Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

shruikan2553

Duggy747 wrote: »

"Well.............what's the point of living, then!?!

I just tell them there isnt a point and if their afterlife is so great why dont we all just kill ourselves. Atheists wont have to put up with a pointless life and they'll get to meet their god. These people usually like being alive so they tend to get the point then.

wow exuberant

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I just tell them there isnt a point and if their afterlife is so great why dont we all just kill ourselves. Atheists wont have to put up with a pointless life and they'll get to meet their god. These people usually like being alive so they tend to get the point then.

Reminds me of a Hitchens debate where a Christian says "I believe all aborted babies go to heaven" followed by applause, Hitchens then says "Well wouldn't we be doing them a favour by killing them?"

The guy was speechless.

goose2005

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ

Zombrex

goose2005 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ

Love that. It is odd that one of the best bits in all of Star Trek ends up in one of the worst movies in all of Star Trek.

endacl

Zombrex wrote: »

Love that. It is odd that one of the best bits in all of Star Trek ends up in one of the worst movies in all of Star Trek.

And Star Trek redifines 'worst' in so many many ways!

legspin

endacl wrote: »

And Star Trek redifines 'worst' in so many many ways!

Enjoying the re-boot, mind.

endacl

legspin wrote: »

Enjoying the re-boot, mind.

If I ever get a telly, and it happens to be on that telly in the unlikely event of me ever sitting down to watch said telly, I'll give it a chance. In the meantime I'm happy to take your word for it. Having suffered through every incarnation of Star Trek thus far inflicted I'm disinclined to hunt it out.

ShowMeTheCash

Just going to give my two cent on this topic, not that it will really add anything as the thread itself is somewhat childish... But sometimes we like to be childish

I am not necessarily a Christian nor am I an atheist, from someone that was brought up in very much a Christian house hold, bible class and participated in Church events and so on I have a relatively good understanding of the bible and Christian ideology.

I find it ammusing that by definition a Christian is someone that believes in Jesus Christ (Son of God) and an Antheist is someone that holds the belief that no God exists.

I guess the first question you need to ask yourself are you a Christian? Christian belief really is soley based in the Bible... Nothing else but I would go as far to say that 90% of Christians have not read it...

Next question are you an Atheist? Being an Atheist is the belief that no god exists! Most Atheists I have talk to are really more ignostic, someone that falls into the "I do not know column" but for the most part see's organised religion as something that they do not agree with.

I think the questions and answers posted, for any intelligent individual should seem idiotic.

When something cannot be explained such as why are we here? how did we get here? why do we just not run around killing each other? in no way stregthens the argument that god must exist! Likewise it noway does it deminish the idea that god could exist.

I do not understand Christians that aruge black and blue trying to persude people that their god does exist, you cannot prove it... but I also think you have missed the point.... It's about faith, the belief in something that you cannot see, touch or smell... You will not be able to prove it, I essentially think this was the idea else it would be easy, so why are you trying too?

I think Christianity as an idea is sound if you choose to embrace it, however like most organised religions it becomes corrupted by people!!! As a species we tend to mess most things up...

Unfortunetly a lot, not all, but a lot of Christians and Atheists although bolar opposites share the same narrow minded outlook on life. Like a dog chasing it's tail, this thread is pointless!!!! Which also renders my post pointless or does it?

God I love Paradoxes

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Next question are you an Atheist? Being an Atheist is the belief that no god exists! Most Atheists I have talk to are really more ignostic, someone that falls into the "I do not know column" but for the most part see's organised religion as something that they do not agree with.

There's nothing to stop an atheist being agnostic. A lot of people on this forum would describe themselves as Agnostic Atheists; they don't believe there's a god, but they can't say for sure that there isn't

I do not understand Christians that aruge black and blue trying to persude people that their god does exist, you cannot prove it... but I also think you have missed the point.... It's about faith, the belief in something that you cannot see, touch or smell... You will not be able to prove it, I essentially think this was the idea else it would be easy, so why are you trying too?

If you want to run a system of government, or impose laws, that have a religious basis you'd damned well better be able to prove that it has a basis in reality. Otherwise it becomes what we're seeing today: "You can't have bodily autonomy because my invisible friend says so".

I think Christianity as an idea is sound if you choose to embrace it, however like most organised religions it becomes corrupted by people!!! As a species we tend to mess most things up...

Can I ask if you've read the bible? It really isn't 'a sound idea if you chose to embrace it'; it's a modern veneer of 'God loves us all' over thousands of years of bible-based slavery, oppression, control, and misogyny.

ShowMeTheCash

You are getting in an argument over words.
Atheist in the narrow sense is someone that believe no god exists.. Essentially if you are not sure then you really are not an Atheist, in the same regard if a Christian beleives in god but is not sure on the whole Jesus Christ thing, then essentially they are not a Christian....

My post was aimed at the Atheism and Christianity in the narrow sense.

I tend to agree that religion should have no place in politics due to the diverse nature of creeds and beliefs but your you idea in that they better be able to prove it albeit idealistic is simply stupid. We live in a democracy where the mob dictates who we elect to run our country... Well I have a whole different argument around government but that is for another day...

I have read the bible:
Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ and the new testement essentially a collection of Strories and parables for one to aspire to, how you choose to interpret them is entirely up to you.... Can you give an example to your statement:

<Quote>It really isn't 'a sound idea if you chose to embrace it'; it's a modern veneer of 'God loves us all' over thousands of years of bible-based slavery, oppression, control, and misogyny.</Quote>

I stated before that it is people that tend to mess things up, the idea that a book is some how responsible for slavery, oppression, control and misogyny is a cop-out.... I am pretty sure the corrupt nature of humans is really the root cause of the above.

ShooterSF

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are getting in an argument over words.
Atheist in the narrow sense is someone that believe no god exists.

I believe vampires and unicorns don't exist. Doesn't mean I know they don't exist though. Remember, Atheism is a about belief not claim to knowledge. (Oh and add this to the list of questions!)

I stated before that it is people that tend to mess things up, the idea that a book is some how responsible for slavery, oppression, control and misogyny is a cop-out.... I am pretty sure the corrupt nature of humans is really the root cause of the above.

If you don't believe in the god of the bible then that seems correct. If you do however, then the blame lays on the character that is the God of the bible who is misogynistic, racist and not to concerned with democracy or slavery.

ShowMeTheCash

OK - Those who have the absence of a belief and those that that believe something does not exist. I get it, I was talking more about the latter...

The bible is a collection of books, written by a number of different people and re-written and re-written, people who wrote in line with the time in which it was written...

Christianity focuses on Christ and the books of the new testement.

Blame lays on the character that is the God of the bible who is misogynistic, racist and not to concerned with democracy or slavery.

You seem to take the view of the human understanding of something by people of a particular time and align that with your now "enlightened" undertanding of how you think god should be.

Also is previoulsy stated, the stories therein it more a testement of peoples understanding...

Even if you take this as a purely historical reference, you need to put into context of the time in which it was written and the laws that governed the land.

Can you explain to me why you feel the "God" of the new testement is the following:
misogynistic, racist and not to concerned with democracy or slavery...

I kind of already know what you argument on this will be but I fear you have missed the point I am trying to convey.

lazygal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I fear you have missed the point I am trying to convey.

Maybe you could save us all some time and explain your point in plain English.

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are getting in an argument over words.
Atheist in the narrow sense is someone that believe no god exists.. Essentially if you are not sure then you really are not an Atheist, in the same regard if a Christian beleives in god but is not sure on the whole Jesus Christ thing, then essentially they are not a Christian....

My post was aimed at the Atheism and Christianity in the narrow sense.

The problem is that Atheist and Theist are not narrow definitions they cover everything from Gnostic Atheist (believing that it is possible to know there are no gods) to Gnostic Theist (believing that it is possible to know that there definitely are gods).

I tend to agree that religion should have no place in politics due to the diverse nature of creeds and beliefs but your you idea in that they better be able to prove it albeit idealistic is simply stupid.

Why is it stupid? If someone is trying to make policy based on a particular interpretation of a book then why is it stupid to demand proof that this book is in fact rooted in truth especially when the person is claiming that the book is the literal word of the creator of the universe? Surely anyone claiming that kind of authority should have to prove that they have it?

I have read the bible:
Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ and the new testement essentially a collection of Strories and parables for one to aspire to, how you choose to interpret them is entirely up to you.... Can you give an example to your statement:

It really isn't 'a sound idea if you chose to embrace it'; it's a modern veneer of 'God loves us all' over thousands of years of bible-based slavery, oppression, control, and misogyny.

Slavery and oppression: When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Misogyny: Gang rape is AOK in the bible: Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Women have no authority: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

A woman gets raped? Her attacker gets off with a fine, and she is forced to marry him: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

I stated before that it is people that tend to mess things up, the idea that a book is some how responsible for slavery, oppression, control and misogyny is a cop-out.... I am pretty sure the corrupt nature of humans is really the root cause of the above.

The book gives absolute permission to murder, rape, and pillage anyone and everyone who is not a Christian (or Jew, as the case would be in the OT). If you want to claim that

"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)"

is the word of a loving god and that it's humans who have misinterpreted it (though it's hard to misinterpret:

""Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT))

, then I would suggest that you expand your biblical reading beyond the NT, the Psalms, and the lovely old Book of Ruth

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The bible is a collection of books, written by a number of different people and re-written and re-written, people who wrote in line with the time in which it was written...

Would you not then agree that since the bible has been re-written who knows how many times in line, as you say, with the times that it is therefore incorrect to refer to it as 'the word of God', and that it is also incorrect to use the bible to to justify one's, for example, denial of bodily autonomy to women?

ShowMeTheCash

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe you could save us all some time and explain your point in plain English.

It is easy to argue the flaws in the bible, I can easily pull out quotes from the bible i.e. Leviticus 18:22 and say this is clearly predujice against gay people... Numerous passages where the bible talks about people owning other people which appears to support the idea of salvery i.e. Exodus 20:17 etc.. etc.. (You will probably find more reference to this in the old testament)

My point is this, whether the bible was inspired by god or simply the construct of a book of rules for people to somehow manipulate the masses it was written none the less by people, flawed people who at that time had a flawed understanding... People can choose to believe in the god of the bible and choose to ignore the limited understanding and narrow minded ideas of the people that it or at least understand popular opinion of the time.
It has been suggested you cannot that they are one and the same... And somehow this "god" is somehow reponsible for the stupidity of the actions of people....
Again I think if people want to be brainwashed and do stupid things that is on them.
Similarly using the argument to discredit the idea of god due to peopleslimit understanding I think equally idiotic.

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

Would you not then agree that since the bible has been re-written who knows how many times in line, as you say, with the times that it is therefore incorrect to refer to it as 'the word of God', and that it is also incorrect to use the bible to to justify one's, for example, denial of bodily autonomy to women?

I do agree with you on this, I have no doubt in my mind that the bible has been changed and re-changed to fit the motives of those who wrote it.

ShooterSF

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Blame lays on the character that is the God of the bible who is misogynistic, racist and not to concerned with democracy or slavery.

You seem to take the view of the human understanding of something by people of a particular time and align that with your now "enlightened" undertanding of how you think god should be.

I don't think "how god should be". I don't believe in a god. I was simply pointing out that IF you believe in the god of the bible then it's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does.

Can you explain to me why you feel the "God" of the new testement is the following:
misogynistic, racist and not to concerned with democracy or slavery...

I kind of already know what you argument on this will be but I fear you have missed the point I am trying to convey.

Strange way to word your question but ok I'll start simple and ask some questions,

1. There are plenty of quotes throughout the bible that attribute such characteristics to the god of the bible. Do you contest that?

2. The god of the old testament is the same god as the one of the new testament. Do you contest that?

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do agree with you on this, I have no doubt in my mind that the bible has been changed and re-changed to fit the motives of those who wrote it.

So you would agree the god of the bible is a man-made construct? What, then, is the point of having faith it exists and worshipping it if it's madey-uppy?

SebBerkovich

In keeping with the current context of the thread i would like to add that i hate when i have to invoke the Bible when asked a question about religion...
Because it always ends the same way once you go down that road

me: Have you read that thing, It's racist and crazy.
them: You can't take it literally it's a metaphor
me: So... maybe the whole hating the gays thing is a metaphor
them: OH NO! God was being serious about that part
me: i'm out... <drops mic>

ShowMeTheCash

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think "how god should be". I don't believe in a god. I was simply pointing out that IF you believe in the god of the bible then it's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does.



Strange way to word your question but ok I'll start simple and ask some questions,

1. There are plenty of quotes throughout the bible that attribute such characteristics to the god of the bible. Do you contest that?

2. The god of the old testament is the same god as the one of the new testament. Do you contest that?

Have you ever studied history?

It's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does?

I am pretty sure it is, being that it was humans the wrote the bible, do you contest that?

Let me break it down for you... The bible did not float out of the sky in a magic cloud it was written by.... humanity!! Probably baised in many ways and laced with the agendas of influential people and that of popular opinion of it's time!

In one hand Christians tend to make in my opionion stupid arguments to prove the existance of God, similary your arguments to discredit... Actually I am not even sure who or what you are trying to discredit I find equally narrow minded.

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

So you would agree the god of the bible is a man-made construct? What, then, is the point of having faith it exists and worshipping it if it's madey-uppy?

People may choose to believe it was inspired by god, people can believe what they want.
If you want to beleive it is madey-uppy, cool your arguement however to why you believe this hold absolutly no more weight than someone that wants to believe it is the written word of god!

ShowMeTheCash

SebBerkovich wrote: »

In keeping with the current context of the thread i would like to add that i hate when i have to invoke the Bible when asked a question about religion...
Because it always ends the same way once you go down that road

me: Have you read that thing, It's racist and crazy.
them: You can't take it literally it's a metaphor
me: So... maybe the whole hating the gays thing is a metaphor
them: OH NO! God was being serious about that part
me: i'm out... <drops mic>

LOL - Them?
I am not a Christian nor do I take anything in the bible litterally, I mearly find it interesting...

But your way of thinking is a little scary! In one hand you seem to be supporting sexual equality but on the otherhand sterotyping an entire spawn of people.... There might be a name for that!

eyescreamcone

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think "how god should be". I don't believe in a god. I was simply pointing out that IF you believe in the god of the bible then it's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does.



Strange way to word your question but ok I'll start simple and ask some questions,

1. There are plenty of quotes throughout the bible that attribute such characteristics to the god of the bible. Do you contest that?

2. The god of the old testament is the same god as the one of the new testament. Do you contest that?

Is he really though??
If he's the same then he could be a touch schizophrenic - huge mood swing at the very least between old and new testaments in my opinion
(I must admit though, to not being a fully qualified psychiatrist yet, so my opinion may not be expert)

And for the believers - god made the world and everything in it (man and dinosaurs on the same day of course )
Then he sent his son down - miracle, miracle, miracle, resurrection.
Then nothing - nearly 2000 years of nothing... nada, zilch
(I'm not counting the moving statue in Ballinspittle).

Is god a tease? or has he taken early retirement??

Surely if he's still in the game we should be allowed to add an up to date testament to the good, but not great, book.

Where and how are souls made?
How are they transported into every person? or are they like an online account you can access through a cloud?

If god (or a subcontractor) makes these souls, why not put deliver them clean - no need to put the original sin in at all really (unless it was needed for recruitment purposes later).

etc etc





If someone says that they believe in god/s, are they not really shouting at the top of their voices...
"I'm a muppet.
I believe in things that there is clearly no evidence of.
Thank you for showing me that there is no sense in my beliefs.
But I will continue to believe in them though.
Why?
Because I'm a muppet"

SebBerkovich

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

LOL - Them?
I am not a Christian nor do I take anything in the bible litterally, I mearly find it interesting...

But your way of thinking is a little scary! In one hand you seem to be supporting sexual equality but on the otherhand sterotyping an entire spawn of people.... There might be a name for that!

I wasn't directing that at you personally, your current conversation just inspired me.

Also, It's not a stereotype of Christians specifically, "Them" is meant to refer to any people who pick and choose from their scripture to suit themselves. (it's bloody annoying)

e.g. Shellfish being an abomination is nuts but jesus rising from the dead... that makes sense. why? because God works in mysterious way and i love oysters.

endacl

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Shellfish being an abomination is nuts but jesus rising from the dead... that makes sense. why? because God works in mysterious way and i love oysters cold salty snots.

FYP

:P

SebBerkovich

endacl wrote: »

FYP

:P

You could go as far as calling them communion wafers, by any name, i'd eat them.

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People may choose to believe it was inspired by god, people can believe what they want.
If you want to beleive it is madey-uppy, cool your arguement however to why you believe this hold absolutly no more weight than someone that wants to believe it is the written word of god!

People certainly can choose to believe whatever they want but would you not say that it is damaging for people to be told that this is the infallible word of a deity when it is, in fact, five or six millennia worth of political propaganda?

Do you really think that the argument that it is man-made should hold no weight when you take into account the horrors that have been wreaked upon the word in the name of this book; the Crusades, Magdalen Laundries, the oppression of women, slavery, racism, and the fact that people are still trying to use it to impose their will on others, especially those who do not share their religious views?

ShowMeTheCash

I like history, I tend to question everything, not just the text why the reasons to why it was written...

There is a whole lot of Jewish law with regrards what you can do cannot do, what you can eat what you cannot eat the jewish faith a long with a few others still practise this today....

There is a load of scripture that crazed right wing Christians use for their own agenda, but then they tend to forget the ones like not clipping your hair or beard and various other rules they tend to leave out that according to the scripture can have significant consequences.

But I tend to believe this really has nothing to do with go, but to do with the agenda of ruling kings at the time...

ShooterSF

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Have you ever studied history?

It's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does?

I am pretty sure it is, being that it was humans the wrote the bible, do you contest that?

Let me break it down for you... The bible did not float out of the sky in a magic cloud it was written by.... humanity!! Probably baised in many ways and laced with the agendas of influential people and that of popular opinion of it's time!

In one hand Christians tend to make in my opionion stupid arguments to prove the existance of God, similary your arguments to discredit... Actually I am not even sure who or what you are trying to discredit I find equally narrow minded.

AGAIN, I'm still typing from the POV that the god of the bible exists. Outside of that, of course I believe humans wrote the bible and made it all up along the way, well not all of it, they also stole plenty of it from earlier religions.

Are you suggesting that a god could exist, that he communicated his message to his followers and that they manipulated and twisted his message to suit their own wishes, he then sent himself to earth in human form and never bothered to sit down and go over all the lies and incorrect passages in the old testament? On top of all that he still remains silent on these issues to us humans in modern times and yet threatens to judge us based on his laws without ever pointing out which are really his laws and which are human constructs.

If you want narrow minded look to people who believe in a god but know that their morality is the true morality of their god and anything else that contradicts that is interference of other human beings. That they are right on everything because their god agrees with them and even when he doesn't that is simply misunderstanding by other human beings.