A little of column A a little of column STFU!

I did not say that or anything similar. I actually agreed that there are contradictions, and further to the point, that they were caused by human imperfection. These guys didn't have Microsoft Office to share and hone their document to perfection, and worse, their publications were corrupted by humans hundreds of years later.

So returning to the original point of the opening post (unless I misread it of course, my brain's Broca area doesn't always interpret language the same as everyone else), I submit that it is acceptable to use the imperfect, contradictory bible as a guide to living compared to a vacuum.

If I may suggest: it would be more efficient and helpful to your cause if you (speaking of atheists as a group) would perhaps compose and provide a non-theistic guide to living as a replacement.

Thomas Jefferson said:
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."


But he didn't say what would replace the scaffolding. You and I know that what is needed to replace it is reason, but your theme and the intent of this thread is to point out weaknesses in the bible, and this is used by the masses. The masses need something (an "opiate" as you repeat the jaded quote), and to remove it (the only way would be banning, otherwise it will continue and your point to move away from it is lost), would lead to worse social chaos and conflict than now exists. This is not talking out of my ass. For example: Let's say somehow we could convince all Christians to become atheists. We would be a godless nation would we not? And how would Islamic nations feel about that? Why, they would still hate us. A nation that states their god Allah is non-existent would be an evil affront to their faith. Surely you must agree with this conclusion. So American life in the world would not be any better without the bible, in that regard.

So, until atheists provide a compelling, widespread, simple to understand and yes, even emotional replacement for the bible (for humans are emotional), it is very unlikely it will go away, and for the above reasons, is better than the alternative of having no socially widespread guide to reacting to life's sorrow's, threats, disappointments etc.

Does the above justify you guys putting some skin in the game? Writing up a replacement that "joe six pack" would pick up and use to replace the bible?

Or are you just going to continue whining about the bible without submitting a viable alternative? That is not a jab. We are talking about the majority population here, that is not as intelligent as you and Kontan and Alan and the rest. We are talking about average folks.

Damn time limit.
Sorry for the typos in the last few lines.

I was talking to, and quoting Corpsey there, not you. He believes in the literal truth of the Bible.

I agree with you here, there does need to be an emotional replacement. As for submitting a written ALTERNATIVE...that's a bit more difficult. I'm tempted to say documents such as the bill of rights, the basic social contract, and our system of laws, already fills the "laws" portion, and there are VOLUMES of philosophy, form Socrates to Nietzsche from which to draw inspiration.

Personally, my religious/communal impulses are already filled by art. The East Village open Mic. and theatre scene fills that urge pretty well. I get emotional about living my life, and being friggin' awesome. Life is about reaching your potential, appreciating the time that you have, and making the world a better place for the next generation. There's alot more power in being a good person because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to doing it because you think it will result in going to heaven/avoiding hell.

But an actual book? That's tricky. I'm subtlety pushing my philosophy on life via my various plays etc.

I think honestly, the age of the Authoritarians is coming to an end. I give Jillian alot of shit about Anarchy, but I would think it best if society moves in a socio-anarchistic direction both in our system of trading, and in our approach to spiritual authority.

It's not about giving people a new book/king/preacher to bow down to, it's about uplifiting the human, and getting us to accept and thrive under the idea that we alone are the arbitrators of our purpose and destiny. Slowly moving society in a direction where they can accept that freedom and the responsibility that comes with accepting the non-existence of God(s) and letting go of their perceived authority over our lives.

So I suppose my "constructive" answer to the non-existence of God is to climb mountains, run marathons, create art, and eviscerate stupid ideas as often, and loudly, as possible.

Also: i think it's fallacious to say that American Life wouldn't be any better without the Bible. Sure radical Muslims would still hate us, but we wouldn't have radical leaders throwing us into wars with no exit strategy because they assumed God would provide. We wouldn't be currently oppressing the entire GLBT community and shooting ourselves in the foot by forbidding them to marry/serve in the military, and the Tea-Party wouldn't be being voted into power by the religious right because "it's the Christian thing to do". Poor people would stop voting republican because republicans are "the party of faith". Gay kids wouldn't be offing themselves left and right due to persecution by Christian bigots.

So no, getting rid of religion wouldn't solve all of our problems, but it would solve quite a few.

And, might I add, that without the presence of religion in our society, these bigots would be much easier to define and deal with. Taking away their divine free pass for bigotry, would make it much much harder for them to be an asshole.

Uh.... actually I am going to disagree with that even if some people find it to be a long stretch. The Islamic revival is an extremely recent phenomenon that emerged as resistance to America's increasingly imperialistic anti-communism throughout the globe.
The Islam world had a streak of marxism during the 60's and 70's just like the rest of the world, but it was quickly suppressed by the conservative and theocratic sectors of society which were encouraged by the united states as a better alternative than pinkos. Best example: the Iran Revolution.
We are one generation younger than the era of imperial struggle for satellite countries, but we have to remember that way after McCarthyism, foreign intervention was justified as a divine duty just as much as manifest destiny and the Iraq War.

Christian dogma can be strange, because there are various tricks of the trade. One is the difference between the first five books (laws) and writings. Laws are consistent, in better copies of the doctrine, yet writings are like odes and parabolic stories giving thanks to God, without as much actual tendency to actual religion.

The bible was translated, so there are concerns about the truthful translation. The New Testament was drawn from the memories after Christ's death, while they were jailed, so there is always a thread of disbelief in finding the truthfulness around the events.

Churches place angels, images of Christ and the Madonna in all their churches under the explaination of not worshiping them, but not God. To remind people of this there is always painting depicting a hidden firgure of a gray haired man. Some churches even switch it up by having various hidden figures of varying hair color. Though it is commonly accepting man is in the likeness of God, so it's usually a guy.

You see? This is what I am talking about: Catch is stumbling about the edges, eyes dazzled by the interior decoration of church buildings without a clue what the meat of the subject is about. Any replacement for the bible would have to be able to reach people at this level. The bible has survived generation after generation because of the emotional connection. Now I am not insisting that a replacement last for generations, after all we are not after a stagnant document, but a living one that can evolve (after all, that is the problem you have with the bible too yes? That it is no longer relevant in today's society).
But I am insisting that to avoid a social vacuum a replacement will need to reach those on the fringe of mental faculty, because after all, Jesus wanted to help the downtrodden, the hopeless, the lost, the...you get the idea. A replacement needs to help the sick. The healthy can rely on laws, the arts, biking etc. as you said earlier.

HP... If you actually NEED an instructions manual on how to be a decent human being, you probably need to be institutionalized or jailed.

What Kontan said.

There seems to be this perception among Christians that people NEED religion. That without a book and a lake of fire to scare them into compliance, the unwashed masses of humanity would be a horde or ravening psychopathic killers. That without some guy with a beard giving you 10 rules to live by, you'd as soon break a bottle over the next guys head and r@pe his girlfriend as look at him.

This is not correct. The laws we have keep people's anti-social tendencies pretty much in-line. If you're looking for rules to live by, or philosophies you can find thousands of them with a single google search.

Christian dominance happened organically, you can't really force something like that by design. The best you can hope for is to steer civilization in the right direction and hope for the best. There's not going to BE a vacuum, because Christianity isn't going to be going away over night.

If you look at the demographics, atheists and the non-religious are the largest minority in the country, and our numbers are growing every year. The next step is for us to become more outspoken, especially about how truly horrific the teachings of the bible are. Then elect some non-religious representatives to office, and in a century or two, hopefully it's not just Christianity, but all world religions which will be politically irrelevant.

We're not trying to put a new authority in the bible's place, we're trying to get rid of that method of Authoritarian thinking all together.

That way we can focus all our efforts on fighting those damn Sea Otters.

Has it? If, not prosecuted but not lifted up by the Roman Empire, yes it might still be around, but it has also been used as a tool by the Romans and later the Holy Roman Empire as a means of unification, political gains and power has been a big part of the success of Christianity. And because people are put to the sword, because people are told to follow this religion but they don't have the interest to actually read the Bible and come to their own conclusions, most Christians are pretty ignorant about the Bible. Go look at the thread in Spooky News where Atheists and Buddhists and even Mormons tested better on religion than Christians did, and most of the questions were centered around Christianity. I'm often surprised that despite the fact I don't remember much about the Bible study we were forced to do in school, and the fact its been almost ten years now since I converted, I know more about the Bible than most Christians I know. How can the Bible be so important to them if they don't know what it says? How is it keeping them in check?

I do believe religion is important, it has shaped our culture for better and for worse, and many people still find value in it. But you have very little faith in your fellow human beings. The average person is not weak. Abhorrence to big sins like murder, I think, is completely human. They can logically reason why its not okay, they feel its not okay. And we still have many other ideologies. In Canada socialism does have enough of a stronghold on our minds that there is very strong resistance to having a two tier health system, we want it completely socialized. Enough people realize that it is a necessity and are perfectly willing to pay for it, even if they don't feel strongly enough to identify as socialist, maybe they're even Conservatives and most Liberals agree too. Feminism has changed laws and minds about women, even if a person doesn't think themselves as a feminist, the fact that marital rrape is no longer legal, for example, or that date rrape is recognized, is due to an ideology. Even the most fundamentalist Christian might be seen to subscribe to so called social Darwinism, when it comes to things like fighting health care. Even basic things, like saying thank you, holding doors open for others, standing in line, doesn't come from religion but rituals that have been impressed on us that we have a lot of trouble breaking. If someone cuts in line, a lot of people are just confused the ritual was broken, and might not say anything to them. We swim in ritual, and breathe ideology whether we realize it or not. There will be no vacuum.

We owe much progress to being able to tear down old ways and go forward with new, but the old ways don't go quietly into the night, they're still around. Religion was persecuted for years in China, particularly Confucianism, and now that they are legal again, its surprising to see how many people held on to those beliefs, even when it wasn't self serving, even when certain facets of those beliefs were contrary to progress (Confucianism condemned women to servitude and forced children to filial piety, to the point where a son could be executed for striking his father, hence the strong hatred for it during the Communist Revolution and Cultural Revolution.)

So, why does it survive? Is it because it really is a crutch? Again, there are many ideologies that we follow, whether we are religious or not. Without religion, we'd probably pursue one of those more earnestly. Or not. But when it is a crutch, faith and advocacy suffers. Its disrespectful to do good things just to make yourself feel better, no? Its a good side effect, but whats the point if its completely self serving? Why would God like you more if you worshiped him just because you believed you could get something out of it? Isn't this where the sale of indulgences, the worship of relics come in? And ultimately, the exploitation of that pathetic hope? Isn't that what makes faith abandoned when it is no longer self serving, or worse, makes fanatics?

Religion has a place, as a religious person I do believe so, but its not something I think other people need. I am religious because of personal experience, not because I feel I need it, because I'll be a weak person without it, but because personally, I feel like I'm missing out on the big picture and I'd like to see it, and personally, I've had experiences that led me to believe that Zen is the way. Other people have similar experience within the Christian faith, and believe like I do that they don't have the answers but want to find them, I know agnostics and even atheists who I can have wonderful conservations with about spirituality, who can check my beliefs for inconsistencies and play devil's advocate, and keep me on my way, and I find more companionship in them than I do with other Buddhists who believe because its a crutch for them or because they think the world is going to hell in a hand basket and want to feel superior to others, and try to convert each other.

Anyway, atheists are perfectly healthy people even if they are average, and still people who believe in something, even if it isn't supernatural things.

I think this video does a fantastic job of illustrating why a person can be perfectly fine, and perhaps better without religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

What have I been saying? "sorrow, disappointments, the downtrodden, the hopeless..." not the healthy, who do not need spirituality. You would jail someone who is saddened by the death of a loved one? I have been talking about the bible as a source of solace, not as a social law! I have said that it should not be used for law. Please go back and read my earlier posts.

Oh I see, so you mean the people who DO need a crutch. How can we inspire them without stories about Jesus and the love of God?

It's actually pretty easy

People who are sick, or downtrodden, or hopeless can easily find inspiration elsewhere, and what's better, when you talk about REAL things, you aren't lying to them anymore. Sometimes reality can be harsh and disturbing, but guess what? So can faith. Hell the christian faith (especially the concept of hell) is way more disturbing and de-motivational than the harshest things our universe has to offer.

Religion holds no patent on inspiration, and it's far better to lean on your fellow man than on a possible God(s). Religion just acts like it's the only thing which can uplift the downtrodden and give morality to the immoral.

It's all smoke, mirrors, and ages of authoritarian manipulation. At the end of the day, the only thing religion really has is it's own perfected methods of flim-flammery and some guys in silly hats.

Fuck the bible as a source of solace. All it does is give the hopeless a false hope. ...Jesus... will not save the world.

Look. I get it, dude. I'm an incendiary asshole. I mock your faith. I laugh at your ideas. I say that the things that are good and decent about your faith CAN AND DOES exist without the Jesus seal of approval and I understand that from that, you see me as some kind of enemy or some kind of threat.

Honestly, I'm not saying these things. You are. I never ONCE said that those who are mourning or downtrodden should be imprisoned. I said that IF YOU NEED A FUCKING HOLY BOOK TO TELL YOU HOW TO BEHAVE, THEN CLEARLY YOU'RE A GOD DAMN PSYCHOPATH AND YOU PROBABLY SHOULD BE LOCKED UP OR INSTITUTIONALIZED.

Now you're talking about those that need religion because they are weak with personality, then these are the type of people who are basically being molly coddled and made to feel better for choosing to ignore their potential or lacking the ability to appreciate their own existence. I'm willing to bet, that if religion WAS INDEED where it belonged, these "weak" people would actually have no other excuse but to do something productive with their lives or come to terms with their lot.

Life isn't fair. But I'd take sincere and honest fraternity over a unifying lie any day and I can't imagine anyone who would disagree.

Have you guys never heard of liberation theology?

So like I said, go ahead and replace it. Let's see how well your substitution does in a year or so. The proof is in the pudding, not the post. Knock down the bible and the other texts, but not until you have a viable replacement.

Loved the video by the way. That happens everyday already.

Not only is what you are asking me to do impossible (as I can't just up and "replace" the bible with some secular code of conduct at my whim). It would take WAY MORE than a year to see what effect said code would have on civilization.

Furthermore more it is fallacious to claim an idea safe from criticism simply because criticizer can't/does not present a viable alternative. If we're in the middle of the desert, with only a bottle of bleach and I tell you it's a bad idea to quaff said bottle of bleach, you can't say: "Oh yeah? Well what SHOULD I be doing smart guy? answer me that! Don't say I shouldn't drink bleach till you can give me something better to drink!"

So please don't insult my intelligence by trying to say I can't criticize Christianity If I haven't personally written a book of secular, atheist philosophy and somehow eclipsed the Abrahamic religions in adherents a year ago.

famished witty sports anchors with their own laugh track watching guys summit Mt. Everest while sharing half a turkey sandwich with stoically silent homeless men who broke into their office, is a daily occurrence?

Have I been living under a rock?

Nah. I'd rather see religion become totally irrelevant and then in that mindset, we'll see how the next 2000 years is in comparison.

Yeah, I've read about this. Thing is, it still stands that a good law or a good social value based on reason is far better than the exact same law based on faith. I mean, it's cute. More power to them. But I'm feeling a little blood thirsty to fight the sea otters of atheism and with even these guys in the picture, we may not be able to get to that glorious event horizon.

If I'm missing anything on their end, correct me if I'm wrong.

I am somewhat familiar with it.

My initial reaction is to say: "That's not good enough" as I feel that the majority of the biblical text is pro-authoritarianism, but I would still recognize a Liberation Theologist as a political ally of necessity.

I never said you couldn't criticize it, in fact I have publicly criticized Apostle Paul in the New Testament in this forum. But I am not surprised at your balking to put your paper where your mouth is and supply a better alternative.

It may surprise you to learn that I have publicly posted in this forum the intent to create a "Jesus only" bible, omitting laws or dictum's from the apostles, and only enough words of others for context, in terms of Jesus' replies.


I liked your analogy to the desert victims, in debate terms you are right, I should not have tried to push that suggestion. You are off the hook and free to just whine and do nothing to comfort your fellow man. I for one am not going to worry about it as the bible will obviously still be around far longer than the dust of our collective bones and will continue to help people, and also, as I am sure you would be quick to mention, also misused by sociopaths, politicians and pedaling files. But it will do more good than bad, so for now it will continue to be applied as I have been defending: imperfect but comforting, and improving peoples lives.

Meanwhile I will begin working on the Jesus bible and see if I can actually do more than just criticize.

Hey HP, sorry for taking you from the discussed topic, but I have a curiosity, as my Japanese prof used to say. I think you said previously that you are Roman Catholic, yes? It was to my understanding that Catholics subscribe to the Church's interpretation of things, and besides that, what about the Pope being a douche bag about things like homosexuality? Is it still okay to call him out on that, are you alone in your church, is it acceptable for lay persons to question the church, or is the Pope the keeper of the keys, can't argue with him?

Totally not going to use it to turn around and be like AHA, I'm genuinely very curious about it, my mom's Catholic but I can't ask her this kind of stuff.

This is quite a long thread and I don't feel like reading every post(especially since it's obvious from what I DID read that the arguments which ensued change every couple of pages), so I'm just going to comment on the OP and give my view on the Christian bible.

It's mostly common knowledge among atheists and agnostics that the Christian bible(in all of it's versions, languages, and interpretations) contradicts itself numerous times, however it is quite funny to read them all. 80% of Christians that you'll meet(including many priests/pastors) are ignorant to their own scriptures, which of course promotes ignorance to the religion in its entirety. Though hilariously ironic, it is not coincidence that atheists and agnostics are generally substantially more educated on religion than the theists themselves, because this knowledge is the reasons most atheists and agnostics have for speaking against theists.

My main reason for disliking Christians is, though they may be ignorant of it, the God they claim to love and worship is an evil, twisted, perverted asswipe who likes for his followers to murder, ****, pillage, enslave, and generally cause havoc upon those he dislikes, and yet will turn around and expect everyone to agree that he is all-loving and righteous. The few Christians whom actually are educated on their own scriptures will fight to deny the very words their bible speaks; using fallacies like "you're taking it out of context" and "that was a metaphor" and "God is beyond our comprehension". To be frank, this is not a surprise, because it is literally impossible to logically prove something which is based on faith, otherwise it wouldn't be a faith, would it?

Forgot to mention something. Educated Christians also like to use the excuse "the Old Testament was abolished in the New Testament" or "only Jews believe in the Old Testament". This is laughable and proves they are ignorant as well, because Jesus himself said that the Old Testament is, and always will be, valid. Here's one such instance where he said it: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." - Luke 16:17

As you pointed out before religon is a method of keeping people level headed and peaceful without becoming outraged. As far as I know, the public viewpoint is being gay is not okay according to the Old Testament; however, Christians follow Christ's teachings or abridgement of the Old Testament stating is is better to be kind and unstanding to all people. Therefore, you can be gay and go to church, but don't make a big scene about it.

Nope. You see, that's a fallacy on your part to assume that we DON'T do what we can to make religion less legitimate. To cast our votes in favor of pro-choice and equal rights under the law are also a small part of how we work to make it less legitimate. ALSO, this isn't the only place we communicate to others about the inconsistencies of the bible. God Tastes Like Chicken is a great example.

Fact of the matter is this, YES the bible will be around long after we have become dust, but don't think that just because our lives are so limited that our efforts are pointless because we wont be able to reap the fruits of our efforts.

As for your idea for a Jesus only book, I think Thomas Jefferson already made that. PLUS, your book STILL assumes that Jesus IS indeed the divine messiah.

Point being. Atheists and Agnostics are a rising minority in this country. Someday, that minority will become about half of the population. Observe and see that the momentum is simply that. We ARE seeing a gradual departure from superstitious thinking and it's not being forced this time, but being done organically.

HP, it's only a matter of time before religion is no longer a legitimate thing politically.

Honestly, doing away with religion would be extremely helpful for the downtrodden, the infirm, etc.

Currently, Christians are placing Republicans in power with unprecedented success, and most of them are content cut social programs and deny the poor healthcare, food, and jobs without a second thought.

Religious-based charities waste a great deal of their time and resources building churches and ministering. They do alot of good as well, but without that stupid book they could put 100% of their resources behind the work and help more people more effectively.

They also provide indispensable charity work. Many adoption agencies in the states are religious, many disaster areas rely on them. Not all keep most of the money for building churches, Catholic Charities claims to use 90% directly for its programs, Patrick Stewart thinks you're a prick if you don't think the AJWS isn't awesome, I get most my news from the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, and its been beaten in my head that to be a good Buddhist I need to help all beings. Not many religious based charities have the luxury of building holy buildings, and not all want to convert those they save, but a lot of them do a massive amount of work and we'd be crippled if they weren't there.

I don't think atheists are prone to be douche bags or anything, and most charities I support and volunteer with are secular, but religious communities do provide a way to get a charity recognized. Even the secular groups I'm apart of often have things donated from churches, for example a church offered its basement to us for a few events. I remember as a kid the churches would give us those unicef boxes to collect donations on Halloween, often the minister would make announcements for various events, some people I know really rely on the Salvation Army, a friend of mine is a minister of some sort in the SA (I really don't know anything about their ranks) and spent years in a school learning basically social work and came back hoping to start some much needed programs. The community itself is something thats very strong, influential and can be a very positive thing.

Sadly that does come back to bite us in instances such as the Catholic Charities threatening to stop its adoption services if it must cater to gay couples, which will be a nightmare, but supposedly secular adoption agencies have threatened the same.

Hey everyone! Saya just made religion TOTALLY LEGITIMATE! Let's all keep allowing religion into our social policies and keep saying that DESPITE us being Atheists, we have to go ahead and say "HEY, You're doing some good every now and then, so you MIGHT be right about this whole religion thing and it's more POSITIVE than it is negative!"

Saya, your arguments are dumb. A secular charity is WAY better than a religious one because it's not done to appease superstition. We've covered all that already.

Plus, we've already identified that you're more interested in lifting the teacher because of an emotional outpouring than you are of the actual teachings themselves. I swear, it's like you're more interested in being a Buddhist than you are about being honest and right. Tell me, Saya, I exist and am just as decent as you and have pretty much the same moral code and yet I'm totally atheist. Are you broken or something? If I can exist on these terms with no divinity, why can't you?

And as for this little tid-bit. A secular adoption service doing the same thing couldn't POSSIBLY be doing that out of fear of a social backlash. It would have to be the same kind of bigotry that the catholic adoption service is, right?

It's MORE likely that a secular adoption service does this from the religious right social stigmas that are in place right now. For fuck's sake, Saya, a candidate for the president of the USA is virtually UNELECTABLE if he were an atheist right now. You mean to tell me that a secular charity wouldn't feel those same pressures to toe the conservative line?

I'm as good as that guy named Jesus. I can cure a cripple with a prosthesis and I can walk on water when it freezes.

I didn't say that religion should be kept in social policies, I'm very much for the separation of church and state.

But secular charities are dwarfed by the religious. If the religious ones were to go away, we'd be fucked. Secular charities can also be guilty of keeping more proceeds than they should. And it isn't always to appease superstition, a religion can reason to its followers why its good to be, well, good. In Christianity, particularly Protestantism, as long as you have faith you'll go to heaven, you do not gain salvation by donating to charity. And its already been pointed out that Christian politicians want to cut social programs. So why does it also inspire so much charity? Because most religions incur a sense of community, brotherhood and goodwill. And some are even interested in mimicking the teachings of Jesus, fancy that.

There is no divinity in Zen Buddhism, I have no idea what you're talking about. Can I exist without Buddhism? Yes. Would I be as involved socially without Buddhism? I don't know, probably not, but maybe, its hard to say what my exposure to philanthropy would have been without it. I don't need it to function, no, I am not broken, I want it because I want to see something.

Its hard to say without asking, but its also stupid to think that a secular institution can't be cruel and bigoted, just as stupid to assume that any religious institution has to be.

I think in the face of losing income, business and most of all, being a bigot, an adoption agency (not necessarily charity) would simply comply to laws, especially in non-conservative states. What kind of a agency are you if you're willing to allow children to go without parents just to prove that you're just as bigoted as the next redneck? And thats assuming they're doing it just to keep the religious people off their backs and not bigoted themselves. I have seen charities cut off their noses to make a point that they won't back down in the face of backlash, how strongly do they believe in gay rights if they're willing to roll over for only potential backlash, not real?

That's easy, but would you die for your fellow man, die for strangers generations in the future?

That's what I thought.


I think I better take a stress pill and think things over. I am a tad cranky at the moment. Not a good time to reflect and debate.

Every individual who has died for an ideal which to him will create a better life after he is gone fits into that definition.

God FUCKING DAMN IT! You are just choosing to throw shit out there just to argue. First, you agree that politics should be secular and then the only point you're actually making overall is that religious charities should be around because without them we'd be fucked. I think the problem is, YOU can't imagine humanity having the ability to fill those vacuums. And not only that, this isn't even ABOUT those things to begin with.

First off, you name ONE secular organization that's done this and all you've proven is that they're quite CLEARLY bigots with NO FUCKING EXCUSE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. But you call a Catholic organization out for being bigoted and what do you get? People just saying, "They're just misguided." or "Well, that's what they believe in and we just have to deal with that."

FUCK. THAT. Seriously. Your points are amazingly dumb and actually, they're barely even applicable to this thread in the least.

You know what... you're not even making any points. You're just shooting off your 'net mouth.

HP, why are you responding to TN? He's a total idiot, and his comment was equally retarded.

I would like to point out however, that assuming Jesus was not divine, then it's unlikely he died for strangers and future generations. That bit was probably tacked on later.

Jesus the man was probably very different than the Jesus which is portrayed in the bible.

Wait, wait wait...

Every soldier for every country in the world
Martin Luthor King Jr
William Wallace
Leiv Livescue
Che Guivara
Hitler (even though he was a bad guy, he did believe he was doing right for Germany)
All the dudes at Alamo
Tecumseh (Actually a Navite American Christ figure)

Do I need to elaborate anymore?

Saying we should have a secular government isn't the same as saying we should end all religious organizations, and you know that. The services religious organizations are irreplaceable. I named one organization that denies same sex couples adoption, true, but I can also name religious organizations that do not ostracize as such. I think both organizations would be bigoted with no excuse, I'm not saying the Catholics are right in doing that whatsoever.

You know, I think you're so obsessed with being against religion no matter what you don't care about being honest or right. As of right now, no we would not have the ability to replace the work religious groups do, this is what allows the Catholics to throw a tantrum when gay rights get recognized because everyone knows that we depend on them. The government often can't pay for what they do, and millions of people world wide depend on their charity. This is a fact that bitching and whining online will not be able to change. By all means continue to whine and moan about how religion is the greatest evil known to man, but you seriously can't say that the charity work they do is useless and easily replaced.

Saya. You're a stupid. fucking. bitch. Quote me ANYWHERE AT ALL as to where I said we SHOULD get rid of them. The least I said is that I find it unlikely that we wouldn't be able to eventually fill those vacuums if society moved away from religion full stop. But no. You're getting all pissy and butt hurt because I'm taking an extremely hard atheist stance on the role of religion in politics and you're sitting there flapping your fuckin' dick suckers about charities as if that was EVER part of the conversation at all.

Guess what, Saya? Normatively, religious people VOTE and make policy based on their scriptures. H_P is an exception and there are a handful that are. BUT, the only way to actually undermine the superstitious from trying to shape our policies, is to EXPOSE RELIGION FOR WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. If we can start communicating with people and sharing ideas, ALLOWING atheism to be recognized as not a threat to faiths around the world, but the most secular and FAIR frame of mind in which to view our world, maybe future generations can be free from the bonds of superstition. Right now, atheists ARE seen as less trust-worthy than Muslims or Jews when it comes to politics in America. That has to change and that can only change when the biggest minority starts using their voice.

Fine. I'll be as fair as possible to make your soft sensibilities feel better. I get that a religious experience is a hell of a way to feel better about ones life and their role in it. But it's a placebo. It's always been a placebo and if we as people keep trying to "respect" other peoples' religions, we're going to continue to have to endure this social infection.

But for fuck's sake, Saya. Stop trying to paint me out as a monster. I'm not looking to burn scriptures, put religious people in camps, and legislatively outlaw faith. I don't want to do that on a governmental scale, I'm just saying that we DO have to start viewing religion for what it is. Our own little brand of delusions. Logically, I CAN'T say that I'm an atheist but it's okay that others aren't. How can I see the superstitious as something that's okay? One of us HAS to be wrong and it just so happens that I'm most likely the one in the right.

Thing is, society as we know it has been shaped in the kiln of religion, especially western culture when it comes to all the flavors of Christianity. But to move on and progress, we're going to have to start distancing ourselves away from our opiates and realize that just because our delusion of choice gives us a very profound emotional state, it doesn't mean that the world needs to reflect the BARBARIC values of your personally prescribed version of an invisible sky man.

It's a teeny, tiny point, but even our money says things such as, "In God we trust." Well guess what? That doesn't represent ME. It just represents the superstitious.

Mah ancestor.

I can't fucking believe it, but I must admit that at this point in my life I agree with what Kontan is saying.
Obviously a year ago I would have leaned towards Saya's side, defending the religiously zealous by pointing out the various good little deeds they do, but now that I think about it more I've come to the "mind blowing" conclusion that anyone can do good little deeds.
I've tried to steer away from religious and political topics on this forum and even in real life as to not make a fool of myself anymore than I already have in the past, but I want to speak my mind on this.

I like how Kontan describes religion as an opiate, because that is exactly what it is, a feel good drug. Humans obviously don't want to deal with pain, and when there is pain it's nice to blame it on something dark and evil. This is great and all...but it absolutely sucks giant, donkey dicks when you're questioning the truth and then something really bad happens. Because all this time you had something to go to. And then all of a sudden you don't. I know this because I just went through it. Here I am crossing over to atheism and then BAM I find out my brothers in the emergency room, close to dying. At that moment I wanted to go to God sooo fucking bad, I needed him. But he wasn't there, there is absolutely nothing there, all those times I prayed I was just praying to myself.

It was a HUGE wake up call. A perfect God would never create a world as fucked up as this one, he would never allow his "children" to have to suffer horrible diseases, for babies to get *aped and tortured...etc. etc.

We should learn how to deal with ourselves, let go of religion, and grow the fuck up.



(I apologize to everyone for having to deal with my ignorance in the past, I know I was a fucktard.)

What I want to now is why Kontan is getting to pissy.
You'd expect me to have several things to say in a thread on religion but this conversation is just turning me off.

Well they are both pretty stubborn.

I think what's happening is that people are misconstruing the things that others are saying, and getting "pissy and butt hurt" when they shouldn't be.

Religions provide an easy entry point for people to do charitable things, and it can be a very effective tool for letting lots of people know about said charitable events and opportunites.
And I agree about the sense of community that one can have in a religion.

But that doesn't excuse religious charities if they deny services to people who don't follow those things that don't affect other people. I can see denying charitable services (and calling the cops) to someone who eats babies, but for someone who is gay, or has had an abortion, it's ridiculous. Christians aren't even supposed to judge people, since God is the only one who can (according to what it says in their own book).

Did I get that right? People?

Kontan and Despanan: what if a charity that is run by a religious group *doesn't* apply bigotry to their clients?

This doesn't make sense. You can do charitable things regardless. . . I find religious charity to be mostly a ministry tool. I should know... I've volunteered enough at church in my lifetime.

I used to be like Kontan and have a vein pop in my head whenever I heard of anyone suggesting religion was capable of anything good. Maybe its going from one extreme to another, and I understand we live in two different countries. I don't mean to sound like Canada is enlightened our anything, but for the most part we've straightened out how to live with our differences, and I know it can work. We find other things to fight over most of the time. I do realize if you grow up in the south its not that easy to believe its possible.

But it doesn't have to be an opiate. I'm not deluded. As I said before, people have to realize it is a deeply personal thing. Its not something to make me feel better, it doesn't always feel good, but it cuts to something deep in the core of my being and its very difficult to put into words, much less argue about it. And its why I wouldn't ever try to convert someone, I can't make them have that experience. Organized religions have their doctrine, teachings and prescriptions, but the individual's faith is very personal and, well, individual. Maybe Christians have a similar feeling to mine, but ascribe it to God. Its not something you can study in a text book. I study religions in school all day long, but at the end of the day I can't tell you what its like being a follower of other religions. What is it like being a Taoist or Jainist? I don't know. Its not something I can convince them isn't true, if thats where their belief comes from. To do so would be to ask someone to deny their own experience, yes? What am I freeing them of, if I try to convince them that they are being deluded to submit to an evil evil doctrine?

Religious people can be incredible douche bags, yes, no denying that. Being the personal experience it is it has no place in government policies, and its no excuse for bigotry. If they decide to try and use their religion to manipulate others, they're asking to be put on the stand and having their doctrine questioned and thrown back in their faces. I don't defend zealots, but I'm willing to defend religion in general. But the quiet Christian minding his own business? Doesn't bother me. People deserve to question it themselves, and come to their own conclusions, whatever they may be. Its nice to have friendly debates, but at the end of the day you have to pick your battles. And when they are genuinely doing good (and many many many religious people do), and are on my side (as many religious organizations/charities are), why the hell would I antagonize them?

Depends on what it is, doesn't it? Like my church raised a lot of money for UNICEF, didn't give them an opportunity to teach Bosnian children the word of God. My parents probably wouldn't have thought of it on their own. When I did take advantage of a church offering services, like their basement, they didn't try to convert us one bit. A lot of people genuine want to help, and like I was saying, religious communities generally can really foster that sort of desire, and give them the opportunity and backing to do what good they want. If you're in a room once a week with people beating it over your head about the brotherhood of mankind, and then say "hey, want to help out with this?" you're probably more prone to help than if you stayed at home. Like I said, not that religious people are better or anything, its just like LaBelle put it, a very easy access point to these things.

Their actions would fly in the face of their scriptures. They want to do that, that's fine. But to do so, you go right back to cherry picking what you find to be worth following in a book full of bullshit. Which goes right back to the argument that if the bible was supposed to be the word of God, then why is the word of God so messed up? Then they're going to say that it was written by human hands and then I say, "Are these the leaders you REALLY want to follow? These are the guys you want guiding you on your "spiritual" path? Damn, even Buddha is technically more decent than the god in the bible."

You see, it's not my fault. As far as Christianity is concerned, I DIDN'T write the damned thing, bigoted fucks did. Go back and read the bible again. Yes, it says a lot of really nice, feel good shit, but it states quite plainly its stance on certain people and the behavior of their god is just plain old questionable.

As far as getting really pissy and butthurt, I'm actually not. I'm just using incendiary language partly because I feel like it and partly because I just don't really like Saya. Ironically enough, I would consider HP to be one of my boys.

Do I have a problem with people doing good things in the name of their religion? A little bit, but only topically. Do I think good deeds done without the religious seal of approval is technically better? Of course. I'm an atheist. I'm capable of looking over people's beliefs for a bigger, positive picture. But I do and and can only logically conclude that being a religious person is a character flaw, even if it is minor.

I actually liked HP the most out of this discussion. Saya was WAY more annoying. But, she's not an atheist, she's a Buddhist and I can't agree that a live and let live attitude is the best way to go. It would require me to say, "Hey, you have some silly superstitions, but it's okay, you might be right."

Oh well. I'm over this. HP is cool, Saya is once again annoying and dumb, and I'm an incendiary asshole. All is right with the world.

You'll have to forgive Kontan, Saya annoys him and he was on a tear yesterday evening for unrelated reasons. So I think he was using her as a scratching post. However, it IS really annoying that Saya continues to throw out straw-man after straw-man in this discussion:

and that's just this page. Again and again Saya has attempted to put words in our mouths, and paint us to be something we are not. She continues to do this even after I have pointed it out, and commented on how these positions are incorrect. It's getting to the point where she seems to think repeating these accusations over and over again will somehow make it true. Guess what, it doesn't work that way. Stop doing it, it's a cowardly and poor tactic.

Neither myself, nor Kontan have made any statements that we believe religion is incapable of good, secular organizations are exempt from bigotry (though in the case of Gay adoption, pretty much the only reason anyone would be against it would be religious-based) Or that we should do away with all religious organizations.

So you can see why Kontan is upset.

Personally I think he has been a little harsh, but I've overlooked it because:

A) He's right The ends don't justify the means and you can't just excuse an incorrect worldview because that's inherently dishonest. One of us has to be wrong, and one of us has to be right.

B) I think it's funny. (heh..."Flapping your dick-suckers")

and

C) I think Saya kinda brought this on herself. Many of her arguments strongly imply that so long as the people involved in it are good people we should give religion a pass because it's the polite thing to do. (I don't have to explain why that sentiment is wrong do I?) It's my suspicion that Kontan has gotten ruder and ruder due to his irritation with this tactic.

Anyway, I would actually like to hear you weigh in on this Alan. You've been kinda chirping here and there but I'm interested in hearing you expand on your ideas.

I think we're confusing the issue here. Again, neither I, nor Kontan have argued for the dismantling of religious charities. Hell, the charity I ran the Chicago Marathon for IS a faith-based Christian charity.

I have my own issues with faith-based aid (mainly because it's often a recruiting tool) but those are beside the point entirely.

Well all I can say from experience is that I've always seen "religious" charity used MERELY as a ministry tool. For example, I went on a mission trip to Eastern Europe a few years back, and I was told that I was going to be there spending time with orphans for a month. Once I got there they ended up making me witness to random people on the street and act in a drama that was used for ministry. I only ended up volunteering at the orphanage for 2 days out of that month. Well one day I started talking to this one old guy who was probably in his 80's, we were just having a normal conversation about the government, life in the US etc...we continued talking for like an hour and then one of my group leaders pulled me away and said that I should stop wasting time. If I wasn't doing Gods work, then it was pointless for me to spend time with that person. At the time I thought that the leaders knew exactly what they were doing...but now that I look back I'm like wtf???