It's finally time for me to put paid to the concept of the bible, Christianity or religion as a source of good. For too long now, our religious friends here on the forums have failed to bring up scriptures to support their bizarre idea that their beliefs are based on anything worthwhile. So, i'm going to do it myself. I'll begin by providing a link to a good article on bible atrocity. Read this carefully, and honestly, before you enter a debate.

By honestly, I mean ask yourself, "Should I really be defending this book, or this God? Have I truly thought about the implications of what I am reading?". And so on and so forth. Here is the link:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/atrocities.html

I have come to the firm conclusion that most Christians have not read the bible in any detail. It's contents come as a shock to those who read it, as they did to me when I did. No humane person could ever come to a different position.

If you insist on entering the debate to defend your religion:

1) Do not tell me "but I know Jesus loved me, and he died for me, and I'm sorry you don't see that" or anything remotely similar, unless you want to appear to have a simplistic mind.

2) Quote scriptures to back up your arguments, and if you somehow convince me that the bible is not a book of blood, you must then prove that it is historically accurate and divinely inspired.

3) You must finally refer to natural, cosmological, biological, political, geological etc arguments to show how your idea of a benevolent God fits in with reality.

To do all the above is a tall order, and no-one has yet ever succeeded to do this in previous threads. If nobody responds with counter arguments, I will start to quote scriptures that you may never have seen before to prove to the world just how awful your fictional God is. I certainly hope he's not up there.

This is a good point Dom 

Don't worry, somehow I suspect this will be the last major thread like this I produce. I'll just refer people back to the correct thread (and by correct I mean in more ways than one).
Posted on: November 12, 2007, 12:01:16 am

---

Hmmm, thread read 20 times. 

All atheists or agnostics maybe? All guests? I'll wait a while, and then I'll start exposing the world's most widely distributed book for what it really is. Actually, it usually just collects dust on bookshelves, which is a good thing considering its content.

I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of a peaceful atheist movement, but isn't this the 4th thread revolving around the "preaching" of atheism?

The idea that people kill in god's name is quite simply an unrealisitic simplification of complex Geo-political dynamics.
The fact is any movement whether a freedom struggle like that of the US or India, or France's revolution have always necessitated unity. Unity of cause, unity for a greater "good" or greater welfare.

To achieve this unity certain public figures have quoted an ideology to which the masses identify.

In Germany it was Nationalism - calling on a nation's identity as a race or people. In Communist Russia and China the idea is again social good and nationalism. Sufficient to say that these 2 examples were atheists. Attila the hun was also an avid atheist.

The fact is, particular causes, Zionism included, have always necessitated a common unifying ideal to rally people. Religion is the most ubiquitous, and most simplistic to twist due to the inaccuracy of translation from Aramiac to Latin to English or Arabic to English etc.
But if once were to look at terrorism for example, it is from within the community that the idea is argued against, and debated. Why? Because of interpretation. Ironically, in the west and the east, the only way to dissuade one from violence in the name of religion, is through religion itself.
A wholisitc view of a religion, devoid of one's innate high-school urge to rebel, is the only platform from which the so-called "violence in the name of religion" can be repelled.

Historically, if we look at ancient Greece, Rome, Asia, Africa; and if we look at modern History including Colinialism, Racism, Nazism, and Imperialism, it is  atheism or the at the root of it - loyalty to the self as opposed to loyalty to morality that is responsible for blood shed. After all, is there truly colonialism in Christ? Or terrorism in Islam? or Zionism in Judaism? Gandhi may have spoken of peace - but the Hindu Bhagavadgita is a war epic replete with polygamy, polyandry, and bloodshed.

The fact is religion is used for geo-political reasons. The best example are the Crusades. Terrorism itself is geo-political, not religious in origin. Ironically, the first act of terrorism in the middle east was perpetrated by what is today the Likud party in the bombing of the King David Hotel. Is the IRA a terrorist group because they're christian. Are the LTTE terrorists because they are hindus. 

If there is any argument against terrorism or crusades or wars themselves, then it is in the religious texts themselves. After all, as an atheist, what would constrain you from using the same justification that is used by the madmen of today, if you were to find yourself in their situation.

But it is from religion itself that one can see acts of unbridled violence as abominable. On what premisse can an atheist say that? If an atheist speaks of the sanctity of human life, he is not speaking as an atheist, he is regurgitating the influence of religion in his upbringing. If not, then explain why as an atheist "violence is wrong"? Will you draw on the concept of "social contract"?
If one speaks of rule of law, one counter-argues what if one could evade it? If there is nothing to expect after death, why then curb one;s desires for the sake of Mr. A or Ms. C. Agreed some people may act magnanimous, and say that they will, but again, if a child were to ask an atheist why he or she should restrain hmself or herself from "release of desires" - regardless what it may be - why should they or what would prevent them from doing so; as an atheist.

If we were to try to generalise by quoting MrX. and Mrs Y, and then drawing half-cocked interpretations without understanding the true content of the texts, one would certainly not arrive at a just understanding- because one wants not to.

After all, if we speak of atheism, let's not fordet that Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Attila, Ghenghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Pol Pot, etc were all Atheists and Occultists. Can we then say that we see therefrom that all atheists will - given a loose string - emulate genocidal madmen. One would say - hey an atheist indulges his urges when he wants to, what would stop him from not indulging the most primal urge - to kill. We've seen it in the past.

If you found the last statement ludicrous, think how ludicrous people sound then then try to brand religions or communities simply based on a geo-political reactions.

Simplistically, atheism is merely a reflex of a disillusioned society. It offers the opportunity to indulge, and set down the bag of morality. It quotes the misdeeds of people to condemn a belief system, even the misdeeds are misdeeds by the standards of the beleif system itself.
I am not a right winger, but find atheists to be ridiculous when they try to grand-stand over religion.
Atheism is an ideology, a belief in the negative. It is just as blind as religion, and includes the same "short-comings" plus the leeway for more damage to society - look at the prison system - how many commit crimes because they believe and how many commit them because they just didn;t care?
Plus, as a last straw if an atheist quotes science, one would accept if science were all-seeing and knowing. But when science gets foxed at the discoveries of new planets that can float on oceans, the dicovery of black holes otherwise thought impossible; it is simple hubris that one would think that science as it now stands could disprove the existence of the divine. First let's decide on Pluto's status lol

Posted on: November 12, 2007, 05:29:05 pm

---

Lastly, before I forget.

Quoting excerpts of a text in itself is a betrayal of the fact that the quoter is lacking in understanding.

It is easy to quote out of context.

Simple. "If my aunty has balls she would be my uncle".
If you quote and tell me that I am confessing that I am confused whether my aunty is my uncle, you betray that you yourself are unable or unwilling to understand what I am saying.

Such quotations are nice for propangada. Hitler - another Atheist used it well to justify genocide, citing from the old testament for pre-emptive genocide against the Jews.
Stalin did same.

But to quote after undertanding a text, after clarifying what it means, then one can stand by such quotations. Otherwise, one is simply quoting like Bin Laden, or the slave drivers of Europe - half-cocked and dim-witted; extracting just to pull at straws that fall apart as soon as the entire text and context is properly understood.

Don't worry TanEdos, deep breaths, count to ten, cup of tea and you'll be fine.

As a matter of fact I'm a big fan of bashing people's beliefs when they involve absurdity and nonesense.

I mean, TanEdos I don't give a damn that you are a theology graduate or whatever you are. The bible is plain to understand, there's nothing complex there. If you want complexity go read a quantum physics book. When God commands in the bible to murder without showing compassion, what's not to understand? You really need to wake up.

Two more things:

1) Trying to get threads locked smacks of information control, just like Putin's russia or communist China.

2) This stuff about "not bashing beliefs" is politically correct garbage, and makes me howl with laughter. Those people have no right to believe anything that's harmful. Even freedom of speech is not absolute if it is hateful. Rights are even less absolute.

There's nothing meaningless about this thread. The meaningless nonesense is going on inside your head friend.

And one more thing. The next person to declare that "This is my belief, and if you don't like it that's your problem" will get figurative hot porridge poured over them.

Don't you think it's deeply sad (and very, very worrying) that a THEOLOGIAN cannot see the plain malevolence in the bible?


Posted on: November 12, 2007, 05:56:06 pm

---

And about the quoting out of context thing, that's a pile of manure that argument. When God commands rape and murder, in what context does that become acceptable (and TanEdos, what's not to understand)?

I'm sick of the argument from context, the muslims do the same thing, context this context that. Context can, on occasion, be important, but usually it is not.

Serpicus, you're doing it again, trying to over complicate matters so that you feel better about apologising for religion. Try giving your speech to 9-11 victims' families whose loved ones died because of someone quoting one of these delightful holy books.

Finally, short of the mods closing the thread, I will not ever be forced to stop speaking out. Those of you that have tried (and FAILED) are naive, and simple minded.
Posted on: November 12, 2007, 06:03:22 pm

---

I've just noticed that the closer I get to the heart of the issue, the more jumpy you religious people get. You're all getting very, very nervous because what I'm saying about the bible makes sense (shock!!).

So in other words, by trying to get the thread locked, or rambling on about history, you're attempting a cover up job. Very clever. Just nowhere near clever enough 

well it's not a big issue to be a major in the Bible or to criticize it.
the fact is the Bible is not the word of Christ - even theologians say that.
It is made up of the Gospel of Paul, Luke, and a set of so-called Johannine texts to which there is no confirmed authorship.
Fact is Paul never met christ. So when we see that the Bible quotes Christ as saying x and y, it is more heresay as opposed to apostolic witness.
Secondly, translation from Aramaic to koine greek to Latin and then to English has left most of the content missing in translation.
Thirdly, the brand of christianity as adopted by the Roman catholic church and the later morph of Protestantism, is simply a result of Gnostic apologeticism building Greek philosophy as propounded by plato and his triad with a strong perseus/bellarophon son of god base onto initial monotheistic precepts.

But the shortcomings og modern Christianity aside, one would need to ask what the criticism against the death penalty is. Many would argue, especially the atheists in favour of Euthanesia that death is at times more merciful than a life of pain and suffering. When compared to life in prison for certain crimes, where prisoners become Bubba's ass bitch, or get exposed to more degrading lifestyles including violence, in prison-murder, one would ask if the death penalty in fact would be a more merciful penalty especially when dealing with cases when the penalt needs to match the crime.

And if in Leviticus, the death penalty is prescribed for murder, adultery, sodomy, or rape, one would ask the "atheist" who finds fault there, to actually substantiate "why"?
Ranting about it as an assumed flaw does not tackle the problem.

The penalty needs to fit the crime. One would ask why one would feel that the "crime" of rape would not befit the death penalty. If one hides behind the cliched addage "2 wrongs do not make a right", one asks what exactly qualifies as a "wrong". After all, is it not "wrong" to deprive a man of his dignity by locking him away like an animal. From that perspective prison itself is a violation of basic human rights.

The reduction of such semantic details to a ridiculous rant of "atheism" vs "religion" "who has the high ground" is pitifully shallow. so much for criticising "god" on grounds of brutality lol.



Posted on: November 12, 2007, 09:29:55 pm

---

and of course, there is no question of apologizing for religion..lol

But I said exactly what you now demonstrate. You do not actually criticise religion because you understand anything in it. your criticism is all for the sake of defending your own atheism.
Ironic as it is, atheism accuses religion of being apologetic, but in actuality atheism is in fact the apology of a person who wants to indulge.

After all, every criticism leivied by atheism on religion, is enabled, promulgated and in fact solicited by the very premisse of atheism - the loyalty to oneself.

After all, the 911 you mentioned was just that. An act carried out by people who had a "self-motivated" idea of geo-political motivation, which needed to be apologized for. And like an atheist, they insisted - out of context - on their point of view without understanding the main core of their beliefs, and the contradictions of their actions. Funny how people criticise the very thing they resemble.
Posted on: November 12, 2007, 09:35:33 pm

---

and lastly, directly  to your statement about complicating things - you will find that a simplistic view of things dehumanises the realities of life. The world is a complex place.
It is unfortunate that the civilized world, in spite of its technology, is reductionist to the level of stupidity.
Channels like Fox and sky news cater to this reductionist mentality, and look for the simple answer that is always nestled between misconception and lack of information.

modern events and past events are more complex than one would like to think.

One therefore does need to have a larger, more wholistic approach. If you feel that such an approach is too complex, and you would instead prefer the "simplistic" and "inaccurate" view - no wonder you;re an atheist.

If one were to understand or at least try to understand the complexities of the world we live in, atheism would appear as nothing more than a child's tantrum, "small words from a small being trying to attack what it does not understand  ".

After all, what is evolution? What causes it? Why do some species living in the same environment having come from the same primordial soup develop differently? Why is genetic inheritance at an evolutionary level selective such that some creatures retain certain traits while others discard them?

The point is, when science itself falls short of the answers, and as an atheist one needs a cock-sure demonstration, why accept one vagary over the other. Perhaps it is this uncertainty in one's own beleifs that makes one eager to attack the "other side". We see it in evangelicals. we see it in fanatical terrorists. We see it in paranoid Zionists. So it comes as no surprise when we see it in self-conscious, uncertain atheists. A normal animal reaction - attack when under pressure (self imposed or otherwise lol)

a.) Strike 2, never assume a lack of words for a lack of thought or intellect, sometimes the most complex of messages can be delivered in the simplest of methods.

b.) Atheism is not neccesarly science, rather Atheism - the classification given by religious people to the non religious in an attempt to explain their lack of belief in the supernatural beings they choose to worship. This by no means implies that an atheist is predestined to follow science more than anything else. For this reason an atheist is no more likely to follow the big bang theory or evolution, it is nothing more than a label...

c.) Was catholic for all of maybe 6 years, before I outwitted the religion teacher and figured out that it was all one huge joke, don't lump me with religous folks.

Hostility tends to occur when your post are determined not only to insult my intelligence, but degrade a religion as a whole. Regardless of any hypocrisy that happens to have weeded itself into a religion, it is not my place to attempt to tear apart their faith, nor is it yours. The fact is that we don't win this war by preforming the same door to door salesmanship, we win this war by going allowing logic to take its course, you can't shake someones religious foundations, they must do that themselves.