Atheists who attack Christianity

That sounds cool. If you teach me that other people are bad and that I should fear them, and make me feel protected I'd be real tempted to believe you. Convince me that I'm broken in some way that only you can fix, and you'd push me over the edge. Promise me immortality and I'm so there! I feel an inner peace coming on already.

You make baby FSM cry!

This is actually a fascinating debate. I am all for standardized orthography, however English spelling has wandered so far from its pronunciation that the requisite changes would be dramatic. Additionally, given that English has an enormous amount of foreign loan words, do we change their traditional (and still used) spellings or do we rewrite them? What is the boundary between going with traditional orthography and a new transcription? Finally, I feel that many of the proposed spelling reforms use systems of orthography that are suboptimally related to the phonemes and characters used by the International Phonetics Association.

~Ulrika~

Oh, you're right. I have been touched by the noodly appendage. I guess I'll have to become a polytheist.

Different word for the same act.



Whatever that may be, actually. But yes, I accept that label.



Yes, of course that is an unjustified belief. To know absolutely a negative is impossible without first knowing absolutely everything.

As I indicated once before, that's one reason I dislike being identified as an "atheist," since some people assume that it means I myself harbor an unjustified belief. My other reason, as I also said before, is that I think the term "atheist" is as unnecessary as "a-alchemist" would be.

So I'm not an "atheist." I'm just rational (or strive to be ).



It doesn't matter what "the vast majority" are. The actual Bible itself, the book you claim to follow, commands you to take that stance. Deuteronomy 13:7-11, for example, is not unclear about this:

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God ..."

Even if you don't actually obey your book, that's still what it's telling you to do, in no uncertain terms. The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. -- these were not acts committed by people who didn't understand their religion. They were acts committed by true believers who read their Bibles from cover to cover, not just selected passages during Sunday worship.

Of course, today's religious moderate is benign on the surface -- he/she isn't going to try to stone you to death for heresy, no. However, by forming a "group" whose beliefs, named collectively "Christianity" (or insert your other religion of choice), must be above reproach or examination, lest you be a mean horrible person who's attacking them -- by forming that group, they become enablers for the true believers, the Tim LaHayes, the George Bushes (I think he's one, but I'll admit I may be wrong -- it's just my gut feeling, even if he is still a willfully ignorant man), and yes even the suicide bombers of the world. Since you can't attack the root problem, the religion itself, because that's above discussion ... you can't do anything about these "extremists" (which is just a word for religious people who actually read and obey their books, to the best of their ability).

So in that sense, the religious moderate is actually almost as bad. It would be the same as if there were Nazi moderates, KKK moderates, and so on: on the surface, they might be perfectly benign, but even though they're ignoring all of the uncomfortable stuff in their chosen philosophies, they still serve as a big fat PC barrier protecting the true believers from serious scrutiny.

or if you believed that there is no god. that is also an unjustified belief, and equally silly...

You are talking about the Old Testament. Christians follow the teachings of Christ which appear in the New Testament. Jesus brought a new covenant that changed some things. For example, the 10 Commandments were reduced to 2 commandments. Jesus also said not to harm your enemy, but do good to him.

Nope. Changing my words would imply I was retracting my statement, I'm not. Just adding more things to it.



Except that Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament, before the New Covenant. It's not that we ignore the commands, we still read them - but they aren't binding now.



So, you condem the entireity based on the actions of a few. Useful to know, but, again, if I were to apply that same standard to almost anything else dicussed on the forums, I would be ran out of town on a rail. But for religion, it's ok.



Actually, no. Most Christians I know (And, I believe, the majority the world over) would be as critical as anyone else were someone to, say, try to stone people to death. We are not a "big fat PC barrier" - you can critisize people who deserve it all you like. We just ask that you level it at those that deserve it, not us for sharing the name of the faith.

Funny, I said exactly the same thing myself in a post just before yours.

Of course I don't believe (that I can know) there's no god. I can't know there's no dweezildrofkopsy either. Don't ask me what that is; I have no idea. But I know that I can't know there isn't one, whatever it may be.

Again, the question, "Is there a god?" doesn't concern me. I find it to be meaningless. The only worthwhile question is, "Why should I believe (insert thing you think I should believe)?"

With respect to gods, I've seen no convincing answers.

here's a cool link i find when i was following up on that crazy passage from deuteronium:

http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/full-text/the-independent-uk/

while it's supposed to be promoting atheism, i think the real conclusion was that everyone should convert to hinduism or buddhism. i didn't read through to the end though so i can't confirm that.

yeah i noticed i wasn't postig an original thought to the thread and deleted it



hi5!

"Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:17-18

Now it's your turn, Kevn. Tell me where Jesus says, "You know what? That whacky Deuteronomy stuff? Yeah, sorry. Strike that. Also, forget what I said about 'not the least stroke of a pen will disappear,' and all that. My bad."

Actually, there are excellent arguments for making "alot" a correct variation of "a lot", as several other words have made that transition. The most common one is "a while", which is written as "awhile" if it's an adverb and as "a while" if it's an object of a preposition (a noun).

So, both of these are correct:

1. Wait for me awhile.
   
2. I rested for a while

Perhaps we should officially extend this usage to "a lot" right now:

1. He eats alot.
   
2. I did it with a lot of help.

The other option, is that we could retire the colloquial "a lot" completely, and require the use of "much".

1. He eats much.
   
2. I did it with much of help.

This has been your surreal off-topic grammar post for the day.

~Ulrika~

From a physical perspective, believers liver longer, less stressful lives. Even if the believer is wrong the benefits are very real. The bad part is one can't fake it to ones own self.

That may in many cases be true (although I'll submit that some true believers live very short lives precisely because of the crazy things their beliefs tell them to do, while others spend so much time stressed over the "godless" world around them that they're as bad off as the most militant atheists).

However, and much more importantly, I submit that it's possible to find an inner peace that has nothing to do with believing that when you die, you go to Fairytale Land and get to play with your own personal harem (Islam reference -- I felt like they deserved equal time ).

Yes, and here Jesus said it is finished.....


John 19:30 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.








OK, Here it is....

36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.



See, those 2 commandments cover it all.

Since you are using the Bible to prove your point, please explain to me which of these two passages is true, and which isn't. Then explaine to me which one of the passage you used is true, and which isn't.


Matthew 27
Judas Hangs Himself

3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."

5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.


and

Acts 1

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)


Who bought the field? How did Judas die? How did the field get it's name?

Is that why Christians try so hard to put those "Two Commandments" monuments and plaques everywhere?

Okay. But did he said everything had been accomplished? No. Absolutely not, in fact. It looks like he just said, "Okay, I'm dead now. Seeya."



I know, and when you put that together with Jesus saying that the Old Testament is still in full force, to the letter, this gets really fun, doesn't it (unless you're going to tell me Jesus screwed up )? But Kevn, I'm going to give you a freebie: I won't just denounce God as schizophrenic. I'll actually rationalize FOR you how what you just said can be reconciled with Jesus saying the Old Testament is still in force:

Okay, you're Devout Christian (DC for short). You believe that when people die, they either go to God because they've embraced Christ as their savior, or basically, they're screwed. As DC, you love your Lord God with your heart, soul and mind, and you love your neighbor as yourself.

Now, you encounter Wicked Heretic (WH for short). WH is out to spread belief in false gods, or in no god -- either way, WH is like a living, breathing virus. Everyone who encounters WH could, potentially, come to believe what he's saying, and any of them who do are then damned. Worse, they then become WHs themselves and can infect still others. WH isn't just damning himself -- he's a potential danger to the immortal souls of every person he comes into contact with.

Now, as DC, you love your neighbor as yourself. Yes, you even love WH! But you would, were you infected as WH is, hope that someone else would either save you immediately if possible or, if not, or if you were in immediate danger of spreading your heresy to others, put you down. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You don't hate WH. No. In fact, you probably feel pity for the poor wretch. But you can't let that pity stay your hand or make you hesitate because you know, DC, that the immortal souls of countless people depend on your resolve.

It is precisely because you love your neighbor as yourself that you must put WH down like a mad dog -- not out of hatred but, rather, out of love for your neighbors.

See? They're reconciled nicely.

Oh, but no ... wait. Jesus did say the whole thing is still on, and there was that "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, too. That's so specific, I just don't know how you'd reconcile it with killing heretics.

Rats! And I was doing so well.

I guess the Christian God is schizophrenic after all.

Practice harder, Alex. It is good mental exercise to try holding more than one piece of contradictory data in your mind at the same time.

You are seriously insulting schizophrenics. Multiple personality disorder is not schizophrenia (which has more to do with delusions, hallucinations, etc..).

Briana Dawson

Doublethink is doubleplus good!

I knew I'd end up being intolerant of someone sooner or later. *snaps fingers*

I humbly apologize to schizophrenics everywhere for my ill-informed diagnosis. You do not, in fact, suffer the same derangment that the Christian God does.

LOL

Thats wonderful, the fewer similarities for Kevn or Billybob to point out the better.

Briana Dawson

*proceeds with the Bill Lumburgh voice* yeah if you would like stop talking that be great. and for the record I gave up trying to explain my beleifs too you since you have no respect for anything other than your husband's penis. If you want to debate Kevin some more be my guest, but don't include me in yall's stupidity.