Five Ways American Christians Ignore Jesus

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in Entertainment

America"s best christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, presents Christians" top 5 favorite ways to ignore Jesus.
There are 137 comments:
Female 523
*reason is in play is silly.

TL;DR true altruism more than likely does not exist. However, an innate moral code has been shown to exist.
0
Reply
Female 523
Actually, it is still an innate moral code. Just because it aids our survival doesn`t mean it`s not a moral code, it just means that morals are good things.

Also, nice things aren`t negated just because they benefit the person doing them. That`s the whole basis of the "an eye for an eye", "what goes around comes around," "treat everyone how you want to be treated" types of morals.

I have trouble seeing a difference between "I`ll be nice to him so that he is nice to me" and "I`ll be nice to him so our species will progess".

Also, everything nice you can do does benefit yourself, be it because of karma, because of fearing a god, because it furthers the species, because our brains release chemicals that make us feel happy when we do them, etc. ad infinitum. That doesn`t make us necessarily selfish or negate the nice things we do, it just means we have more reason to do them. Splitting hairs over which reason is
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>Also dang, there is evidence that humans have natural tendencies towards altruism and similar morals that allowed us to form societies which propagated the species much better<<

My point exactly, and what I was saying from the beginning.

>>>than survival of the fittest.<<<

But it was survival of the fittest gene pool.

Therefore it is NOT an "innate moral code" it is just evolution with the driver being increasing the likely hood that your progeny, or at least the progeny of your clan who likely share most of your genes, survive to the point that they reproduce, not true alturism.
0
Reply
Female 523
Alternately, God is a weird sort of genre savvy and knew that if a guy came with a book saying "Hey guys, I heard a voice that told me that we need to give freedom to all our slaves and equality to all humanity. It`s totally God`s word." he wouldn`t have been locked up or killed or just plain ignored. Same with the case of Jesus. Yes he was crucified, but I would have to imagine that would have happened a lot sooner if he came in talking about the kind of morals we have today.

So perhaps God is trying to ease people into not being pooheads, so we kind of just need to go with the flow and interpret the bible in new ways as we go along.

But again, my personal opinion is that none of it is real, I just felt like throwing that out there.

Also dang, there is evidence that humans have natural tendencies towards altruism and similar morals that allowed us to form societies which propagated the species much better than survival of the fittest.
0
Reply
Female 523
I am an athiest, but just to play Devil`s Advocate (Or God`s Advocate in this case?) about the whole "Bible must be read in context with the time" thing- while I do admit that normally I find it weird that an omnipotent being couldn`t author a rulebook that would always be relevant, I can see a sort of scenario where the bible could be more or less legit, and still context-senstive.

Let`s say that there is/was a god, and back in the biblical ages he did indeed have man write the bible while influenced by himself. It is possible that God only intended to send out the morals themselves, and God`s word was interpreted in context-sensitive ways by those writing the bible, such that there is indeed a god`s word in the bible that still needs some interpreting done. Essentially, like a short but really pooty telephone game.
0
Reply
Male 718
i LOVE Betty Bowers, ive followed her ever since her Landover Baptist website :D
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]There is none. That is why it is faith.[/quote]

Hmmmm... okay.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>Because God is working in our lives to help us understand his purpose.


Proof?<<

There is none. That is why it is faith. Yet somehow I know it is true.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] Means don`t pray just to be seen praying, don`t make a spectacle of yourself.[/quote]

...and these people weren`t making a spectacle of themselves?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
That does not mean homosexual relationships or bachelors for life were or are immoral.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] ned together, let no one separate."

Please note the "Male & Female" part, he did not say "Male & Male" or "Female & Female".[/quote]

Out of context
0
Reply
Male 10,855
dang said:
[quote]You must read the bible in the context of the society and norms in place when it was written.[/quote]

NottaSpy said:
[quote] That is exactly what Atheists want, keep the Bible in context. It is a 2,000 year old book that has no place in modern society.[/quote]



I since a cognitive dissonance here.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] Because God is working in our lives to help us understand his purpose.[/quote]

Proof?
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>The problem is that you are trying to assign it power it DOES NOT HAVE and never did have.<<<

A mistake I should point out that a lot of Christians make as well.
0
Reply
Male 663
@patchgrabber the wheel of power really?

I do not believe or have faith in God because of the Bible. So your logic circle is wrong. I believe and have faith in God because I know what my life was like before I did and I know my life now is better. Circle broken.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>So God wrote an ancient book that no longer applies<<< Shen did I say it no longer applies?

>>so it is up to you to interpret for yourself what it means now so that you can follow God`s unknowable plan?<< No it is up to you to seek help in understanding God`s will.

>> Are you listening to yourself? <<

Umm yes I am. Are you failing to see that you are missing the point. The Bible is not a text book on alchemy, or math, or science, or biology. It is a story God gave us to help us understand why his son came and died on the cross. The problem is that you are trying to assign it power it DOES NOT HAVE and never did have. It is not a set of rules it is a dialog written in a language and style the people it was written for at the time could understand. In it God has shown the several ways he has tried to deal with humanity and the failings of each attempt. Now he is dealing with humanity through his son. At the end
0
Reply
Male 663
>>> You cannot argue a point until you have seen the evidence. So go see it.<<<

OK I am back. Then show and or describe the evidence. I have by the way provided a explanation of why the only possible "inate moral code" is the preservation of ones own genes. But you have tactfully ignored that and continue to respond with "its there I just can tell you." I do not need to go talk to the flat earth society to know they are wrong. I do not need to go talk to the alchemist to know they can not turn lead into gold. If you care to debate the presence or absence of an innate moral code other than the one I have described, then do it. Other wise it is a fact not in evidence in this discussion.
0
Reply
Male 86
@Linkengerger

You can actually get a lil book called a Diaglott (I think thats the spelling). But, from my understanding, its a literal word for word greek translation into english.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
Everyday is judgement day eh? Sure seems to be.
0
Reply
Male 570
linken, read the book of mormon. it`s kinda like a bible 2.0
0
Reply
Male 1,164
They nailed the... nail on the head with the praying and divorce thing. Those have been my biggest pet peeves with Christians.

"Why would God write a book that needs to be interpreted? Why hasn`t God come out with Bible 2.0 (maybe he can`t find a publisher)?"

Actually, I think the problem is Bible 2.0 already exists; and it was made hundreds of years ago. The versions we use currently are closer to Bible 70.0 when you account for both language and version translations. Actually it could be higher than that -- it`s been a while since I researched it. Basically, if anyone quotes the bible, it`s best to find out what that verse said in the traditional Greek/Hebrew script it was written in, and then call people out on it.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
@dang007, seriously? tl;dr
0
Reply
Male 5,811
0
Reply
Male 881
dang007, you can think it is a debate trick, but it really isn`t. There is no way to show you the evidence here, it just is not possible. I am not resting my argument on the fact that there are college courses. I am saying, go take them and see the evidence for yourself. That is what I did. I don`t expect you to take my word for it. Go and see for yourself. You cannot argue a point until you have seen the evidence. So go see it.
0
Reply
Male 881
dang007, you are making a mess of explaining context and interpretation.

So God wrote an ancient book that no longer applies, so it is up to you to interpret for yourself what it means now so that you can follow God`s unknowable plan? Are you listening to yourself?

Why would God write a book that needs to be interpreted? Why hasn`t God come out with Bible 2.0 (maybe he can`t find a publisher)? How can you know God`s plan so that you know how to interpret the Bible, but not know God`s plan when it is needed to explain the very unGod-like things that happen?

0
Reply
Male 1,598
OMG RELIGION! Let`s all debate it while not really listening to what others have to say!
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>Nope, not a debate tactic, it is actual science. The evidence for innate morality is overwhelming. <<<

I love this response.

Debate trick
1. Appeal to higher power. (College courses)
2. Claim it is too complicated for us mortals to understand. (1000 character limit.)

Now for my debate trick.

I have to leave the conversation as I just received a burglar alarm at my house. Maybe God is trying to speak to me;)
0
Reply
Male 881
Nope, not a debate tactic, it is actual science. The evidence for innate morality is overwhelming. I understand that you don`t want to believe it. There are college courses that can enlighten you as to what science has found and they are not limited to 1,000 characters. You will also find that in college you don`t have to deal with links to agenda driven websites that spew nonsense that has been debunked long ago.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>His instructions are more confusing than ones from Ikea, although I guess they both contain magic since those little wooden pegs seem to go where they are supposed to of their own accord.<<<

This is a funey joke.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>How can one interpret what is supposed to be the word of God? <<

Because God is working in our lives to help us understand his purpose.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>Also, how do you then explain all the different denominations of Christians? <<

I believe God has different plans for different people. I also believe that some who call themselves christian are anything but.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>The archaeological evidence shows a very different context from that which Christians use to rationalize their beliefs.<<<

Indeed then you understand that this in NOT the context in which we live today. So we must interpret the Bible with respect to the context it was written in. For example slavery was prevalent in the time the bible was written. The passages in the bible regarding slavery are written using a at the time common action to teach that we should treat each other better. Treating each other with respect is the point not whether or not you should have slaves. As this thought grew we came to realize that the act of slavery was the antithesis of treating each other with respect and abolished the practice.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>How do you know the "reason and purpose"? Also, aren`t you pushing your own agenda by claiming to know the reason and purpose? <<

I did not say I did. But I reject the argument that you can take individual statements out of the bible and interpret them without the context, social, historical, and surrounding passages.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>You are very wrong about there not being an innate moral code. The evidence is overwhelming that it exists. You are either unaware of the evidence, do not understand the evidence, or are willfully dismissing the evidence because it poses a threat to your beliefs. <<

Nice debate tactic. I either admit there is one, or I must be ignored because I say there is not one.

Evolution is the survival of the fittest. Period. The survival of a set of genes is strongly improved if those genes or traits imparted by those genes improve the chances of successful reproduction of the carrier of the gene or trait. Thus ANY innate moral code would have to be strongly biased toward protection and advancement of yourself and your offspring or it would have died out long ago.

Is there an innate moral code, no other than benefiting ones own small social circle.

0
Reply
Male 5,811
"No by reading and understanding the reason and purpose not by trying to push your agenda. You are the one cherry picking phrases out of context and meaning."

Well since events like the council of Nicaea decided which testaments made it into the Bible, that I`d consider cherry picking. Also, how do you then explain all the different denominations of Christians? They all differ on certain interpretations of that same book, or councils regarding the book. Should interpretation even be allowed? How can one interpret what is supposed to be the word of God? His instructions are more confusing than ones from Ikea, although I guess they both contain magic since those little wooden pegs seem to go where they are supposed to of their own accord.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
It`s all a pile of wank
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]No by reading and understanding the reason and purpose not by trying to push your agenda.[/quote]
How do you know the "reason and purpose"? Also, aren`t you pushing your own agenda by claiming to know the reason and purpose?

You are very wrong about there not being an innate moral code. The evidence is overwhelming that it exists. You are either unaware of the evidence, do not understand the evidence, or are willfully dismissing the evidence because it poses a threat to your beliefs.

I have not cherry picked anything (except the word "abomination" in the Sam Harris thread, but that was just a jab). I have studied historical origins of Christianity to understand the context in which the Bible was written. The archaeological evidence shows a very different context from that which Christians use to rationalize their beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>We have learned that the Bible can only relate to modern life through cherry picking and complicated interpretations.<<

No by reading and understanding the reason and purpose not by trying to push your agenda. You are the one cherry picking phrases out of context and meaning.

>>We have seen how people can ignore their innate moral code and we are coming to understand how to prevent that.<<

There is no innate moral code other than me and my family come first. That is the driving force of evolution. Period. Anything beyond that is artificially created by those in power who are doing what is best for them and their family.

I do not know if God is real or not but I do know my life is better because of my faith that he is.
0
Reply
Male 663
Exekiel 22:12

In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Seems like interest is not forbidden after all just excessive interest. This passage is in reference to exerting unfair power over other humans.

So again your argument that the bible forbids interest fails.
0
Reply
Male 663
Seems like we need a lesson in context and READING THE WHOLE PASSAGE.

Deuteronomy 23:19 20 and 21
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.
Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.
0
Reply
Male 881
@Lord_Jereth, you are correct. The problem is that I can`t expound on various parts when trying to make a point since I am limited by 1,000 characters.
0
Reply
Male 288
I`d do her in the butt also.
0
Reply
Male 2,855
its stupid to attack religion based on what an old book says when there is a fictional dude passing judgement on everyone over the clouds
0
Reply
Male 723
@NottaSpy

While I totally agree with and endorse your statement, I do have one little quibble:

In the case of the old testament, parts of it are between 4000 and 6000 years old. Parts of the new testament are less than 2000.

But yes, in 2011, we`re expected to live up to the ideals and teachings of 4-6000 year old, goat herding, barely bronze-aged, animal sacrificing, desert and hill dwelling savages; 99% of whom were illiterate and subsisted, intellectually, on word-of-mouth stories, parables and legends, by people who have less of a grip on reality or history than they did.

<sarcasm>
Sounds totally legitimate to me!
</sarcasm>

8-) LJ
0
Reply
Male 288
Really? I cant be the only guy that would do this chick. No one would turn down a blow job from her though right?
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]You must read the bible in the context of the society and norms in place when it was written.[/quote]
In trying to support the Bible, you have defeated the religious argument against this video, well done. That is exactly what Atheists want, keep the Bible in context. It is a 2,000 year old book that has no place in modern society.

We have learned that the Bible can only relate to modern life through cherry picking and complicated interpretations. We have seen how people can ignore their innate moral code and we are coming to understand how to prevent that. It is high time that we use our vast knowledge to hold each other to a higher standard than the ideals in a 2,000 year old book written by a barbaric people.

It is time to realize that the angry, childish, and petty God of the Bible does not want the best for mankind. It is time to realize that we all want to love our neighbors and we don`t need the teachings of Jesus as a crutch.
0
Reply
Male 723
@crystemp

"Could you point out exactly where the bible says that Christians cannot lend money?"

In fact, there are many in the old testament that talk about the practice:
Exd 22:25, Lev 25:36, Lev 25:37, Deu 23:19, Psa 15:5, Pro 28:8, Eze 18:8, Eze 18:13, Eze 18:17, Eze 22:12.

Specifically: Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.

Enjoy,

8-) LJ
0
Reply
Male 288
Ehh, I`d do her I guess
0
Reply
Male 663
The bible is a book on theology about god`s relationship with man. It was written at a time when there were slaves and wars and sexism. You must read the bible in the context of the society and norms in place when it was written.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>morimacil123; Could you point out exactly where the bible says that Christians cannot lend money? I`ve never come across that passage.<<<

Because it is not their. The whole video tries to confuse people by making factually incorrect statements.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
@Heureux
"Actually, my point is that atheism is a prejudice because it rejects the testimony and experiences of a group of people solely because of who they are, without any evidence or experience to affirm it`s own claim."

If you are going to go through life trying to paint atheists with this same brush then you are just as guilty of what you are trying to project onto atheists. If you look around and actually talk with people instead of at them you will realize that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics that used to fall under the Christian umbrella, who have heard the testimonies and experiences, and who have decided to leave that path.
0
Reply
Female 13
morimacil123; Could you point out exactly where the bible says that Christians cannot lend money? I`ve never come across that passage.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Suffice to say, Heureux, I think we`re all willing to accept that Atheism is a prejudice.

As long as you`re willing to admit that what you`re doing is like the KKK calling the Black Panthers prejudiced.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Heureux - You`re wrong. Those are all assumptions you are making. Assumptions that help you preserve your prejudice against atheists. You understand the logic behind this but for whatever reason it just isn`t sinking into that head of yours. Good luck with that.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
That last sentence should read:

`man` has generally been seen as ONLY male-specific for just the last 30 or 40 years! You could not be more wrong.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]However, women were not considered to be men (Use of the word "man" to describe mankind in general is fairly recent, previously it was simply used to describe a male human).[/quote]

That is not just wrong, it is a complete reversal of the truth.

"man" is the Old English word for "person". It was completely sex-neutral from before recorded history began and throughout the existence of Old English. Sexing it required forming a compound word with an OE sexing adjective. Wereman (male person) or wifman (female person).

It wasn`t until Middle English that `were` fell out of use (possibly because the changes in language had morphed common usage of `wifman` into `woman` and `wereman` into `we`man` and they sounded too alike.) From then on, `man` was either male-specific or sex-neutral depending on context.

`man` has only generally been seen as male-specific for the last 30 or 40 years! You could not be more wrong.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
This is wonderful.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
WIN!
0
Reply
Male 616
don`t care
0
Reply
Male 15,171
Atheism is neither a prejudice, nor arrogance, per se. Believing in imaginary supernatural beings simply because your community does is just something that doesn`t make much sense to us.
0
Reply
Male 171
But examples of pick and choose in religion abound.
One of the best example are banks.

Did you know that it is forbidden for christians to lend money, or work in banks? Well at least it was.
But then Protestantism developed, which conveniently allowed ppl to lend money without going to hell. They were hunted across most of europe by the catholics, and a lot of them came to geneva (in switzerland), protected by Calvin.
Those banks prospered, and now switzerland is quite known for its swiss banks (and chocolate).

What happened?
Religion forbids lending money
Pick and choosers choose to ignore that, found protestantism, lend money.
Catholics see its good buisness, choose to ignore that too, and also lend money (but without creating a new religion)
Everyone lends money, even though its against the bible.

A great example of why pick and choose makes christianity popular, and how it tends to happen.
0
Reply
Male 171
In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Women are also considered to be inferior in the bible. Again, to some, that might seem to clash with some of the other text written, about equality amongst all men. However, women were not considered to be men (Use of the word "man" to describe mankind in general is fairly recent, previously it was simply used to describe a male human).

Its just pick and choose on what you want to believe in, mostly because what the bible actually tells you to do, is only partly a good set of ideals, and to other part completely horrifying.
0
Reply
Male 171
Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

and so on.
Careful reading of the bible will reveal something very interesting:

All men are equals.
Slaves arent considered men.

Thus there is a slew of passages that promote slavery, and also some that promote equality, and in appearance, they seem to contradict each other.
0
Reply
Male 171
And yes, by your definition of prejudice, atheism is a prejudice. Thats fine with me.
By your definition of prejudice, being against racism is being prejudiced against racists, being against sexism is being prejudiced against sexists, being against rape is being prejudiced against rapists, and so on.
Most people use a different definition for prejudice than you do. But no matter, lets not get hung up on words.

Since according to your definition, rejecting anything at all is prejudice, no matter the reason for rejecting it, then fine by me tbh. You can call me prejudiced for rejecting belief in a fairytale, or prejudiced because I hate racists, fine. Was that your whole argument?
0
Reply
Male 171
""Also, you might want to know that religion doesnt condemn racism, or sexism, for example. Or at least, christianity doesnt, christianity is firmly for racism and sexism, if you ever read the bible."

No, you are wrong. Do you consider lying to be moral behavior? Or are you just completely ignorant about religion and Christianity?

The core precepts of Christianity absolutely reject prejudice of any kind."
Its true that christianity rejects lying, but it is very clearly in favor of racism and sexism, most of the old testament talks about the "chosen folk" (racism), and women are to never have a higher social status than men (sexism).

0
Reply
Male 2,737
I HATE Jeebus AND his cousins now!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Atheism is not an ego boost over you.

Even if it were, I wouldn`t need it.

The difference in intelligence is more than enough.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Quibbling over "bald" vs. "shaved" is just dishonest.[/quote]
And BTW, in case you actually DO come back to this forum:

No, there actually IS a difference between "bald" and "shaved."

My father is BALD. His hair fell out, and never grew back in again. He has nothing up there, it`s smooth and will never be anything but bald. He doesn`t need to consistently have it shaved or styled, there just isn`t hair there. It`s not a HAIRCUT, because there IS NO HAIR.

My little brother, on the other hand, SHAVED his head. He still has stubble, he can let it grow back out if he wants to, there are still hair follicles under the skin, he can still style it, and on top of it all, he still needs to get a HAIRCUT every so often to keep it shaved. Which means that there is STILL HAIR THERE.

It`s only a HAIRCUT, if there`s HAIR to CUT.

It`s only a BELIEF, if there`s SOMETHING to BELIEVE in.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]I would trust a stoner in a court case. Crack head, no. Meth head, no.[/quote]
Yeah, looking back at that, I really shouldn`t have included stoners in that group.

Still, the fact stands, there`s always a risk that they were high when they were a "witness," and that their testimony or judgement will be altered by that.

Unless he can prove he wasn`t high at the time, I would take his account with a grain of salt.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I get the feeling he realized he`s lost, and is skipping out.

Ah well, I`ll check here again tomorrow. See if I can catch any more of his hypocrisy in action.

I`d turn it into a drinking game, if I weren`t underage. And if I wouldn`t die from alcohol poisoning.
0
Reply
Male 4,844
"Would you trust a bunch of stoners and drug addicts as witnesses in a court case?"

I would trust a stoner in a court case. Crack head, no. Meth head, no.
0
Reply
Male 881
Only 5 ways? I`ve have personally seen a woman dressed in her "Sunday best" intentionally bump an obviously poverty-stricken woman off the end of a pew in God`s house before a service. The faithful can construct some pretty bizarre rationalizations for their beliefs. I`m sure they chose 5 ways, rather than 1,005 in order to keep the video short.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]The Berlin Wall was built by atheists, and torn down by people of faith.[/quote]
Correction, the Berlin Wall was built by politicians using atheism as a political tool.

Just like the Crusades and Inquisitions were launched by politicians using Christianity (particularly Catholicism) as a political tool.

And the Westboro Baptist Church was built up by a bunch of inbreds using Christianity as a tool.

Works both ways, buddy. That, my friends, is called an Ad Hominem attack, something that Heureux just a few posts ago, called a tactic of atheists, homophobes, and racists. Look it up for yourself, folks, I`m coming too close to the 1000 character limit to quote it.

Heureux, You`re nothing but a lousy hypocrite.

Or a troll. Which is all too likely, considering this is the internet and you`re using an almost completely anonymous account without even an avatar picture.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]Prejudice (or foredeeming) is making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy.[/quote]
I like how Heureux posts that definition as if it supports his claim the Atheists are prejudicial. It is the struggle to NOT be prejudicial that drives people to be Atheists. Atheists do no make an assumption about God because they are unable to do so with guaranteed accuracy. It is Heureux that has made an assumption about God, otherwise he`d be an Atheist.

It is possible to not believe in God and still be unsure of God`s existence. I think a big hurdle for people accepting Atheism is the need for answers. There are 2 answers to the big unknowns in the universe, "God did it", and "I don`t know". Atheists are comfortable with "I don`t know", but the religious are not.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]rejects the testimony and experiences of a group of people solely because of who they are, without any evidence or experience to affirm it`s own claim.[/quote]
Do you reject UFO enthusiasts claims?

Would you trust a bunch of stoners and drug addicts as witnesses in a court case?

Would you believe a group of scientists with some amazing new "discovery" until you`d seen it for yourself?

I have yet to see, experience, or even encounter evidence that acts as proof of the existence of some divine being. Until I encounter proof, I shall remain skeptical. And that`s all atheism is. Healthy skepticism.

Whether a group of people 2000 years ago supposedly saw a man walk on water is none of my concern. I saw Chris Angel walk on water too, actually. I`ve also seen someone turn water blood-red with a very fine, nearly invisible powder. But neither of them are the messiah, and neither of those tricks were "miracles."
0
Reply
Male 4,844
No one tells an Atheist how to think.
0
Reply
Male 483
Huer:
Ignorance about religion?

I was raised by a Methodist dad and a Catholic mom. I have attended every christian denominational church and talked the pastors personally. I have spent many hours reading about world-wide religions. I did all of this because I did not myself believe in what the church was founded on.

When I finally decided that I PERSONALLY didn`t believe in a god, I really started exploring life. I didn`t become immoral, angry, or self-centered. It just allowed me to mature naturally without other beliefs being forced on me.

I don`t dislike Christianity. I just don`t believe what they believe. It`s infuriating to me that because I don`t believe in what other people claim they`ve experienced, I`m a BIGOT, according to your logic.

By the way, isn`t saying that my "ignorance" is aid to your anti-atheist argument a "false generalization"?
0
Reply
Female 295
@kittyloaf, like I said, it`s NOT a rule book. It`s a book of histories, stories, and prayer. Have you ever seen old written records before? They are just as biased and full of exaggerations as the Bible.

We read the Bible, we based our beliefs on the common belief within it, and we learn from it. People who view the Bible as a rule book are the people who are homophobic, virgin crusaders, and we can all agree that God never intended for us to hate one another and force people into believing in him.

The Bible is a historical record, which Christians should read in order to learn about the past, learn about God and Jesus, and learn about our past mistakes and try to better ourselves. You just have to pull off all the views of the author to get to the core point (a reason why there is multiple books instead of just one, even though they are all basically telling the same story).
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Heureux, by your definition of prejudice, I could declare Christianity a prejudice. In fact, all religions are prejudices while we`re at it.

Indeed, you call atheism an ego boost? Well, what is Christianity?

"I`m following the right god, I`m going to heaven, you`re not, unless you decide to follow the same god I do. Otherwise, you`re going to be punished for all eternity. It`s just fact."

Claim all you want that it`s not, it`s doing the exact same thing you accuse Atheists of doing.

Have fun with that, you damn hypocrite.

Oh, and as for your fearing fire and brimstone, why else would you follow the moral code? I mean, it`s not like you have any reason besides your religion holding you back from committing the most heinous of crimes.

Unless... *GASP* Humans have an innate moral code, which atheists follow rather than some book, and we follow it just because it`s the right thing to do!
0
Reply
Male 1,054
When you cannot refute someone, dismiss them as a troll, or an idiot,

cuz yeah, that`ll stroke your ego real good.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"That, my little moron,"

This sort of response indicates two things:

1) an inability to be civil
2) an inability to present a rational rebuttal.

Quibbling over "bald" vs. "shaved" is just dishonest.

Your argument is entirely ad hominem, a symptom of prejudice. It indicates that you presume yourself to be superior, without evidence, but chose to prove that superiority with inferior behavior and inferior argumentation.

Homophobes do the same thing, so do racists. When challenged, they rely on insults, lies and personal attacks, too.

The striking, and consistent parallels between how atheism is expressed, and how all other prejudices are expressed, are real, and crucial.

And the more people become aware of them, the more people will realize that atheism is just another trendy, fad prejudice. It gives people who cannot openly be racist, sexist or homophobic an acceptable way to feel superior
0
Reply
Male 813
You know he is trolling yet you keep responding. Well done dip poo.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Irish

Your post provides evidence that substantiates my assertion. Thanks.

"your "point" that "atheism is a prejudice because it claims the religions are wrong""

Actually, my point is that atheism is a prejudice because it rejects the testimony and experiences of a group of people solely because of who they are, without any evidence or experience to affirm it`s own claim. The false generalizations you used, not only indicate ignorance about religion, but also demonstrate prejudice on your part.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Bald can be a haircut - achieved by shaving.[/quote]
That, my little moron, is referred to as "shaved," not bald.

If you don`t even know the difference between bald and shaved, then obviously this argument is wasted on you. All your brain cells (what few you have) are full to capacity.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"First off, Atheism is a belief like bald is a haircut."

Atheism is not based on fact, it is based on the lack of evidence or facts. Bald can be a haircut - achieved by shaving. So it is comparable to the lack of hair, whether by shaving or other means.

"Second, atheism as does not "condemn" ANYTHING."
Sure it does. But since it does not condemn lying, there was nothing stopping you from making a false claim. Atheism condemns people of faith, their experiences, character and lives.

"That we do not see any proof or reason to believe in a divine figure, and so we do not believe in a divine figure."

Since knowledge of the Divine is based on the personal experiences of other people, atheists refuse, without evidence or experience, to believe most of humanity, passing judgement on all people of faith.

That is prejudice at work. Atheism is a prejudice, and nothing else. It is just ego-aggrandizemen
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]However, declaring, as atheism does, that all people of a group are wrong, is prejudice.[/quote]
Like you declaring that all atheists are wrong and prejudiced?

Calling the kettle black, much?
0
Reply
Male 483
Heureux: You`re still trolling our forums? I don`t understand it.

What I think is most infuriating to atheists arguing your "point" that "atheism is a prejudice because it claims the religions are wrong" is that Christianity (and all religions) do the same to every other belief. Christians believe atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc. are wrong. Muslims believe YADA YADA YADA.

Atheism is just proclaiming "I don`t believe in God", not "THE IDEA OF GOD SHOULD BE BURNED TO ASHES".
0
Reply
Male 1,054
The Berlin Wall was built by atheists, and torn down by people of faith.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]atheism, the belief, expresses no condemnation of anything except religion.[/quote]
First off, Atheism is a belief like bald is a haircut.

Second, atheism as does not "condemn" ANYTHING. It is nothing more than the LACK of belief in any "divine figure."

While individual atheists may condemn religion, they are exactly that: individuals. There is no set of atheist thought processes, there is no atheist code, there is only ONE thing that all atheists share in common:

That we do not see any proof or reason to believe in a divine figure, and so we do not believe in a divine figure.

How someone wants to use this personal revelation is up to them. There is no atheist code telling them what to do.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
morimacil

"Also, you might want to know that religion doesnt condemn racism, or sexism, for example. Or at least, christianity doesnt, christianity is firmly for racism and sexism, if you ever read the bible."

No, you are wrong. Do you consider lying to be moral behavior? Or are you just completely ignorant about religion and Christianity?

The core precepts of Christianity absolutely reject prejudice of any kind. "Love your neighbor as yourself" disallows any harmful action, and any prejudice.

But atheism is a prejudice, and intrinsically affirms every other prejudice as well.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"The difference, Heurex, is that an atheist doesn`t need to be TOLD it`s wrong, they just KNOW it`s wrong. "

Really? There is no evidence to support such a claim.

"So while you fear your fire and brimstone, "

Yet nothing I have posted suggests this, making your statement a lie. Is this an example of how you "know" that telling lies is wrong?

Do you realize that your defense is based on egotism, on the presumption that atheists are superior?

That is evidence of prejudice.

The reality is that whatever morals any atheist has, he/she picked up from the society around him/her - which almost certainly got them from religion.

Atheism teaches no morals, and the behavior of atheists online indicates little morality other than "me, me, me".

Atheism is a prejudice, just like homophobia and racism and sexism - just one more way a group of people decide that other people are inferior.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"Oh, f*ck up Heureux. Change the record, for f*ck sake. "

Homophobes respond the same way, and so do racists. It is not a coincidence that atheism is defended in exactly the same way that every other prejudice is defended - verbal abuse, lies, distortions, irrational and dishonest generalizations, and deception.

Whether you like it or not, atheism is a prejudice, it fits the dictionary definition, and it manifests in all of the diagnostic symptoms of prejudice, particularly in egotism and self-aggrandizement.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]It does not condemn murder, rape, incest, bestiality, racism, sexism, stealing, lying, or any other evil.[/quote]
The difference, Heurex, is that an atheist doesn`t need to be TOLD it`s wrong, they just KNOW it`s wrong.

We don`t have to fear a punishment, we just don`t do it on principle.

If you have an incredibly valuable object and two people, one who simply knows stealing is wrong, and another who only thinks they shouldn`t steal it because they`ll be punished, who`s more likely to steal it if they thought they could get away with it?

So while you fear your fire and brimstone, going through the motions of being a good person just so you don`t get punished, I`ll go ahead and actually BE a good person just because it`s the right thing to do.

If I get punished for being a good person but NOT begging forgiveness just for existing, then so be it. Your god`s an assh*le, and I don`t want to worship him in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Grind

"Heureux your argument is one that drives all atheists insane. Just because one does not believe in god does not mean that one does not have morals. "

But that is not my argument. I simply stated the truth - atheism, the belief, expresses no condemnation of anything except religion.

"We do not think that it is okay to rape, murder, and steal and find it abhorrent that god is the only reason you do."

Your projection indicates a lack of morality on your part.

"Second it is not a belief to claim superiority to others, merely trying to understand the universe as science explains it. "

Sorry, but science does not affirm atheism, at all. It cannot, and any atheist who tries to use science to prove atheism rapes science in the process.

Don`t forget the Stasi and their persecution of people of faith. And the many atheists who would eradicate religion by any means possible if they could.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: Since atheists are the largest sector of cohabitors, percentage wise, they may not be officially married, but some states consider couples that have lived together for 3 years or more to be `common law married`, others states don`t. But it`s clear that most people considered cohabiting for several years to be equal to a marriage, even if there is no ceremony.
0
Reply
Male 535
Yea - that`s not even good satire.

She should _probably_ understand the material she`s making fun of before actually trying to make her points...

Also - her chromakey sucks. Very distracting.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Bull

Atheism doesn`t teach morals because it doesn`t teach anything. If it doesn`t teach anything then it can`t be a religion so thanks for establishing that for us Heureux, because I know you`ve made that argument before and it`s refreshing to see you prove yourself wrong.

"Prejudice (or foredeeming) is making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy.

So Heureux, you saying that atheists are prejudice is a prejudice thing to say. "

Nope. While your definition is loose, judging a belief or thought to be wrong is not prejudice. However, declaring, as atheism does, that all people of a group are wrong, is prejudice.

But your statement affirms that atheism is a prejudice.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Bull

"Atheism doesn`t teach morals because it doesn`t teach anything."

No, it does teach one thing - the condemnation of religion (which teach morals). Atheism is in that sense anti-moral.

"If it doesn`t teach anything then it can`t be a religion"

Nonsense. Atheism teaches a negative assertion about God, by many people`s definition, and some dictionaries, that makes it a religion. However, whether or not it is a religion, it is still a prejudice - a negative prejudgement about people.

"so thanks for establishing that for us Heureux, because I know you`ve made that argument before and it`s refreshing to see you prove yourself wrong."

Since I have not, and since your statement is wrong, guess what that means?

You are wrong, not I.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"LOL. Now THATs funny!"

The LOL respond indicates the lack of a sane counterargument.

"Atheism is not a religion."

I did not say it is, I said it is a prejudice. There is a difference. Something can be a prejudice without being a religion or related to religion in any way. However, atheism is a belief about God, and that does fit some people`s definition of religion.
"It`s not supposed to overide your own brain and tell you what to think."

And yet, that is exactly what atheism does, as the behavior of atheists online demonstrates.

"As for lying, I don`t condem it in every circumstance. Ever tried to get laid without lying?"

I`ve never had to tell any lies to get laid. Of course, I`m not an atheist, so that may help.

Atheism is a prejudice.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
grindinblade: Cohabitors are unmarried people living together, they are separate from married couples statistically, you`re making the mistake of thinking they are somehow combined.
0
Reply
Male 213
@Aedran Then what is the point of it if it is full of bias and fallacies?! How can you tell what is good to follow from what isnt? Why pick and choose?

It seems like the only way to tell what is good in the bible, is to use common sense. IE the bible isnt useful at all, if you can figure it out on your own.
0
Reply
Female 295
@LillianDulci, There`s really a LOT of stuff that should be ignored in the Bible. Leviticus, for example. But the fundamentals of being good to one another, don`t steal, kill, or cheat...those are what should be focused on. If Jesus says that we should pray in private, think of the why. Mostly because when we pray in public, we are doing so half-heartedly to follow the crowd. We should pray to God only if we mean it. We should aid our fellow man, not give all our worldly possessions to him. It sounds bad to have to "pick-and-choose" what we worship, but it due to the fact that back then, they were pretty ignorant and would write things based upon their own personal fears or prejudices. The Bible isn`t a rule book. It`s a record, full of bias and fallacies, but with some elements of truth to it.
0
Reply
Male 39,530

Heureux - [quote]"But atheism is still prejudice. It does not condemn murder, rape, incest, bestiality, racism, sexism, stealing, lying, or any other evil" [/quote]

LOL. Now THATs funny!
Atheism is not a religion. It`s not supposed to overide your own brain and tell you what to think. It is simply the concept that there are no Super Power guys up in the sky directing your life. The thought process is up to you and no blaming it on "god".

As for lying, I don`t condem it in every circumstance. Ever tried to get laid without lying?
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"God never once said anything about being poor equates to Heaven. That`s all New Testament, which was often written after Jesus`s death"

Funny you should say this. When people point out some not so pleasant things from the old testament, some people like to say "oh that`s in the old testament, we follow what`s in the new testament now" [even though they`ll often quote from the old testament anyway]. But what you`re basically saying is to ignore what`s in the new testament and follow what`s in the old testament? Shouldn`t what`s in the new testament be "god inspired" whether or not it was written after Jesus` death? Maybe I`m misunderstanding...
0
Reply
Female 295
The politics within the New Testament are very clear. Matthew was a apostle who lived in an era where Jews of certain wealth were despised. Even so, Matthew had to admit that Jesus ate with tax collectors and treated everyone with kindness and respect.

God never once said anything about being poor equates to Heaven. That`s all New Testament, which was often written after Jesus`s death (in which most of the Apostles were on the run or in hiding, typically poor or jobless). The only thing God said about possessions was not to covet thy neighbor`s.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
The sad thing is that some people on here aren`t judgemental, they really are that evil.
0
Reply
Male 4,844
It cracks me up when people say with certainty what a bible verse means. When all they are really giving us is their interpretation.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]But atheism is still prejudice. It does not condemn murder, rape, incest, bestiality, racism, sexism, stealing, lying, or any other evil.

It is a ego-masturbatory excuse for some people to claim that they are superior to every other human being who ever existed.[/quote]
Oh, f*ck up Heureux. Change the record, for f*ck sake.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
I didn`t pay any attention to any of what was said in the video or in this thread.

As an atheist, what I did pay attention to is this chick is hot.
0
Reply
Male 813
The sad thing is that some people on here aren`t trolling, they really are that stupid.
0
Reply
Male 441
I don`t see why anyone is offended by this. If it points out your hypocrisy, maybe you want to think about how you are living your life and how you can change it so you are living the things out the way you believe them.
0
Reply
Male 39,530

Of course, we`re assuming the source information the video comments on is correct.

but it does feed into my personal agenda so let`s not confuse the issue with facts
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Atheism doesn`t teach morals because it doesn`t teach anything. If it doesn`t teach anything then it can`t be a religion so thanks for establishing that for us Heureux, because I know you`ve made that argument before and it`s refreshing to see you prove yourself wrong.

Also:
Prejudice (or foredeeming) is making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy.

So Heureux, you saying that atheists are prejudice is a prejudice thing to say.
0
Reply
Male 234
Heureux your argument is one that drives all atheists insane. Just because one does not believe in god does not mean that one does not have morals. We do not think that it is okay to rape, murder, and steal and find it abhorrent that god is the only reason you do.
Second it is not a belief to claim superiority to others, merely trying to understand the universe as science explains it. When people disagree with religion it has always been the same persecution from Galileo to evolutionist.
0
Reply
Male 171
"But atheism is still prejudice. It does not condemn murder, rape, incest, bestiality, racism, sexism, stealing, lying, or any other evil."
Atheism doesnt condemn anything, so that would be true, but meanwhile, most atheists are against all these things. Not because they are scared of some form of punishment in a possible afterlife, but just because those arent nice things.

Also, you might want to know that religion doesnt condemn racism, or sexism, for example. Or at least, christianity doesnt, christianity is firmly for racism and sexism, if you ever read the bible.

Whats important though, isnt what your faith condemns or doesnt. Your actions are whats important. What good is it that it condemns all those things when ppl still do it?
Thats what the video is about, ppl ignoring what their religion tells them to do.
Christianity tells you to be racist, to be sexist, not to divorce, not to have sex outside marriage, and ppl disobey.
Pick
0
Reply
Male 234
CrakrJak Your are making several assumptions in your statements, which make it incorrect.
1) You don`t understand statistics. If an atheist is less likely to get divorced that is a percent of marriages that end in divorce. That number would most likely be the same regardless of the number of people that get married.
2) You assume that the rate of breakups among cohabitants is the same among atheists and Christians, it may not be. You can`t combine rates from two different studies that do not account for the same variables, again bad statistics.

3) Your one point contradicts the other. The rate of divorce is higher among cohabitors, yet atheists have a lower divorce rate despite higher cohabitation?
0
Reply
Male 1,054
People are having so much fun with a parody.

But atheism is still prejudice. It does not condemn murder, rape, incest, bestiality, racism, sexism, stealing, lying, or any other evil.

It is a ego-masturbatory excuse for some people to claim that they are superior to every other human being who ever existed.
0
Reply
Male 39,530

CrakrJak [quote]"if you look at overall dissolution of relationships, atheists have a much higher combined rate" [/quote]
Are you sure you aren`t a politician? `Cause that`s some mighty fine side-stepping you do there!

We are not talking about all relationships. Dating, first dates, commited-dating couples. We`re talking about D-I-V-O-R-C-E. The disalusion of marital bonds.

I don`t have a problem with people divorcing or commiting adultry. I have a problem with hypocrit leaders like Jesse Jackson or Newt Gingrich doing it and looking their stubby noses down at me for being in a monogomas, committed male/male marriage.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[email protected] crackr. One can be almost guaranteed to see more of your incoherent ramblings on a post like this. I, for one, expected it.
0
Reply
Male 109
Oh hai propaganda!! how are you today?
0
Reply
Male 1,793
America: home of the pick and choose religion....
0
Reply
Male 171
Theres about a million other things that you shouldnt do according to the bible, and that ppl still do anyway.
Thats part of the success of christianity really.
Pick and choose religion.

Other religions are sooo annoying. They have some rules and stuff, and you have to follow them. Booooring! Some even require you to make an effort, or change your way of life!
Christianity on the other hand, well, its just so much easier. Theres the bible, with rules in it. First, you avoid ever reading the bible. Then, out of what you heard was said about whats in the bible, you select the stuff you like, and believe in that. And the rest, you discard.
Christianity`s pick and choose concept is really what makes it so popular. Compare it to other stuff, for example islam. If the coran says not to drink alcohol, or to divorce, ppl just generally dont do it. And they know if they do it, they will end up in hell. And/or stoned to death/in prison. They take it super seriously. <
0
Reply
Male 266
I love it how christians can weasel out of some commands taking advantage of the ambiguities in the bible. Ambiguity is either intentional, which makes god an ass, or unintentional, which makes god incompetent
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Lolboy: Jesus only had 12 disciples, he had thousands of followers, there is a difference.
0
Reply
Male 798
[quote]So if you look at overall dissolution of relationships, atheists have a much higher combined rate, of break-ups and divorces, than theists.[/quote]

Well if you count couples who never even got married, then that`s true. But why even do that? Sure, the bible condemns cohabitation, but the breaking of the marital bonds is what matters here, since they swore them before God.
0
Reply
Male 798
[quote]There is a difference between a regular believer and a disciple and there is a much higher cost to those wanting to be a disciple.[/quote]

I think Jesus would disagree. He would not differentiate between someone who wants to follow him, and someone who just wants to go through the motions and still be considered a "Christian".
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Silverstone: Atheists are the most likely group to `cohabit` before, or even if, they get married 51%.
45% of cohabitations break up with no marriage at all.

A study of 3,300 cases based on the National Survey of Families and Households, (NSFH) found that in marriage, prior cohabiters “are estimated to have a hazard of dissolution that is about 46% higher than for noncohabitors.

So if you look at overall dissolution of relationships, atheists have a much higher combined rate, of break-ups and divorces, than theists.
0
Reply
Male 11
Bible = TL;DR
0
Reply
Male 17,512
LordJim: It was clear that the person he spoke to was a rich person that wanted to be a disciple. There is a difference between a regular believer and a disciple and there is a much higher cost to those wanting to be a disciple.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
CrakrJak,
No, the whole `give up your material possesions` thing was pretty clear. You can try to weasel out of it, but if you have any material stuff, you`re making Jesus sad.

0
Reply
Male 17
CrakrJak: What is your source for saying that atheists are less likely to marry?
0
Reply
Male 330
Stupid.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
meh...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Matthew 6:5-6 Means don`t pray just to be seen praying, don`t make a spectacle of yourself.

Luke 14:33 Was talking about the cost of being a `Disciple`, not a believer.

Matthew 7 Says to clean up your own act for criticizing someone else.

Mark 10:17-25 Refers to a Rich young man that wanted to be a Disciple, refer to Luke 14:33 above, and couldn`t give up his wealth to do so.

Mark 10:6-9 Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Please note the "Male & Female" part, he did not say "Male & Male" or "Female & Female".
0
Reply
Male 17,512
As for marriage and divorce, Atheists are much less likely to get married in the first place, so it`s no surprise that they get divorced less often.

It`s like saying someone living in Manhattan is less likely to get in a car accident, well no duh, people that live in the city take taxis, use the subway, take buses, very few even own cars.
0
Reply
Male 68
lol, that was amusing.
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Five Ways American Christians Ignore Jesus [Rate Link] - America`s best christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, presents Christians` top 5 favorite ways to ignore Jesus.
0
Reply