliefs.

Arizona's obesity rate is like 25%. I'm not calling you obese, brah.

[leemajors]

People missing the point here.


If there is a cartoon published of Jesus, we don't expect a violent backlash. Maybe in the middle ages, but not TODAY.

Depends on the cartoon honestly. The cover of Frankenchrist had Christians and Tipper foaming at the mouth.

[2centsworth]

Bullshit.

Secular ethics and morals are why we continue to morally evolve for the better.

Indeed, we have advanced morally precisely because we have continuously substituted secular morality for that of the Christian Bible.

Tell me how many witches you have stoned to death, or children for dishonoring their parents. If the number is zero, you are not, by the definition of the Bible, a good Christian, i.e. not obeying God's laws.

I could go on. The Bible is not a source of morals, and anyone thinks it is, really hasn't read it closely.

Are you intentionally ignoring the New Testament, which pre-dates the United States? Just read the words of Jesus and tell me how he's not a source of morals? Tell me where Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Are you saying the Majority of Christians are in the KKK? what %, 80, 90?

Even just leading up to the civil rights movement, a significant number of Christians were in the KKK.

Since the civil rights movement made it socially unacceptable to be in the KKK, Christians moved on socially acceptable forms of hatred like believing gay people are possessed by the devil. There IS currently a significant number of Christians (in the tens of millions) in America who believe homosexuals are possessed by the devil. Once it's no longer socially acceptable to hate gay people, that same group of Christians will move onto a new demographic of people to hate.

[redzero]

Yeah, we've done this already.

And you are wrong. It doesn't take faith to not believe in something that hasn't met its burden of proof. Period.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Arizona's obesity rate is like 25%. I'm not calling you obese, brah.

I'm not calling you someone who believes any of that, I'm saying you're lying to yourself about how many people believe completely primitive things due to Christianity.

[2centsworth]

I am saying that God was not bound by anything and therefore did not have to sacrifice anybody. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand this? If there was a God, and if he took human form and died on the cross to save us, he chose to go that route, making the sacrifice meaningless.

Calling me stupid isn't going to make your lack of logic any more logical.

[LnGrrrR]

Are you intentionally ignoring the New Testament, which pre-dates the United States? Just read the words of Jesus and tell me how he's not a source of morals? Tell me where Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong?

A lot of the morals that Jesus espoused were relatively secular in nature. (Meaning, a secular person could follow those same morals and not be considered religious.) The Bible probably had a good hand in spreading the value of these morals though, which is a plus.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Someone who compares believing in jesus to flipping a lightswitch getting on a soapbox about logic is pretty funny.

[LnGrrrR]

Jag, it's much easier to believe nothing exists (hey, nothing exists!) than it is to believe a religion which has many different facets built into it (heaven exists, you get there if you do x,y,z, these religions are wrong because abc etc etc).

Would it be as easy for you to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it would Jesus? If not, why?

[LnGrrrR]

2Cents, it's pretty easy to understand. If God didn't want there to be a sacrifice, he could've just chosen to absolve us without the sacrifice. If he's omnipotent, God wouldn't "need" to do anything.

[Brazil]

How do you know?

I don't know _JaG but I believe there is nothing after so I don't need back up plan.

[coyotes_geek]

A lot of the morals that Jesus espoused were relatively secular in nature. (Meaning, a secular person could follow those same morals and not be considered religious.) The Bible probably had a good hand in spreading the value of these morals though, which is a plus.

Truth. The 10 commandments in a nutshell:

1. Our God is #1.
2. Obey the Golden Rule.

[redzero]

Calling me stupid isn't going to make your lack of logic any more logical.

:lol How is what I posted illogical, you moron?

Was a human sacrifice required to save humanity? Yes or no? Did God have no other way to save humanity, or did he CHOOSE to go the human sacrifice route?

[LnGrrrR]

Truth. The 10 commandments in a nutshell:

1. Our God is #1.
2. Obey the Golden Rule.

:lol Well said. :tu

[Brazil]

oh and believing there is nothing is a belief like any others tbh but I cannot use him to justify crimes or violent acts, so that's a good one for me.

[jag]

I'm not calling you someone who believes any of that, I'm saying you're lying to yourself about how many people believe completely primitive things due to Christianity.

Oh, I'm aware of that. I live in a very religious part of the country. The reason I don't get into many of these pro-Christian discussions is because, strangely enough, I'm usually on the other side of those discussions. I don't mind admitting, however, that I still question many of these things. I think the thing that bothers me most are the Christians who feel a need to prove the existence of God. They don't even realize the failure of logic there as far as their faith-based beliefs are concerned.

[boutons_deux]

Indeed, we have advanced morally precisely because we have continuously substituted secular morality for that of the Christian Bible.


the substitution is called the Enlightenment, where Europe revolted against the 1000-year-old oppression of the Dark Ages power combo of Catholic Church/Christianity + royalty/bourgeoisie

[2centsworth]

Even just leading up to the civil rights movement, a significant number of Christians were in the KKK. There were two sides to the movement. How many Christians on each side? Also, are you saying everyone who opposed the civil rights movement was in the KKK and or Christian? I just like specifics instead of generalities, it's the latino in me.


Since the civil rights movement made it socially unacceptable to be in the KKK, Christians moved on socially acceptable forms of hatred like believing gay people are possessed by the devil. There IS currently a significant number of Christians (in the tens of millions) in America who believe homosexuals are possessed by the devil. Once it's no longer socially acceptable to hate gay people, that same group of Christians will move onto a new demographic of people to hate. so the majority of Christians were in the KKK and now the Majority of Christians hate gays. Again, do you have percentages? I would argue vast majority of Christians abhor the KKK and love their gay brothers and sisters.

[jag]

Jag, it's much easier to believe nothing exists (hey, nothing exists!) than it is to believe a religion which has many different facets built into it (heaven exists, you get there if you do x,y,z, these religions are wrong because abc etc etc).


True. But I think it would actually be more difficult for someone to believe in nothing if they had spent their entire life believing otherwise.

[2centsworth]

:lol How is what I posted illogical, you moron?

because you're obviously having trouble. Come up with some other words to make you sound smarter or something.


Was a human sacrifice required to save humanity? Yes or no?
Did God have no other way to save humanity, or did he CHOOSE to go the human sacrifice route? In your own words. I'm not sure if you can make your contradiction any clearer. God makes the rules. Hence, God requires A for B to be possible. Hence, A is required. I'm not sure why you don't understand your own words.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I would argue vast majority of Christians abhor the KKK and love their gay brothers and sisters.

Yes, current day Christians abhor the KKK because it's the only socially acceptable opinion to have regarding the KKK. It's no difference than the Vatican having a revelation about how the world is actually round and not flat right as it became socially unacceptable to believe the world is flat because of scientific evidence.

That's why it's bullshit to say Christians evolve. The main driver behind Christians evolving is society forcing them to evolve because their beliefs become socially unacceptable.

In 2004, I'd say there was a strong Christian majority that opposed gay marriage (that won't matter to you since you seem like one of those Christians who thinks he's helping gay get past their demons by opposing gay marriage). Since then it's become increasingly unacceptable socially to oppose gay marriage, so Christians have let up on their opinion about gays. You're deliberately being naive pretending Christians always viewed gays as lundeserving of the rights straight people had until recently. If you really think a vast majority of Christians support gay marriage then you're extremely naive.

The fact you avoid the actual issue of gay marriage and instead use vague, feel-good rhetoric like "love their gay brothers and sisters" demonstrates the views Christians have regarding gays. They say feel good things that have no substance.

[redzero]

because you're obviously having trouble. Come up with some other words to make you sound smarter or something.

In your own words. I'm not sure if you can make your contradiction any clearer. God makes the rules. Hence, God requires A for B to be possible. Hence, A is required. I'm not sure why you don't understand your own words.

You did not answer my question, you moron.

Did God choose for there to be a human sacrifice, or did there have to be a human sacrifice? Which one is it?

[2centsworth]

Yes, current day Christians abhor the KKK because it's the only socially acceptable opinion to have regarding the KKK. It's no difference than the Vatican having a revelation about how the world is actually round and not flat right as it became socially unacceptable to believe the world is flat because of scientific evidence.

That's why it's bullshit to say Christians evolve. The main driver behind Christians evolving is society forcing them to evolve because their beliefs become socially unacceptable.

the question is from does where right and wrong originate? I say God and all things he created.



In 2004, I'd say there was a strong Christian majority that opposed gay marriage (that won't matter to you since you seem like one of those Christians who thinks he's helping gay get past their demons by opposing gay marriage). Since then it's become increasingly unacceptable socially to oppose gay marriage, so Christians have let up on their opinion about gays. You're deliberately being naive pretending Christians always viewed gays as lundeserving of the rights straight people had until recently. If you really think a vast majority of Christians support gay marriage then you're extremely naive. Opposing Gay marriage doesn't equate to hatred of gays.

[resistanze]

There were two sides to the movement. How many Christians on each side? Also, are you saying everyone who opposed the civil rights movement was in the KKK and or Christian? I just like specifics instead of generalities, it's the latino in me.
Did Christians not exist prior to the Civil rights Movement? What were those Christians doing in the preceding 400 years to the movement? Praying?

[ChumpDumper]

the question is from does where right and wrong originate? I say God and all things he created. God created evil.

What a dick.

[2centsworth]

Did Christians not exist prior to the Civil rights Movement? What were those Christians doing in the preceding 400 years to the movement? Praying?

Christians like Abe Lincoln have been fighting the fight since the beginning.

[2centsworth]

You did not answer my question, you moron.

Did God choose for there to be a human sacrifice, or did there have to be a human sacrifice? Which one is it? No other Law before God. God is the beginning and the end.

[ChumpDumper]

Christians like Abe Lincoln have been fighting the fight since the beginning.What about all the Christians who fought against Lincoln?

[jag]

Christians like Abe Lincoln have been fighting the fight since the beginning.

I think it's disingenuous to act like Christians (if you'd like to group them together) haven't been responsible for pain and suffering in the US based on misguided beliefs, or simply pure hatred. Slavery is a good example.

I also think it's wrong for people to hold Christians to such a standard that they are unable to have made mistakes, realize the err of their ways and change accordingly.

[LnGrrrR]

No other Law before God. God is the beginning and the end.\

2cents, are you deliberately being obtuse?

If God controls all, and is omnipotent, then he could've absolved mankind WITHOUT a sacrifice. In fact, he could do anything he wanted, since he's not bound by the laws of this reality/universe. Therefore, God deliberately CHOSE to require a sacrifice.

[redzero]

No other Law before God. God is the beginning and the end.

So, God chose to kill himself. He could have done anything, but he made the completely unnecessary, overly elaborate choice of impregnating a woman with himself so that he would kill himself to save us (even though nothing actually changed).

Why should anybody be moved by a totally unnecessary gesture?

[DarrinS]

Depends on the cartoon honestly. The cover of Frankenchrist had Christians and Tipper foaming at the mouth.

Was anyone killed?

[2centsworth]

God created evil.

What a dick.

I was referring to our conscience. I should of said where does the "understanding" of right and wrong originate.

[ChumpDumper]

I was referring to our conscience. I should of said where does the "understanding" of right and wrong originate.But God did create evil.

He created everything including man's capacity for evil. Dick move.

[resistanze]

Christians like Abe Lincoln have been fighting the fight since the beginning.
Some Abe Lincoln gems:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.


Fight the Fight!

[2centsworth]

So, God chose to kill himself. He could have done anything, but he made the completely unnecessary, overly elaborate choice of impregnating a woman with himself so that he would kill himself to save us (even though nothing actually changed).

Why should anybody be moved by a totally unnecessary gesture? You must be equal to God to know what is necessary.

[DarrinS]

Yes, current day Christians abhor the KKK because it's the only socially acceptable opinion to have regarding the KKK. It's no difference than the Vatican having a revelation about how the world is actually round and not flat right as it became socially unacceptable to believe the world is flat because of scientific evidence.

That's why it's bullshit to say Christians evolve. The main driver behind Christians evolving is society forcing them to evolve because their beliefs become socially unacceptable.

In 2004, I'd say there was a strong Christian majority that opposed gay marriage (that won't matter to you since you seem like one of those Christians who thinks he's helping gay get past their demons by opposing gay marriage). Since then it's become increasingly unacceptable socially to oppose gay marriage, so Christians have let up on their opinion about gays. You're deliberately being naive pretending Christians always viewed gays as lundeserving of the rights straight people had until recently. If you really think a vast majority of Christians support gay marriage then you're extremely naive.

The fact you avoid the actual issue of gay marriage and instead use vague, feel-good rhetoric like "love their gay brothers and sisters" demonstrates the views Christians have regarding gays. They say feel good things that have no substance.


We only recently had a watershed moment where the issue of gay marriage has now become "acceptable". Obama's stance on this issue has only "evolved" over the past few years.

It also should be pointed out that evangelicals played a major role in the abolitionist movement.

[DarrinS]

Back on point, Maher is dead-on when he gets on the media for being apologists for Islam. Dawkins goes into the same point in The God Delusion when he details the response to those Danish cartoons a few years ago, when even the moderate Muslim clerics in Europe were bending over backwards to justify the execution order for the artists and the vandalism of the newspaper's office that published them. He killed the media for expressing an understanding with the Muslim 'hurt' from these cartoons as if people should have to respectfully tip-toe around Islam.

Yep

[redzero]

You must be equal to God to know what is necessary.

No, I don't. You said yourself that God is the one who makes the CHOICES. Therefore, he CHOSE to go the human sacrifice route. If he is the one with infinite power and the final say, no particular action is necessary.

[LnGrrrR]

You must be equal to God to know what is necessary.

GOD found ANTILOGIC SHIELD!!!

GOD equipped ANTILOGIC SHIELD!!!

GOD receives +3 to DEFENSE against LOGIC!!!

[DarrinS]

GOD found ANTILOGIC SHIELD!!!

GOD equipped ANTILOGIC SHIELD!!!

GOD receives +3 to DEFENSE against LOGIC!!!


No spaghetti monster today?

[LnGrrrR]

You must be equal to God to know what is necessary.

Also, if this is true, then YOU don't know if the sacrifice was necessary either. It could just as likely NOT have been necessary.

[LnGrrrR]

No spaghetti monster today?

You missed him, he showed up earlier in the thread. :D :toast

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think it's disingenuous to act like Christians (if you'd like to group them together) haven't been responsible for pain and suffering in the US based on misguided beliefs, or simply pure hatred. Slavery is a good example.

I also think it's wrong for people to hold Christians to such a standard that they are unable to have made mistakes, realize the err of their ways and change accordingly.
I don't see how it's wrong to fault Christians for claiming they have all the answers when their past beliefs include the world being flat and the sun rotating around earth.

[2centsworth]

But God did create evil.

He created everything including man's capacity for evil. Dick move.

He allows free-will and evil to exist for a reason. Beyond me.

[LnGrrrR]

He allows free-will and evil to exist for a reason. Beyond me.

He doesn't just "allow" for it, he created it.

[ChumpDumper]

You must be equal to God to know what is necessary.You must be equal to God to judge who is a true Christian.

[DarrinS]

Bottom line: I find some religious people annoying, but I don't consider them dangerous.

For example, if a couple of Mormon kids knock on my door, I can politely tell them to f-off, without fear that my neighborhood will be bombed.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

We only recently had a watershed moment where the issue of gay marriage has now become "acceptable". Obama's stance on this issue has only "evolved" over the past few years.
seeing that Obama is a Christian that only helps my argument.

[ChumpDumper]

He allows free-will and evil to exist for a reason. Beyond me.There was no evil before God created it.

[ChumpDumper]

Bottom line: I find some religious people annoying, but I don't consider them dangerous.

For example, if a couple of Mormon kids knock on my door, I can politely tell them to f-off, without fear that my neighborhood will be bombed.What would you do if a couple of Muslim kids knocked on your door?

[2centsworth]

Also, if this is true, then YOU don't know if the sacrifice was necessary either. It could just as likely NOT have been necessary.

If I'm God and say you better feed a homeless person today or you're dead. Trust me, it's necessary you feed a homeless person today if you want to live.

[leemajors]

Was anyone killed?

no, but they ruined Jello's life with lawsuits.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Opposing Gay marriage doesn't equate to hatred of gays.
Kinda like how supporting segregation doesn't equate to racism. It's a parallel situation.

[ChumpDumper]

If I'm God and say you better feed a homeless person today or you're dead. Trust me, it's necessary you feed a homeless person today if you want to live.So Gods pretty much have to be dicks.

[DarrinS]

What would you do if a couple of Muslim kids knocked on your door?

Duck and cover, obviously. :lmao

[vy65]

People are people, and will use whatever they can get their hands on as excuses for furthering their own ideological agendas. Religion is a useful weapon for exercising said power. That doesn't mean that Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc... beliefs are inherently wrong. People who think that the practice of religion necessarily is oppressive, violent, or on-par with the KKK are as stupid as the people who think there's a dude in the sky with a killer beard looking after you.

Religion is neither good nor bad in-itself. It's a tool. That tool can be used for good (see, Mother Theresa) or bad (Spanish Inquisition). What's "made" with that tool has very little to do with the belief system and a whole lot to do with the ideology of the person wielding it.

[jag]

I don't see how it's wrong to fault Christians for claiming they have all the answers when their past beliefs include the world being flat and the sun rotating around earth.

That's fine. But it's not as if those beliefs were held exclusively by Christians.

[DarrinS]

seeing that Obama is a Christian that only helps my argument.

In what societies has gay marriage been a long-standing accepted practice? I don't think this is confined to Christianity, tbh

[2centsworth]

He doesn't just "allow" for it, he created it.

the question of evil is tough. He created man and Satan, so I can't argue he didn't create the capacity for evil to exist. I wish I knew it all, but my faith is strong.

[LnGrrrR]

If I'm God and say you better feed a homeless person today or you're dead. Trust me, it's necessary you feed a homeless person today if you want to live.

But you're not God. If God tells you to tell me to feed a homeless person, I can say that you don't know the will of God, because you're not on his level, correct? Have you ever spoken directly with God?

[Blake]

Duck and cover, obviously. :lmao

that's the clearest case of Islamophobia I've seen in a while

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

People are people, and will use whatever they can get their hands on as excuses for furthering their own ideological agendas. Religion is a useful weapon for exercising said power. That doesn't mean that Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc... beliefs are inherently wrong. People who think that the practice of religion necessarily is oppressive, violent, or on-par with the KKK are as stupid as the people who think there's a dude in the sky with a killer beard looking after you.

Religion is neither good nor bad in-itself. It's a tool. That tool can be used for good (see, Mother Theresa) or bad (Spanish Inquisition). What's "made" with that tool has very little to do with the belief system and a whole lot to do with the ideology of the person wielding it.
1) the kkk was a Christian organization, so I don't have to think its on par. People in the kkk was practicing Christianity.

2) mother Teresa was an evil woman who had a fetish for watching humans suffer. She used religion as the reason why she didn't give the people in her hospitals pain killers because she said it brought them closer to god. I'd hardly call her a good example of religion. She also used religion as why Charles keating should be let off the hook for stealing millions in a Ponzi scheme.

[LnGrrrR]

the question of evil is tough. He created man and Satan, so I can't argue he didn't create the capacity for evil to exist. I wish I knew it all, but my faith is strong.

Why are you trying to dance around the fact that God created evil? He didn't create "the capacity", he created it. If God created everything, then "evil" falls under that blanket. I'm sorry that bugs you, but it should be pretty obvious.

[DarrinS]

that's the clearest case of Islamophobia I've seen in a while

Should I have used blue text?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That's fine. But it's not as if those beliefs were held exclusively by Christians.
They were perpetuated by Christians who threatened scientists for questioning them.

[2centsworth]

But you're not God. If God tells you to tell me to feed a homeless person, I can say that you don't know the will of God, because you're not on his level, correct? Have you ever spoken directly with God?

That was not the hypothetical given. It was
"God makes the rules (definitive) and says a sacrifice is necessary (definitive). A sacrifice is not required (illogical). "

[Blake]

the question of evil is tough. He created man and Satan, so I can't argue he didn't create the capacity for evil to exist. I wish I knew it all, but my faith is strong.

plenty of completely illogical tendencies that God has.

When you get to heaven, be sure to ask why murderers, rapists and child molesters are there too.

[DarrinS]

They were perpetuated by Christians who threatened scientists for questioning them.

Do you think this would happen in 2013?

[2centsworth]

Why are you trying to dance around the fact that God created evil? He didn't create "the capacity", he created it. If God created everything, then "evil" falls under that blanket. I'm sorry that bugs you, but it should be pretty obvious.

how does God create Rape?

[vy65]

1) the kkk was a Christian organization, so I don't have to think its on par. People in the kkk was practicing Christianity.

You're making my point. Yes, the KKK was a certain type of Christian organization. But you cannot equivocate the KKK to Christianity writ large. What do you make of the fact that the KKK was anti-Catholic? That seems like a thorny issue for equating the KKK with Christian beliefs.


2) mother Teresa was an evil woman who had a fetish for watching humans suffer. She used religion as the reason why she didn't give the people in her hospitals pain killers because she said it brought them closer to god. I'd hardly call her a good example of religion. She also used religion as why Charles keating should be let off the hook for stealing millions in a Ponzi scheme.

I didn't know that about the pain killers. That's a fair point. But is this a reason to say that what she did was bad? Would it have been better for her to not provide care at all?

Mother Teresa is just a tangent though -- are you saying that each and every expression of Christian belief is always evil/violent/bad etc....? That there is absolutely no good that can come about from Christian beliefs?

For example, what is the problem with this group: http://catholicsmobilizing.org/cacp/

[Blake]

That was not the hypothetical given. It was
"God makes the rules (definitive) and says a sacrifice is necessary (definitive). A sacrifice is not required (illogical). "

God is omnipotent (definitive).
God makes the rules (definitive).
God is love (definitive).
God will burn you forever if you don't believe in him (wait....wut).

[LnGrrrR]

That was not the hypothetical given. It was
"God makes the rules (definitive) and says a sacrifice is necessary (definitive). A sacrifice is not required (illogical). "

Hey, don't blame me because you came up with a poor analogy. You said that "You must be equal to God to know what is necessary". But you also said that if God told me directly, then I would know what is necessary. One of those two must be false.

As far as rape, if God created the people, and God created the situation, then I don't see why God didn't "create" the rape. Unless you want to say that God isn't responsible for "good" either?

[Blake]

how does God create Rape?

Did virgin Mary have a choice?

[Blake]

Should I have used blue text?

So you'd have told the Muslim kids to politely fuck off?

[jag]

They were perpetuated by Christians who threatened scientists for questioning them.

If your reasoning for holding Christians to such a high standard is because of inaccurate science throughout history then so be it. But in doing so, you're ignoring the contributions to science by "Christians" (or those who believed in a Creator) such as Newton, Copernicus (who was responsible for the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun), Bacon, Descartes, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, etc. I could go on and on, but I'm not exactly sure why any of that matters.

Also keep in mind, there are many types of "Christians." You'd be hard pressed to find a single thing I agree with the Catholic Church about.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You're making my point. Yes, the KKK was a certain type of Christian organization. But you cannot equivocate the KKK to Christianity writ large. What do you make of the fact that the KKK was anti-Catholic? That seems like a thorny issue for equating the KKK with Christian beliefs.



I didn't know that about the pain killers. That's a fair point. But is this a reason to say that what she did was bad? Would it have been better for her to not provide care at all?

For example, what is the problem with this group: http://catholicsmobilizing.org/cacp/

Mother Teresa is just a tangent though -- are you saying that each and every expression of Christian belief is always evil/violent/bad etc....? That there is absolutely no good that can come about from Christian beliefs?
I think the good that comes from religion is overwhelmingly outweighed by the bad that comes from it, especially in current times.

[Blake]

You're making my point. Yes, the KKK was a certain type of Christian organization. But you cannot equivocate the KKK to Christianity writ large. What do you make of the fact that the KKK was anti-Catholic? That seems like a thorny issue for equating the KKK with Christian beliefs.

Uh, you aren't familiar with Martin Luther's work?

[resistanze]

People are people, and will use whatever they can get their hands on as excuses for furthering their own ideological agendas. Religion is a useful weapon for exercising said power. That doesn't mean that Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc... beliefs are inherently wrong. People who think that the practice of religion necessarily is oppressive, violent, or on-par with the KKK are as stupid as the people who think there's a dude in the sky with a killer beard looking after you.

Religion is neither good nor bad in-itself. It's a tool. That tool can be used for good (see, Mother Theresa) or bad (Spanish Inquisition). What's "made" with that tool has very little to do with the belief system and a whole lot to do with the ideology of the person wielding it.
To be honest, I agree with a lot of this. If religion didn't exist, I have no doubt they'd be something else blood-sucking parasites would be using to profit off the backs of others.

But as it stands, religion is the biggest tool in our world today. And people arguing about the details of one religion being more violent than the other to me is comical, especially if you follow a religion (Christianity) that's been used for the most heinous acts in human history.

[Blake]

If your reasoning for holding Christians to such a high standard is because of inaccurate science throughout history then so be it. But in doing so, you're ignoring the contributions to science by "Christians" (or those who believed in a Creator) such as Newton, Copernicus (who was responsible for the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun), Bacon, Descartes, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, etc. I could go on and on, but I'm not exactly sure why any of that matters.

Also keep in mind, there are many types of "Christians." You'd be hard pressed to find a single thing I agree with the Catholic Church about.

Why are you disregarding the contributions to basketball by Hakeem?

[vy65]

I think the good that comes from religion is overwhelmingly outweighed by the bad that comes from it, especially in current times.

It's a tool used to encourage ignorance. And ignorance usually leads to all kinds of ill shit. I get and agree with that.

But, you seem to admit that some good can come from a christian belief system.

Which leads to the following point: the fact that some good can come out of a belief system responsible for a lot of bad leads me to believe the issue isn't so much with the belief system itself, but how people use it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You're making my point. Yes, the KKK was a certain type of Christian organization. But you cannot equivocate the KKK to Christianity writ large. What do you make of the fact that the KKK was anti-Catholic? That seems like a thorny issue for equating the KKK with Christian beliefs.



I didn't know that about the pain killers. That's a fair point. But is this a reason to say that what she did was bad? Would it have been better for her to not provide care at all?

For example, what is the problem with this group: http://catholicsmobilizing.org/cacp/

Mother Teresa is just a tangent though -- are you saying that each and every expression of Christian belief is always evil/violent/bad etc....? That there is absolutely no good that can come about from Christian beliefs?
I think the good that comes from religion is overwhelmingly outweighed by the bad that comes from it, especially in current times.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Idk why my phone just posted that again.

[LnGrrrR]

Idk why my phone just posted that again.

It's because of JESUS!

[DarrinS]

So you'd have told the Muslim kids to politely fuck off?

Haven't had to. Evidently, they are not into door-to-door prosthelytizing.

[elbamba]

Fair enough. I should have been more specific in my initial request. I was referring more to Jesus ever asking believers to murder or hurt nonbelievers. Christian Salvation is through Jesus. That's more the direction I was headed. It's a very different ballgame to start pulling OT verses. That's not difficult to do.

Again, in the context of Christian faith, I don't see how anyone could ever compare the violence associated with it to that of Islam. Sure, call it a Mulligan, but at least they used their Mulligan. For the record, I don't blame a single person for questioning the Christian faith and their basic beliefs. Christians are the people most responsible for making people not want to be Christians.

While the Lord did not instruct to kill them there is a story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts Chapter 5: 1 -10 where we must presume the Lord kills them for lying.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You're making my point. Yes, the KKK was a certain type of Christian organization. But you cannot equivocate the KKK to Christianity writ large. What do you make of the fact that the KKK was anti-Catholic? That seems like a thorny issue for equating the KKK with Christian beliefs.

:lmao I missed this part. Jesus Christ. I guess protestants shouldn't be equated with Christian beliefs either.