Evil Bible .com [Archive]

Catillina

14th July 2010, 18:21

The teachings in the Bibly are'nt all as bad as that! The main communication of the New Testament is that you should help the poor, etc

here some quotes posted by a comrade:

Acts 2:44-5 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-37
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Exodus 16:16-18
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat.

Amos 6:1-7

1 "Woe to those who are at ease in Zion, and to those who feel secure on the mountain of Samaria, the notable men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel comes! 2 Pass over to Calneh, and see, and from there go to Hamath the great; then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are you better than these kingdoms? Or is their territory greater than your territory, 3 O you who put far away the day of disaster and bring near the seat of violence? 4 "Woe to those who lie on beds of ivory and stretch themselves out on their couches, and eat lambs from the flock and calves from the midst of the stall, 5 who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp and like David invent for themselves instruments of music, 6 who drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves with the finest oils, but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph! 7 Therefore they shall now be the first of those who go into exile, and the revelry of those who stretch themselves out shall pass away."

Amos 5:11-12

11 You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain.Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine.

12 For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins.You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

These quotes focus on the Old Testament, i'll search for some in the new one.

NGNM85

14th July 2010, 18:36

"But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."-Jesus, Luke 19:27

Good website.

Stephen Colbert

14th July 2010, 18:43

Judge not others lest ye be judged --Matthew 7:1

Robocommie

14th July 2010, 18:44

All of this relies on a decontextualized understanding of the Bible as one single text, outside of historical context, which is to be taken literally and without critical analysis, which is actually not part of universal Christian doctrine. In fact, the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, requires critical analysis of the Bible.

Franz Fanonipants

14th July 2010, 18:46

anti-theism motivated by distaste for popular religion is basically reactionary. thx.

Robocommie

14th July 2010, 19:00

"But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."-Jesus, Luke 19:27

You rip that quote out of context. It's part of a parable. That line is being spoken by a king in the parable, to his servant who did not wisely invest his gold, which is a moral parable about those who do not do good works, using the talents invested in them, to make people's lives better. The king states that those who do not invest his wealth are his enemies and should be struck down. The parable likens us to the servants. We are stewards of the earth, our brother's keeper, and we have been entrusted with great wealth in the form of our lives, our talents, our compassion. If we don't use that wealth, and bury it in the ground like the poor servant in the story, never to benefit others, what good are we to the world? "Slaying them" is meant to be taken as an analogy, not literally. If it was, it should also be taken literally that God hath given us ten pounds.

Frankly, that's just one interpretation. The trouble with taking the Bible literally, as anti-theists love to do just as much as Baptist fundamentalists, is to ignore the way in which the Bible is a historical text and has to be analyzed with an eye to history. The meaning and inference of words have changed since it was written in the original Greek or Aramaic, and the social contexts which would have made the meaning clear no longer exist. This is why Biblical scholarship actually means something to Christians.

NGNM85

14th July 2010, 19:45

anti-theism motivated by distaste for popular religion is basically reactionary. thx.

It isn't simply based on distaste for religion, nor is it, as you characterize 'reactionary.' However, this isn't totally surprising coming from a 'Christian Leftist.'

Franz Fanonipants

14th July 2010, 19:58

Robocommie

14th July 2010, 19:59

However, this isn't totally surprising coming from a 'Christian Leftist.'

You're an intolerant prick, and no amount of science lingo will change that.

Adi Shankara

14th July 2010, 21:22

Bottom line is this: NO ONE has the right to judge anyone else's personal faith, religion, or philosophy, whether atheism, christianity, hinduism, etc. if it doesn't directly harm others or if it's primary focus isn't a belief of intolerance. (many people take obscure passages from religion, and use that to judge the entire faith--it's like judging a house only on it's paint and shingles, not the actual house)

for some reason, I can't see the religious Khmer peasant farmer who believes in reincarnation so he lives to avoid killing living things as "a religious downpressing imperialist who needs to be destroyed".

Crimson Commissar

14th July 2010, 22:44

anti-theism motivated by distaste for popular religion is basically reactionary. thx.
Oh, sure, opposing the tool of imperialism, oppression, racism, sexism, discrimination, war, and just about anything bad in the world is so reactionary, right. :rolleyes: Don't be ridiculous.

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 00:13

Oh, sure, opposing the tool of imperialism, oppression, racism, sexism, discrimination, war, and just about anything bad in the world is so reactionary, right. :rolleyes: Don't be ridiculous.

lol

dude i'm sorry, i thought capitalism was the tool of imperialism, oppression, sexism, discrimination, war, and everything else bad.

i didn't realize God had personally fucked over the world. i was pretty sure greedy, ridiculous capitalist sons of *****es were responsible for that.

goes to show me!

15th July 2010, 01:34

It isn't simply based on distaste for religion, nor is it, as you characterize 'reactionary.' However, this isn't totally surprising coming from a 'Christian Leftist.'

It's true. I'm one of those brown (ok, off-white) commies who isn't able to separate his primitive upbringing from a liberatory urge.

man you really are a white supremacist.

quit defending the oppression of women, you misogynist prick. I have a vagina, QED.
I love this kind of identity politics because whether or not you win an argument depends exclusively on your immutable characteristics and has nothing to do with your actual argument.

Anti-theism is basically a liberal ideology. It doesn't see religion as something rooted in material conditions, but rather, as an independent force standing above society. But really, being opposed to Christianity doesn't make you a white supremacist, and these sort of accusations are really getting obnoxious.

Adi Shankara

15th July 2010, 01:37

But really, being opposed to Christianity doesn't make you a white supremacist, and these sort of accusations are really getting obnoxious.

I think he was more referring to the thread in "Politics" where NGNM says "Western civilization is superior to Non-western civilization" and justifies the Vietnam war, amongst other things:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bill-maher-being-t138057/index.html?p=1802572#post1802572

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 01:42

blah blah blah

see other thread

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 01:44

quit defending the oppression of women, you misogynist prick. I have a vagina, QED.

sorry dude but religion was oftentimes a part of subverting patriarchy, or can be used thus strategically.

15th July 2010, 02:18

sorry dude but religion was oftentimes a part of subverting patriarchy, or can be used thus strategically.

Obviously rules tend to have exceptions. This doesn't change the fact that historically, religious institutions in the main have been instrumental in reinforcing the oppression of women and legitimizing the rule of the ruling class. My comment, though, was intended to make a point about the form of argument rather than being an actual opinion of mine, which it isn't. I think it is sort of nonsensical to say that religion oppresses women; class society and the monogamous family oppresses women, but religion certainly reflects and reinforces class society and thus absolutely reflects and reinforces the oppression of women.

black magick hustla

15th July 2010, 02:27

It's true. I'm one of those brown (ok, off-white) commies who isn't able to separate his primitive upbringing from a liberatory urge.

man you really are a white supremacist.

you are crazy

it is true that once upon a time the opressed took theological language as a means to search for liberation because there was no other language available. 16th century europe burnt with peasant insurrections lead by wild vagrant preachers but i dont think it can be done anymore.

also if we want to play the identity politic card if you were tru to ur roots we would be jaguar warriors praising the sun god and removing the hearts of our white enemies with a curved knife, not that pussy ass christian chickenshit

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 02:29

Obviously rules tend to have exceptions. This doesn't change the fact that historically, religious institutions in the main have been instrumental in reinforcing the oppression of women and legitimizing the rule of the ruling class. My comment, though, was intended to make a point about the form of argument rather than being an actual opinion of mine, which it isn't. I think it is sort of nonsensical to say that religion oppresses women; class society and the monogamous family oppresses women, but religion certainly reflects and reinforces class society and thus absolutely reflects and reinforces the oppression of women.

but yet somehow i engaged with you cus I'm not an enormous fucking coward who would turn tail at the idea that someone thinks he's a misogynist.

As I said before, you're barking up the wrong tree, dude. I called him a white supremacist because he believes that Western society is a superior society.

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 02:30

you are crazy

it is true that once upon a time the opressed took theological language as a means to search for liberation because there was no other language available. 16th century europe burnt with peasant insurrections lead by wild vagrant preachers but i dont think it can be done anymore.

also if we want to play the identity politic card if you were tru to ur roots we would be jaguar warriors praising the sun god and removing the hearts of our white enemies with a curved knife, not that pussy ass christian chickenshit

Anhuac worship is retarded.

black magick hustla

15th July 2010, 02:34

Anhuac worship is retarded.

tbh honest i find the mexicatl aesthetic much more satisfying than that religion of slaves

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 02:43

tbh honest i find the mexicatl aesthetic much more satisfying than that religion of slaves

the aesthetic of the "religion of slaves" you mean.

NGNM85

15th July 2010, 05:14

I think he was more referring to the thread in "Politics" where NGNM says "Western civilization is superior to Non-western civilization" and justifies the Vietnam war, amongst other things:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bill-maher-being-t138057/index.html?p=1802572#post1802572

You're a liar. I never, ever expressed support for the Vietnam war. in fact, in the Platform thread, which you also posted in, I posted about how insane it was. Up until now, I was willing to entertain the remote possibility that the vile slander you hurl at me was at least partially due to some horrible confusion on your part. This statement is an obvious, bold-faced lie, and leads me to believe you never misunderstood me, but are engaging on a petty, spiteful vendetta, for some reason I can't fathom.

NGNM85

15th July 2010, 05:37

Bottom line is this: NO ONE has the right to judge anyone else's personal faith, religion, or philosophy, whether atheism, christianity, hinduism, etc. if it doesn't directly harm others or if it's primary focus isn't a belief of intolerance.

Everyone has the absolute right to judge everything. Nothing in politics, sports, philosophy, or physics is beyond question. For too long individuals like yourself have demanded that the rest of us are not allowed to question your religion, that we have to accept it 100%, no questions asked, historically followed by "or else.." Well, we're not going to take it anymore. The enforcers of this unwritten law no longer have the power to intimidate, you have nothing to threaten me or anyone else with to force us to comply with this obscene dictate. Nothing should be beyond question.

(many people take obscure passages from religion, and use that to judge the entire faith--it's like judging a house only on it's paint and shingles, not the actual house)

This is also false. Let's take the most clear example; heresy. There's absolutely no question. It's the most commonly repeated theme in the book. It is repeatedly, emphatically stated that all who do not accept the 'right' religion will suffer an eternity of incomprehensible torment. There's no room for confusion, it's very explicit. Moreover, it also repeatedly suggests that believers should take it upon themselves to rid the world of heretics. This just exemplifies the folly of the myth of religious tolerance.

for some reason, I can't see the religious Khmer peasant farmer who believes in reincarnation so he lives to avoid killing living things as "a religious downpressing imperialist who needs to be destroyed".

First, if his belief in reincarnation is the only thing that keeps him from killing people, he's got some serious problems. Second, you're coming very close to breaking the second unspoken law; we must never critically compare religions. Never mind that Tibetan Buddhism isn't responsible for a fraction of the bloodshed attributable to Christianity or Islam, oh, we can't even acknowledge it. Not allowed. This is also absurd. All religion is bad, but some are worse than others. My chief complaint with this example is it's illogical, as all religions are. It might be helpful in his case, but on the whole illogical thinking is bad, and leads to bad results. We should not be championing irrationality.

Invincible Summer

15th July 2010, 05:43

Stay on topic, people. Deleted all your off-topic stuff.

15th July 2010, 05:47

wtf? It wasn't off-topic, it was dealing with the way that he was only making arguments by accusing people of racism.

Invincible Summer

15th July 2010, 06:44

Well, the topic is about the website mentioned in the OP

Mahatma Gandhi

15th July 2010, 10:36

Everyone has the absolute right to judge everything. Nothing in politics, sports, philosophy, or physics is beyond question.

In the objective world, yes. But your argument doesn't apply to subjective matters. I cannot prove I am happy, nor can I prove that the rainbow is beautiful, or Beethoven is awe-inspiring. Nor can you prove otherwise, so our arguments and counter-arguments would be a waste of time.

So your idea of questioning religion is as absurd as questioning the beauty of the rainbow as both of them are subjective matters. Hence, 'proving' and 'disproving' are both irrelevant here.

Mahatma Gandhi

15th July 2010, 10:45

This is also false. Let's take the most clear example; heresy. There's absolutely no question. It's the most commonly repeated theme in the book. It is repeatedly, emphatically stated that all who do not accept the 'right' religion will suffer an eternity of incomprehensible torment. There's no room for confusion, it's very explicit. Moreover, it also repeatedly suggests that believers should take it upon themselves to rid the world of heretics. This just exemplifies the folly of the myth of religious tolerance.

Similar to gulag and all that, eh?;) See, anyone can generalize about anything.

First, if his belief in reincarnation is the only thing that keeps him from killing people, he's got some serious problems.

Man is an animal, and he needs something, anything, to keep him in check, to keep him from killing. Our bloody human history is evidence. If you feel man needs no concept at all to keep him from killing, then what's going to keep him from killing? He could kill and rationalize later on since he doesn't believe in any concept or idea.

My chief complaint with this example is it's illogical, as all religions are. It might be helpful in his case, but on the whole illogical thinking is bad, and leads to bad results. We should not be championing irrationality.

If certain people are irrational, are you going to change them by attacking and ridiculing their beliefs? That's a good way to antagonize them, not change them. Second, shouldn't you worry more about practical matters concerning workers rather than what goes on inside someone's (irrational) head?

Demogorgon

15th July 2010, 10:57

It is a distinctly unimpressive website. Actually it looks like a parody of the point it is trying to make. Speaking personally as somebody who does not believe in God, I have never thought a good starting point to any argument to accept the premises of Christian fundamentalists. So to see a site like that accept biblical literalism is a bit disconcerting.

Really though, trying to look at the Bible without any kind of context is like trying to read a book in a language you don't understand. The site mostly looks at the Old Testament, so let's start with that. First of all the site doesn't seem to understand the way the New Testament supercedes much of the Old Testament but moreover it doesn't have the slightest understanding of what the Old Testament is. It is a mixture of mythology, history and legal texts from the Bronze and Iron Ages. So what were they expecting, people hugging trees and singing Kumbaya?

Looking at the section where they claim the Bible promotes human sacrifice reveals a complete lack of understanding about how the culture of the time worked. Human Sacrifice was widely practiced at the time and Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son would be read as a common feature of any mythology. It is the fact that he was stopped that is the significant part. The site's assertion that it was still cruel and if he did it today would be sent to jail for child cruelty is absurd. This is a bronze age myth, not twenty first century society!

Similarly their "God is impossible" section is pathetic. I could give you an argument as to why God is impossible and a number of philosophers could give you different and no doubt better arguments still. If I was still hoping for anything intelligent from that site I would have been left disappointed for there is no such argument there, only that insane fundy conceptions of God are illogical. Any normal Christian could tell you that. And while we are on the subject of that bit, it says Christians believe non believers burn in hell. Again that is a fundy belief that comes from extreme Protestantism. The regular belief was that it was based on your deeds in life, not your belief. These days most either don't believe in it at all or else believe that it exists but no one is sent there (the latter being quite common in Catholicism).

Picking the flaws out in that site is like shooting fish in a barrel, but here's one more, the bit where they say "The Torah is unscientific". Good Lord, do they even know when it was written? And the notion of God creating the world is Seven days ought to disprove Judaism? it is a fucking myth. It is not meant to be taken literally. That is how ancient culture worked in the Near East. In most places actually. They used mythology and allegory to try and explain their world and that formed the basis of their religion and culture. Modern religion evolved from that but cannot possibly be taken as being identical. What modern Jews believe and what Jews back then believe are two completely different things. Judaism is considered to be part of an unbroken chain of descent from the culture back then, but the beliefs being just the same? Good Lord.

Speaking generally about the site now, I find it telling they focus more on the Old Testament when in Christianity that is meant to be understood in the context of a New Covenant in the New Testament. And speaking of being out of context, once again this was written in the context of the Bronze and Iron Ages. Not modern society. At the time if somebody wronged you it was considered quite acceptable to kill him in response provided you could get away with it. Indeed if someone killed a member of your family, his entire family could be put to death for it. Armies at the time went to war and sacked cities, slaughtered the men, raped the women and children alike, looted everything and took those left back as slaves. That was the society they were living in. The fact that the Jewish society imposed limits on that kind of behaviour at all is the significant thing. Not that these limits are totally inadequate by modern standards. Context people, context.

I love a good criticism of religion, but as with any criticism, you have to understand what you are criticising. This site offends anyone who values any kind of intellectual rigour.

Robocommie

15th July 2010, 13:34

I must say Demogorgon, I'm impressed. Well said.

Crimson Commissar

15th July 2010, 16:06

In the objective world, yes. But your argument doesn't apply to subjective matters. I cannot prove I am happy, nor can I prove that the rainbow is beautiful, or Beethoven is awe-inspiring. Nor can you prove otherwise, so our arguments and counter-arguments would be a waste of time.

So your idea of questioning religion is as absurd as questioning the beauty of the rainbow as both of them are subjective matters. Hence, 'proving' and 'disproving' are both irrelevant here.
If religion had been merely a private matter throughout history, then there would likely be no need to question it or try to destroy it. But history has proven that religion is harmful and destructive to our society. Just think of how many people have been killed because of religion, how much human society has been set back because of religion. Think of how far ahead we could have been if people just didn't care whether someone else believed in a god or not. When religion is responsible for so much misery in this world and yet there is still no proof for it, it is clear that something is very, VERY wrong and that it can no longer be trusted to exist in our world. Even here in the west where Atheism is thriving, Christian fundamentalists are constantly attempting to halt social progress and preserve their radical, ultra-religious view of the world. The situation is even worse in the Middle-East, just look at the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, one of the only Socialist regimes the Middle-East has ever had. They tried to introduce change to Afghanistan and turn it into a modern, equal nation that would no longer be plagued by religious feudalism. Not only did the Islamic fundamentalists violently resist against it in favour of the religious ruling classes, they turned Afghanistan into a complete warzone. While the Socialist government's reaction to religion was rather extreme and unnecessary, I think we ALL can agree that Afghanistan would be a much better place today if they had have succeeded.

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 16:14

Just think of how many people have been killed because of religion

non-Marxist viewpoint privileging idealism over materialism.

try it again, think about why material conditions trump anything that religion could ever do.

Robocommie

15th July 2010, 16:28

But history has proven that religion is harmful and destructive to our society.

If there's one thing that tends to get to me, it's people who are almost certainly not historians making assertions about what "history proves." Do you have any idea how much debate and argumentation is made over settling relatively minor questions of historical fact? I mean, what history are using for this? What's your methodology?

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 16:31

I mean, what history are using for this? What's your methodology?

popular British atheism.

Crimson Commissar

15th July 2010, 17:51

If there's one thing that tends to get to me, it's people who are almost certainly not historians making assertions about what "history proves." Do you have any idea how much debate and argumentation is made over settling relatively minor questions of historical fact? I mean, what history are using for this? What's your methodology?
It's just common sense. The good that religion has done, Abrahamic religion in particular, is insignificant compared to the bad things it has done.

Franz Fanonipants

15th July 2010, 18:11

It's just common sense.

You're a p. poor propagandist

Rakhmetov

15th July 2010, 18:45

Not long after Jesus' death, the apostle Paul counseled total obedience to the state (the very Roman state that had crucified his savior), claiming in Romans 13.1 that "The powers that be are ordained by God." Since there exists no authority save by the act of God, it follows that those who do not submit to earthly rulers are in effect resisting celestial authority "and shall receive to themselves damnation." Preaching while that homicidal autocrat, Nero, was sitting on the throne, Paul assures his followers that the ruler is both virtuous and benign, working for the good of all and ready to punish evidoers. He deserves obedience not only out of fear "but also for conscience sake" "for he is the minister of God." So should people "render tribute" (taxes) to the authorities, for they do God's service. Soon after this, at the instigation of a rival Christian faction, Paul himself [along with Peter and a number of other Christians] is said to have been arrested and executed by the divinely ordained secular authorities.

By Dr. Michael Parenti, History As Mystery

Romans 13:1-7 (New International Version)

Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero)

tradeunionsupporter

15th July 2010, 20:33

Good site.

Robocommie

15th July 2010, 20:40

It's just common sense. The good that religion has done, Abrahamic religion in particular, is insignificant compared to the bad things it has done.

That is a completely unscientific, unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion. That's 100% opinion, not fact.

"Common sense" is not a historical method.

Adi Shankara

15th July 2010, 21:07

Second, you're coming very close to breaking the second unspoken law; we must never critically compare religions. Never mind that Tibetan Buddhism isn't responsible for a fraction of the bloodshed attributable to Christianity or Islam, oh, we can't even acknowledge it. Not allowed. This is also absurd. All religion is bad, but some are worse than others. My chief complaint with this example is it's illogical, as all religions are. It might be helpful in his case, but on the whole illogical thinking is bad, and leads to bad results. We should not be championing irrationality.

First, if his belief in reincarnation is the only thing that keeps him from killing people, he's got some serious problems.

You miss the point. that belief in reincarnation is not the motivator. it's the belief that "I don't want bad things to happen to me, so why should I do them to others?" that to me, is the very basis of empathy.

Second, you're coming very close to breaking the second unspoken law; we must never critically compare religions. Never mind that Tibetan Buddhism isn't responsible for a fraction of the bloodshed attributable to Christianity or Islam, oh, we can't even acknowledge it. Not allowed. This is also absurd. All religion is bad, but some are worse than others. My chief complaint with this example is it's illogical, as all religions are. It might be helpful in his case, but on the whole illogical thinking is bad, and leads to bad results. We should not be championing irrationality.

You know what makes other people think some atheists are full of crap? arguments like this. this "religion is only bad and has contributed nothing good to the world, and atheism is totally free of guilt" line of argument. People see these arguments, and end up thinking all atheists are bad, or hostile bigots. Stop giving a bad name to atheism.

I am not an atheist, but I have respect for respectful atheists. those who don't feel they need to belittle other people's beliefs in order to feel secure in their own. and atheism, while I do not believe in it, have offered many positive contributions to the world: as has religion. Gandhi was motivated by religion, and irregardless of his political beliefs, Without him, the caste system (which was more based in race and economic status than religion--both Tolstoy I believe and Marx goes over this) would still exist in it's medieval state.

Also, what about those deaths that could be attributed to atheism? how many lie dead because of Pol Pot killing innocent buddhist peasant farmers? or buddhist monks, some as young as children?

or Stalin and his pogroms against Jews?

and Hitler, while not an atheist, targeted many of the religious clergy who spoke against Nazi persecution and sent them to death camps.

Atheism, in some instances, has as much blood on their hands as some religions do. But just like with communism, people (whether religious, atheist, communist, whatever) kill others, not ideologies (unless it's such an ideology that is designed to benefit one group solely above others, like capitalism, fascism, etc. many religions, while misconstrued this way, are NOT this way.)

NGNM85

16th July 2010, 05:35

You miss the point. that belief in reincarnation is not the motivator. it's the belief that "I don't want bad things to happen to me, so why should I do them to others?" that to me, is the very basis of empathy.

What the basis of empathy is is another discussion. However, that does not require one to believe anything based oninsufficient evidence. Believing in reincarnation, or deism, or Scientology, etc., is not a prerequisite for moral behavior.

You know what makes other people think some atheists are full of crap?

Common misconceptions.

arguments like this. this "religion is only bad and has contributed nothing good to the world, and atheism is totally free of guilt" line of argument. People see these arguments, and end up thinking all atheists are bad, or hostile bigots. Stop giving a bad name to atheism.

If that's the case, they don't understand bigotry. Athiesm is opposed to all religion, that's not bigoted.

You can argue it's a bad tactic. That depends. Some religious people, who haven't been sufficiently indoctrinated might respond to some gentle questioning and prodding. You're never going to reach the true believers, nomatter what you do. The best tools in the long run are better education, and improving the standards of living.

I am not an atheist, but I have respect for respectful atheists. those who don't feel they need to belittle other people's beliefs in order to feel secure in their own. and atheism, while I do not believe in it, have offered many positive contributions to the world:

There's nothing in Atheism that one has to 'believe.' It is simply a recognition that there is no empirical evidence of god.

as has religion. Gandhi was motivated by religion, and irregardless of his political beliefs, Without him, the caste system (which was more based in race and economic status than religion--both Tolstoy I believe and Marx goes over this) would still exist in it's medieval state.

It's possible without religion he might not have done what he did. However, again, beliefs in equality, social justice, etc., are not dependant on a belief in the supernatural.

Also, what about those deaths that could be attributed to atheism? how many lie dead because of Pol Pot killing innocent buddhist peasant farmers? or buddhist monks, some as young as children?

or Stalin and his pogroms against Jews?

None of these acts directly follow from Atheism, these individuals didn't do these things simply because they were Atheists. However, the Bible is very clear about what it perscribes for heretics and others.

and Hitler, while not an atheist, targeted many of the religious clergy who spoke against Nazi persecution and sent them to death camps.

The Vatican was also the first to establish friendly diplomatic relations with the Third Reich, and took an official position of noninterference during the holocaust, if not silent support.

Atheism, in some instances, has as much blood on their hands as some religions do. But just like with communism, people (whether religious, atheist, communist, whatever) kill others, not ideologies (unless it's such an ideology that is designed to benefit one group solely above others, like capitalism, fascism, etc. many religions, while misconstrued this way, are NOT this way.)

I already answered the charge against Atheism. If you want to know what the religioon advocates you just have to read the books, overwhelmingly, these books are full of bigotry, intolerance, and exhortations to violence. There's some good ideas mixed in there too, but none that aren't better acquired elsewhere.

NGNM85

16th July 2010, 05:45

Similar to gulag and all that, eh?;) See, anyone can generalize about anything.

No, as I said, that doesn't have anything specifically to do with Atheism.

Man is an animal, and he needs something, anything, to keep him in check, to keep him from killing. Our bloody human history is evidence. If you feel man needs no concept at all to keep him from killing, then what's going to keep him from killing? He could kill and rationalize later on since he doesn't believe in any concept or idea.

This is really a question about human nature. Like all lifeforms we have natural instincts and behavior patterns. I think it's fairly clear humans are not inherently homicidal. Moreover, I think most people already know this. I mean, how many people are surprised when they read "Thou shalt not kill." Does anybody jump out of their seat and go; "Gee, how do they think of this stuff?!" No normal person. Moreover, there are plenty of excellent logical reasons for moral behavior that don't depend on supernatural entities.

If certain people are irrational, are you going to change them by attacking and ridiculing their beliefs? That's a good way to antagonize them, not change them. Second, shouldn't you worry more about practical matters concerning workers rather than what goes on inside someone's (irrational) head?

Again, this is a question of tactics. Some peole respond to gentle prodding, some to a more serious approach, some are completely impenetrable. Again, this is a tactical argument.

I think we should be concerned about irrationality, because it's generally bad. I also think we should be deeply concerned by the sheer amount and intensity of the violence and bigotry that is coming out of this stuff. The only solution is to strike at the source. I mean,...maybe fostering religious moderation is a better tactical step towards no religion, but I'm not sure of that.

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 05:47

What the basis of empathy is is another discussion. However, that does not require one to believe anything based oninsufficient evidence. Believing in reincarnation, or deism, or Scientology, etc., is not a prerequisite for moral behavior.

I never said it was.

Common misconceptions.

nope. not really. people like Hitchens and DAWKINS (edit: it previously said Darwin, how embarassing) make you all look bad. you don't do too well for yourself either.

[/B]

If that's the case, they don't understand bigotry. Athiesm is opposed to all religion, that's not bigoted.

It's very bigoted, as it's blindly painting every group of followers with the same brush.

There's nothing in Atheism that one has to 'believe.' It is simply a recognition that there is no empirical evidence of god.

Unless there is the belief that there is no god--that is an opinionated belief.

[/B]

It's possible without religion he might not have done what he did. However, again, beliefs in equality, social justice, etc., are not dependant on a belief in the supernatural.

What you're doing here is a textbook example of "begging the question".

None of these acts directly follow from Atheism, these individuals didn't do these things simply because they were Atheists. However, the Bible is very clear about what it perscribes for heretics and others.

Then what about Durga-worshipping sects of Hinduism? or Jainism? all which preach non-violence almost to the point of extremism :lol:

The Vatican was also the first to establish friendly diplomatic relations with the Third Reich, and took an official position of noninterference during the holocaust, if not silent support.

so did India, so did Ireland, so did England.

I already answered the charge against Atheism. If you want to know what the religioon advocates you just have to read the books, overwhelmingly, these books are full of bigotry, intolerance, and exhortations to violence. There's some good ideas mixed in there too, but none that aren't better acquired elsewhere.

Find ANYTHING where Buddha said, where Jesus said, where Guru Nanak said, where it says so in Jainism (so ascetic, many of their believers spend their lives naked and with brooms to sweep insects out of their paths, so as not to kill them), that gay people deserve death, where women should be treated disrespectfully, where non-believers should be killed--no where does it say any of this.

Also, Stalin did the pograms in the name of atheism. also, when the PRC did that to Tibetan monks etc. they did it in the name of atheism. every side has attributed to death and destruction (except for Jainism, which would be impossible) atheism is no exception

16th July 2010, 05:50

However, again, beliefs in equality, social justice, etc., are not dependant on a belief in the supernatural.

Here's the kicker. To believe in equality when there is none, in social justice when there is none - these are supernatural beliefs. It is one thing to desire these things, and I certainly do, as do all communists. But I don't "believe in" them because they don't exist. You, on the other hand, seem to think that there actually are such things as "universal human rights" which exist in the world today. That is a religious belief.

In the argument between you and Thomas Wankera, you're both wrong. You're both regarding religion as something abstracted from material conditions. Neither of you is defending a materialist perspective.

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 05:55

In the argument between you and Thomas Wankera,

"Hey look at me! I'm an adult making masturbation puns! Aren't I funny!?!? Isn't that the most clever thing you ever heard?!??!"

pathetic child.

16th July 2010, 05:56

Adi Shankara

16th July 2010, 05:58

You're both regarding religion as something abstracted from material conditions. Neither of you is defending a materialist perspective.

Dialectical materialism has too many holes to be considered valid, IMO.

@NGNM85: tell me that these very religious monks are evil:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Jaina_nude_saints

they're so extremist on their aversion to violence, they don't even bathe in fear of killing insects or microbes:

12 They are not supposed to get angry- even to one who blames them.
13 They dont even drink water after their regular food, i.e. once a day.
14 They remove their hairs on their face and head only with their hands/ They wont use tools for that.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

16th July 2010, 06:09

Dialectical materialism has too many holes to be considered valid, IMO.

@NGNM85: tell me that these very religious monks are evil:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Jaina_nude_saints

they're so extremist on their aversion to violence, they don't even bathe in fear of killing insects or microbes:

How can the nutters live at all knowing their bodies involountarily kill billions upon billions of microbes day and night? How can they walk anywhere without trembling in fear that they just killed an entire civilisation of tiny insects?

They don't have to be "evil" to be totally out of their minds.

16th July 2010, 12:31

man you really are a white supremacist.
Wild unfounded accusations :wub:

Especially when your ethnicity was not known until you mentioned it in this post.

"Hey look at me! I'm an adult making masturbation puns! Aren't I funny!?!? Isn't that the most clever thing you ever heard?!??!"

pathetic child.
Note the unnecessary ageism.

ZeroNowhere

16th July 2010, 13:21

"Hey look at me! I'm an adult making masturbation puns! Aren't I funny!?!? Isn't that the most clever thing you ever heard?!??!"

pathetic child.
Um, no, he actually just called you a wanker.

Franz Fanonipants

16th July 2010, 15:00

Wild unfounded accusations :wub:

looks like you can't read either, comrade. that must be hard.

Invincible Summer

16th July 2010, 16:52

Verbal warnings to 9, Thomas Sankara, and Franz Fanonipants for spam/flaming/not staying on topic after I already told you people to.

If this continues I'm closing the thread

NGNM85

17th July 2010, 04:08

@NGNM85: tell me that these very religious monks are evil:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Jaina_nude_saints

they're so extremist on their aversion to violence, they don't even bathe in fear of killing insects or microbes:

Not all religion is violent or hateful, just most of them. However, all religions are irrational. This is reason enough to oppose it.

Sir Comradical

17th July 2010, 04:59

Bottom line is this: NO ONE has the right to judge anyone else's personal faith, religion, or philosophy, whether atheism, christianity, hinduism, etc. if it doesn't directly harm others or if it's primary focus isn't a belief of intolerance. (many people take obscure passages from religion, and use that to judge the entire faith--it's like judging a house only on it's paint and shingles, not the actual house)

for some reason, I can't see the religious Khmer peasant farmer who believes in reincarnation so he lives to avoid killing living things as "a religious downpressing imperialist who needs to be destroyed".

Actually I do have the right to judge someone else's personal faith, because "right" is a legal term and in the country I live in, there are no thought crimes. If you mean to say that people shouldn't judge each other based on personal faith, then what are you saying? That people should police their own thoughts?

In all honesty, if someone tells me about their staunch religious beliefs, I will automatically assume that they're culturally and intellectually backward. I won't let it show, but my thoughts will gravitate to that conclusion by default.

Raúl Duke

17th July 2010, 06:41

Unless there is the belief that there is no god--that is an opinionated belief.You are making a negative (disbelief) assertation into a positive (belief) one, which is an incorrect understanding of atheism.

Atheism is actually copuled with agnosticism. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, while atheism is a theological one. Most self-described agnostics are actually agnostic atheists. Virtually all self-described atheists are agnostic atheists as well, they disbelieve in god because they do not find enough evidence to support said belief (theism). Most atheists do not claim that they "know" there's no god nor hold a belief (in the same level as theists, i.e. claiming to know {gnostic}) that god doesn't exist.

The disbelief could be said to be held as an assumption, based out of Occam's Razor where you choose the "simplest" or less hypothetical (hypothetical concepts being those with little to no evidence) explanation.

NGNM85

18th July 2010, 04:45

I never said it was.

Then there’s no point in mentioning it.

nope. not really. people like Hitchens and Darwin make you all look bad. you don't do too well for yourself either.

I’m hardly impressed by you’re rhetoric.

It's very bigoted, as it's blindly painting every group of followers with the same brush.

No. The only thing I said about all religion is that they’re all illogical. That’s true. Every single follower is at least irrational in this respect. I said that the Abrahamic faiths, specifically, are hateful and primitive because that’s what the central texts are.

Unless there is the belief that there is no god--that is an opinionated belief.

It’s simply skepticism towards a wild assumption based on zero evidence. I have no more reason to seriously consider the existence of god, especially these specific gods, which is what we’re really talking about, than unicorns.

What you're doing here is a textbook example of "begging the question".

In order for you’re statement to have value you’d have to prove that those are fundamentally religious concepts, and they aren’t.

Then what about Durga-worshipping sects of Hinduism? or Jainism? all which preach non-violence almost to the point of extremism

All equally irrational.

so did India, so did Ireland, so did England.

You were trying to imply that Christianity was in some way morally opposed to the Third Reich. If there was some inherent feature it’s interesting that it was so overwhelmingly absent. These individuals were motivated by themselves, by their conscience, not that vile book.

Find ANYTHING where Buddha said, where Jesus said, where Guru Nanak said, where it says so in Jainism (so ascetic, many of their believers spend their lives naked and with brooms to sweep insects out of their paths, so as not to kill them), that gay people deserve death, where women should be treated disrespectfully, where non-believers should be killed--no where does it say any of this.

Well, now you’re getting a bit slippery. For you didn’t say “Where does it say this in the Bible?” because it does so repeatedly, you just said; “Where does Jesus say this?” This is like a certain rich evangelist Christian who put up a huge sum of money for anyone who could find “separation of church and state” in the constitution. Of course, that phrase isn’t in the constitution; it says the state is prohibited from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The tenets put forth in the Old Testament are still taught and upheld by the Church. Jesus does not repudiate all of the barbarism in the first half, in fact, he repeatedly states that all the old rules still apply;
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Also, Stalin did the pograms in the name of atheism. also, when the PRC did that to Tibetan monks etc. they did it in the name of atheism. every side has attributed to death and destruction (except for Jainism, which would be impossible) atheism is no exception

Again, this is false. Stalin did not purge religious people in the name of Atheism. That isn’t a tenet of Atheism. Atheism is simply the refusal to accept the belief in god on zero evidence. It’s very simple. Massacring the faithful or putting them into camps does not naturally follow from this very simple position. However, when one reads sentences like this gem from Leviticus; “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” This is very clearly intended as impetus to take action, borne out by the fact that it has been interpreted and applied that way for centuries.

NGNM85

22nd July 2010, 19:11

You rip that quote out of context. It's part of a parable. That line is being spoken by a king in the parable, to his servant who did not wisely invest his gold, which is a moral parable about those who do not do good works, using the talents invested in them, to make people's lives better. The king states that those who do not invest his wealth are his enemies and should be struck down. The parable likens us to the servants. We are stewards of the earth, our brother's keeper, and we have been entrusted with great wealth in the form of our lives, our talents, our compassion. If we don't use that wealth, and bury it in the ground like the poor servant in the story, never to benefit others, what good are we to the world? "Slaying them" is meant to be taken as an analogy, not literally. If it was, it should also be taken literally that God hath given us ten pounds.

Frankly, that's just one interpretation. The trouble with taking the Bible literally, as anti-theists love to do just as much as Baptist fundamentalists, is to ignore the way in which the Bible is a historical text and has to be analyzed with an eye to history. The meaning and inference of words have changed since it was written in the original Greek or Aramaic, and the social contexts which would have made the meaning clear no longer exist. This is why Biblical scholarship actually means something to Christians.

This is totally bogus on two fronts. First, this idea that the Bible (Or the Koran, etc.) is so complex and intricate that no one who isn't a theology degree could possibly understand it. That without years of training the documents are completely incomprehensible. I mean, this is total nonsense.

Second, how have these ideas been interpreted, historically? To suggest that there is no connection at all between centuries of persecution of homosexuals by Christians, and the fact that the Bible refers to homosexuality as an 'abomination', and, at least, strongly suggests they be put to death, is ridiculous. Even if you could prove that when it says apostates should be grusomely executed, it actually means you should buy them a puppy, it wouldn't necessarily matter. If these interpretations are so off-base it's interesting that they are so consistently interpreted that way.

Moreover, you're condemnation of religious literalism is fundamentally bogus. Literally believing at least some parts of those books is the most basic determinant of being religious. That is what it means to be religious.