Christians vs. Atheists.

[Aeroblast]

The bible may be a little outdated, but it core concepts are not. I do not know of, and have never heard of, christians that still promote slavery or infanticide.

What's the core concept of the Bible?

With misoginy, I believe people are raised with it and merely use the bible to justify it. I don't believe religion causes misoginy.

Bible doesn't cause misogynistic views, but it certainly supports them in many occasions.

Most modern day christians don't take the bible that literaly, you seem to refer to extreme orthodoz christians, which is a dying demographic.

In other words, they don't want to accept what many parts of their "flawless" bible has to say. (i.e. cherry-picking)

 

[Nah]

What's the core concept of the Bible?



Bible doesn't cause misogynistic views, but it certainly supports them in many occasions.


In other words, they don't want to accept what many parts of their "flawless" bible has to say. (i.e. cherry-picking)

I think that the core concept of the Bible is something along the lines of "gaiz stahp being *******s to people 'kkkkkkkk?".

In all seriousness though, I like to think that ideally, religion is just one way to bring a little order to society, teach people to be nice to each other, and maybe even give some people a little hope or offer one explanation to things we often wonder about.

Of course, the thing with the Bible is that it is kinda outdated in some ways, but it does reflect the times it was written. Like the whole misogynist thing; patriarchy was pretty cemented into societies 1000+ years ago. Not so much today.

But I kinda think that you're misunderstanding what MorallyIncorrect is saying in his last line you quoted :"Most modern day christians don't take the bible that literaly, you seem to refer to extreme orthodoz christians, which is a dying demographic."

It's not cherry picking in the majority of people's cases. It's that they're aware that the Bible is flawed and outdated, so they interpret it in a different manner that suits the current times better (except for those crazy fundie types like the Westboro Baptist Church).

Or that's what I hope anyway.

 

[Aeroblast]

I think that the core concept of the Bible is something along the lines of "gaiz stahp being *******s to people 'kkkkkkkk?".

And tell people to condemn non-believers to eternal torture in the imaginary word of hell. (but they still love you)

In all seriousness though, I like to think that ideally, religion is just one way to bring a little order to society, teach people to be nice to each other, and maybe even give some people a little hope or offer one explanation to things we often wonder about.

Unfortunately enough "ideally" is the key word. In reality, religion brings conflict to many families, however minor it is (Even I can relate to this), and serve as a cash grab for those in power.

Of course, the thing with the Bible is that it is kinda outdated in some ways, but it does reflect the times it was written.

I agree.

But I kinda think that you're misunderstanding what MorallyIncorrect is saying in his last line you quoted :"Most modern day christians don't take the bible that literaly, you seem to refer to extreme orthodoz christians, which is a dying demographic."

It's not cherry picking in the majority of people's cases. It's that they're aware that the Bible is flawed and outdated, so they interpret it in a different manner that suits the current times better (except for those crazy fundie types like the Westboro Baptist Church).

Or that's what I hope anyway.

I don't know any sort of interpretation that will morally, in today's world, reconcile repeated acts of genocide, and all sorts of other atrocities portrayed in the Bible, and frankly I don't want to know.

And as an aside, and I'm not really talking to anyone in particular, before accusing me of randomly throwing around negative attributes to the Bible (if it is to be believed as the holy word of God) without any proof, I will cite the verses that support my views if anyone requests me so.

 

[Nah]

And tell people to condemn non-believers to eternal torture in the imaginary word of hell. (but they still love you)


Unfortunately enough "ideally" is the key word. In reality, religion brings conflict to many families, however minor it is (Even I can relate to this), and serve as a cash grab for those in power.

I think I was a bit hasty with my response and I find myself to be a bit inarticulate, but yeah, ideally is the key word. I'm aware that it's not how the world works.

I don't know any sort of interpretation that will morally, in today's world, reconcile repeated acts of genocide, and all sorts of other atrocities portrayed in the Bible, and frankly I don't want to know.

Er, well, "interpretation" might not have been the right word to use. What I meant is that not every Christian thinks that everything in the Bible is justifiable.

 

[Aeroblast]

Er, well, "interpretation" might not have been the right word to use. What I meant is that not every Christian thinks that everything in the Bible is justifiable.

I think they were born in a Christian family but in a deeper level do not care about any of this at all, to be honest. Which is perfectly okay.

 

[Ice1]

Most people where I'm from don't believe in hell, but maybe that's different with you. Almost nobody justifies slavery, genocide or infanticide.

You have to see it this way, I think. Let's say I am a huge doctor who fan. I really love it and identify as a whovian. Only thing is, I extremely dislike some filler episodes. I don't think they're very doctor who-ish, and they don't contain what I think is "the magic" of the show. Even with those episodes, do I still call myself a whovian? Of course, I love the show, even though it isn't perfect. I accept that those episodes are there, I just don't watch them anymore.

It's the same situation for christians, but with the bible of course, and those disliked episodes are genocide chapters etc.

 

[Aeroblast]

I think TV shows and religion make for an unintelligible comparison. It's one thing to like a TV show, but it's another to have faith in an existence of a supernatural being.

 

[Ice1]

I'm comparing it to a tv show, yes, but that wasn't the main point at all. It was just to show that you don't have to agree with everything about something to identify with it. Also, if you don't think religion and tv shows are comparable, you should check out whovians.*shrugs*

 

[Aeroblast]

The point I'm trying to make is, no one is going to try to make you believe that every episode of a TV show is flawless, establish morality based on what a TV show says, and go around telling people they're going to be tortured for eternity if you don't like that particular TV show. One recommendation I'd give to someone who seriously goes around and do that would be to go to the mental hospital, but I digress.

To be fair I'm probably being a bit too pedantic - Yes, I do acknowledge there are lots of Christians that don't literally believe in every word of the Bible, don't go to church, and/or even flat out don't care about this stuff. But If any one of those people even care to have a deeper look at the Bible (which I don't actually blame them for because it's a boring book, especially if you read it without a skeptical mindset), it repeatedly asserts itself that every word of God is true.

Besides, 28% of the Americans United States population believes that the word of God is to be taken literally, word for word, which is in no way a small number (doing some math, it comes out to be around 89 million people).

Taken from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx

 

[pokecole]

As I'm an atheist, (the worst kept secret ever), I am not going to answer the questions so much as comment on what I think about the subject, as I don't really feel that the questions are aimed at me. (While they are definitely pointed like a gun at someone)

I just want to comment about this subject in particular, as well as the author of this thread. If you personally ask me, I believe that everyone should be free to believe in whatever they so choose. It's the theory that the United States was founded upon, but isn't really seen that way anymore. This argument really differs upon where you are talking about it. If you are talking in real life person-to-person, 90% of people are going to say that they are Christian whether or not they are because they are inclined to keep up their appearance and ego. Most people you talk to DO try to keep up the appearance that they are Christian whether or not they are. What's interesting is that on the internet, people are anonymous and are a little more inclined to act as they would like to because of the lack of egos and appearances on the internet.

Another thing that tends to be different on the internet as to real life is that people on the internet tend to be fact-based while speaking to others on here, and I believe that it is partially because of lack of tone/attitude that you can see on the internet. The difference in real life is that people can more easily say that they simply believe something and that it is how they think about things without true support, because people aren't so much looking for facts in real life during conversations. But, again, that's just how I see it.

I'm going to assume that the person who started this thread is very blatantly honest about his/her feelings and beliefs in real life, and therefore has had some nasty experiences with Bible-pushers and the sort. I'm not saying he/she is going about it the right way, but I can understand how you could get the feeling that they are all after you and trying to change you (as I'm a bit paranoid myself). I'd just like to assure you that it isn't quite so.

Anyways, if I were the author I'd rather go about asking why people think that way. My personal belief is that people love to push the bible because that is literally what it tells people to do. They want to keep people recruiting for the religion to keep it alive and well. They want to control people into keeping them alive so that they can get what they want spread. If you look for the definition of the word religion, it literally comes from Greek meaning, "To the control the masses". Just saying.

 

[Ice1]

The point I'm trying to make is, no one is going to try to make you believe that every episode of a TV show is flawless, establish morality based on what a TV show says, and go around telling people they're going to be tortured for eternity if you don't like that particular TV show. One recommendation I'd give to someone who seriously goes around and do that would be to go to the mental hospital, but I digress.

To be fair I'm probably being a bit too pedantic - Yes, I do acknowledge there are lots of Christians that don't literally believe in every word of the Bible, don't go to church, and/or even flat out don't care about this stuff. But If any one of those people even care to have a deeper look at the Bible (which I don't actually blame them for because it's a boring book, especially if you read it without a skeptical mindset), it repeatedly asserts itself that every word of God is true.

Besides, 28% of the Americans United States population believes that the word of God is to be taken literally, word for word, which is in no way a small number (doing some math, it comes out to be around 89 million people).

Spoiler:

Taken from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx

Not disagreeing in anyway with your main point. Just keep in mind that I merely used a tv-show to clarify what I was getting at, and didn't try to link-up television with religion anymore. It was a metaphor and nothing more. It was just to showcase that you can identify with something and still disagree with it on some parts, it wasn't a comparison between religion and tv.

On your second paragraph, of course it does, is it supposed to break the fourth wall? Stories may be stories, but their message get's lost if you tell it when it's over. The bible is describing "occurrences" that match with their message, and the stories are trying to convey an important message. They won't put a TL;DR at the end with "Fictional story, peeps, just love each other m'kay." It supposed to convey a seriousness, and the stories are trying to convey a message that is important for christians. You wouldn't take your bible serious if it said halfway through, "Yeah, ehm, Jesus broke bread and then he fed like 200 people. It didn't exactly go that way, but, you know, it's the gist of it." If you do that, nobody would take your book seriously as the word of God. That's why the bible tries to convey it's stories as fact.

 

[Aeroblast]

Not disagreeing in anyway with your main point. Just keep in mind that I merely used a tv-show to clarify what I was getting at, and didn't try to link-up television with religion anymore. It was a metaphor and nothing more. It was just to showcase that you can identify with something and still disagree with it on some parts, it wasn't a comparison between religion and tv.

You could've made your point clearer without using a metaphor.

On your second paragraph, of course it does, is it supposed to break the fourth wall? Stories may be stories, but their message get's lost if you tell it when it's over. The bible is describing "occurrences" that match with their message, and the stories are trying to convey an important message. They won't put a TL;DR at the end with "Fictional story, peeps, just love each other m'kay." It supposed to convey a seriousness, and the stories are trying to convey a message that is important for christians. You wouldn't take your bible serious if it said halfway through, "Yeah, ehm, Jesus broke bread and then he fed like 200 people. It didn't exactly go that way, but, you know, it's the gist of it." If you do that, nobody would take your book seriously as the word of God. That's why the bible tries to convey it's stories as fact.

That's why I am against Christianity. Its core foundation is and has been to use outdated text to attempt to persuade people to put faith in a make-believe being that have zero evidence outside of its text to support its validity (and by validity I mean anything that suggests that the scriptures are divinely inspired), while persuading their children to do the same without any questioning.

To put it bluntly, Christianity (and to an extent most religions) at its core is exercise in indoctrination of valuing faith over logical reasoning.

 

[Ice1]

You could've made your point clearer without using a metaphor.


That's why I am against Christianity. Its core foundation is and has been to use outdated text to attempt to persuade people to put faith in a make-believe being complete with a make-believe story that have zero evidence outside of its text to support them, while persuading their children to do the same without any questioning.

To put it bluntly, Christianity (and to an extent most religions) at its core is exercise in indoctrination of valuing faith over logical reasoning.

I figured I wasn't that clear, haha, I'm sorry.

Every religion is indoctrination, I totally agree what that.

You shed a very negative light on the religion though. It's core foundation isn't that at all, it's just how you percieve it, which is negative because your anti-religion. Do you believe that belief in any God is wrong or that just the belief in a God based on outdated sources is wrong?

 

[Aeroblast]

I figured I wasn't that clear, haha, I'm sorry.

Every religion is indoctrination, I totally agree what that.

You shed a very negative light on the religion though. It's core foundation isn't that at all, it's just how you percieve it, which is negative because your anti-religion.

My dislike of religion is actually a bit more personal, as my mom constantly nags me to go to church every sunday (sometimes spreading to heated arguments) despite the fact that I have repeated my stance dozens of times, and she still doesn't get it. I'm not being entirely serious here, but I also resent the fact that I've spent many sundays during middle school and high school years going to churches.

Also at the risk of offending a few people here, I do believe there are rational reasons to dislike the influence of religion on today's society. Biblical justification to restrict the rights of homosexuals would be one example.

Do you believe that belief in any God is wrong or that just the belief in a God based on outdated sources is wrong?

I don't believe in God because there's no evidence that it exists, that's all. The fact that Bible is an outdated text with outdated moral code is merely something that supports my argument.

I do think I come across as a bit militant, and I do apologize for any offense caused by that. But this is a discussion on Christianity vs Atheism so I guess it's only fair for me to be "obssessed" about it. Normally I wouldn't go around preaching my stance on religion.

 

[Lucky#13]

Aero

I understand your reasoning. Putting faith into something without evidence is difficult, but if there were solid evidence that could fully prove the existence of God it would no longer be faith. It would be fact. The entire reason that faith is so highly valued in Christianity is because as human we want evidence to prove everything. Whether you agree that the idea of Faith is a right or wrong is irrelevant. (no offense, but it at this point I believe we've established that we disagree and we will not further the discussion by battling semantics.)


I also understand the personal issues. For a while I also didn't care for church. I'll admit I found it dull and unsatisfying. I didn't care for someone else telling me what I should think or how I should behave. (Which is what quite a few do, and fortunately I joined with one that is more interested in answering questions and providing you with as much information as they can telling each other their own perspectives and encouraging others to make their own interpretations.) (In your case I'm sure your mother believes she is doing what is best for you, whether it is or not. She believes it is. The bright side is, that after High School you can make more choices on your own without parental interference.)

As top your own source, I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority do not share the belief that everything should be taken literally. I'll point out that that number has decreased by 10% in the last 30 years. Do not forget the importance of trends when citing charts or graphs. Trends tell you just as much if not more than the final result as a whole. You'll also notice that one of those is increasing, and another is relatively stagnant.

The core of the belief, shared by most of the denominations I am familiar with and would promote, is found in the New testament. The Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the Letters (Corinthians, Acts, Ephesians and so on).

Specifically the part about using the bible to justify limiting the rights of homosexuals, I see where you are coming from. I don't agree with the stance most people assume Christians are on. That is more political than religious. As a result there are misinterpretations and assumptions made by politicians and then in some cases those viewpoints are appropriated. I am against both major parties (democrat/republican). Until people wake up and realize that the parties chose a stance based on their interpretations of who the voters are and not their own beliefs, their puppets running for office will continue to cause conflicts and blame each other for them. (along with big businesses buying out our government we face ruin as a nation)

Back on the point. I assume marriage is the point you are referring to. Marriage in and of itself presents problems. While we claim to have separation from church and state (what a joke), marriage is a part of both. The ritual, as I will call it, of Holy Matrimony is religious in its base, but has always held political strings. In class status, economic standing, a handful of rights, and taxes. Then there is legal partnership, the governments way of acknowledging those strings. Homosexual legal partnership, I agree should be legalized across the board whether I agree with homosexuality or not. The ritual itself should be at the discretion of the one performing the ceremony. That is to say, a couple can have their ritual, but they first have to find a willing and licensed minister. That is doable and a handful of licensed ones I know would be glad to, but the denominations that don't support it would be allowed to refuse. (maybe this would actually affect them and convince them to change their stance)


Have I missed anything?

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Poor Knight Crusader, we hardly knew yea. . .

Anyways, the bible is a poor, strung together mess constructed over a number of years by half illiterates that believed in an old man tasked with getting two of every animal on a boat. . .

And not only is it [the bible] a wonderful tale of amazing fiction, but it also validates the smacking proper of the fairer gender, slave owning and. . . striking the unbelievers down with the hilt of mine sword. Science can show you the errors in the very first page of the bible and yet people cling to it like a fish needs water. There was no adam and there was no eve. There is no scientific proof that a great flood took place. The accounts that Jesus existed are shaky at best (the romans loved to keep records, and none of them mention that water to wine dude). No, you can't live in a fish. There is no evidence of Moses parting the sea. No tablets for the ten commandments to written on (the true ten commandments make no sense: http://disinfo.com/2010/02/the-ten-commandments-we-always-see-arent-the-ten-commandments/)

For any to believe in a book that actually took away basic human rights is beyond me. The Code of Hammurabi predates the bible, and is one of the oldest translated pieces of history in the world. And yes, without religion we can all agree not to kill one another just fine, thank you.

 

[Aeroblast]

Aero

I understand your reasoning. Putting faith into something without evidence is difficult, but if there were solid evidence that could fully prove the existence of God it would no longer be faith. It would be fact. The entire reason that faith is so highly valued in Christianity is because as human we want evidence to prove everything. Whether you agree that the idea of Faith is a right or wrong is irrelevant. (no offense, but it at this point I believe we've established that we disagree and we will not further the discussion by battling semantics.)

I think we're stuck in a dead end here, unfortunately. I'm not going to put faith on something that I believe doesn't exist (because there's no evidence for it), but if you believe faith is helping you with your life then I won't beat you over the bush with this, either.

As top your own source, I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority do not share the belief that everything should be taken literally. I'll point out that that number has decreased by 10% in the last 30 years. Do not forget the importance of trends when citing charts or graphs. Trends tell you just as much if not more than the final result as a whole. You'll also notice that one of those is increasing, and another is relatively stagnant.

What are your sources? And what about the overall belief in Christianity in the same poll?

The core of the belief, shared by most of the denominations I am familiar with and would promote, is found in the New testament. The Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the Letters (Corinthians, Acts, Ephesians and so on).

Isn't that cherry picking? Since when did Bible only consist of the New Testament?

And even if Bible only consisted of the New Testament it still has verses that condemn homosexuality and condone slavery, though admittedly much easier to read than the sheer atrocity and absurdity of the books in the Old Testament. (perhaps except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, but maybe I'm being too generous here)

Specifically the part about using the bible to justify limiting the rights of homosexuals, I see where you are coming from. I don't agree with the stance most people assume Christians are on. That is more political than religious. As a result there are misinterpretations and assumptions made by politicians and then in some cases those viewpoints are appropriated. I am against both major parties (democrat/republican). Until people wake up and realize that the parties chose a stance based on their interpretations of who the voters are and not their own beliefs, their puppets running for office will continue to cause conflicts and blame each other for them. (along with big businesses buying out our government we face ruin as a nation)

They justify their agendas based on the same book that you just mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Condemnation of homosexuality is also found all over the New Testament that you said that you promoted, too.

The ritual itself should be at the discretion of the one performing the ceremony. That is to say, a couple can have their ritual, but they first have to find a willing and licensed minister. That is doable and a handful of licensed ones I know would be glad to, but the denominations that don't support it would be allowed to refuse. (maybe this would actually affect them and convince them to change their stance)

You don't have to be married in a church, you know. Most homosexuals would probably prefer secular marriage anyways.

 

[Lucky#13]

Aero,

I apologize if I was not clear. The number that has decreased being the statistic you referenced. At 28% this view has decreased from the 38% otherwise stated for the beginning of the poll. The source I was using was the one you presented. Unless you are questioning the authenticity of your own source.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/reso...t-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/

just leaving this here.


I am aware that you don't have to be married in a church. I brought that up because whether you believe it or not, there are homosexual couples that do follow Christianity. (and would want to be married within the church.)


You seem to have opinions that are in opposition of each other. You chastise those who would take the old testament literally, yet you also claim it to be wrong for a christian to acknowledge that most of the bible is not meant to be taken literally and as such chose not to follow much of the old testament. (calling it cherry picking) Would you rather Christians to be fully in support of the old testament and act on its principles as literal? Or is it that you believe that in order to be Christians and follow any of the teachings of the bible we should physically remove the old testament form the book itself?

 

[Aeroblast]

Aero,

I apologize if I was not clear. The number that has decreased being the statistic you referenced. At 28% this view has decreased from the 38% otherwise stated for the beginning of the poll. The source I was using was the one you presented. Unless you are questioning the authenticity of your own source.

I see. I do feel a bit dumb to ignore that, and you have a point - though by that I could also propose that Christianity is slowly starting to fade because there was an 8% increase of non-believers. That's where majority of the 10% went, after all.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/reso...t-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/

just leaving this here.

If the verses are not clear on homosexuality then fair enough.

You'd think a flawless bible would be clear on this, though. At least Leviticus was.

You seem to have opinions that are in opposition of each other. You chastise those who would take the old testament literally, yet you also claim it to be wrong for a christian to acknowledge that most of the bible is not meant to be taken literally and as such chose not to follow much of the old testament. (calling it cherry picking)

Bingo.

"You chastise those who would take the old testament literally" - Yes. You only have to read the book to find out why. (Just to scratch the surface: Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 2 Kings 2:23-24, Hosea 13:16)
"yet you also claim it to be wrong for a christian to acknowledge that most of the bible is not meant to be taken literally and as such chose not to follow much of the old testament" - Yes. At least according to what the Bible says. (e.g. Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.)

Keep in mind that I'm an atheist, and my "opinion" is really what the Christians have to do as I have stated above: I don't actually believe in the Bible as the word of God.

 

[zakisrage]

Personally, I think the whole Christian vs. Atheist thing goes two ways. I know Christians who treat atheists like crap and atheists who treat Christians like crap. I admit, I don't have many friends who are atheists, but they get along with most of my Christian friends.

Luckily, I'm neither a Christian nor an atheist, so I guess I could try to be the mediator in a situation like this. Then again, Muslims are the other major religious group that comes under fire a lot. It's hard for me to defend being Muslim when you've got all that criticism hurled at you.