Wind could have parted Red Sea

[hatzel]

This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11383620) has popped up on the BBC.

As somebody with a great interest in trying to find the history in religion and folklore, this article really caught my eyes. I've always been one to give traditional tales the benefit of the doubt, that there is always a possibility that they may be based on a real historical event, if only a logical explanation can be found.

This doesn't just apply to what we term 'religion', by the way. Think of the stories of Beowulf, Robin Hood and King Arthur here in Britain. These may be historical figures...or maybe not...who knows? In my studies of religion and folklore, I often take this viewpoint. To find the historical truth in a narrative, to then understand how they developed with time.

Does anybody else buy this potential explanation? Or is it just...pointless?

[Dimentio]

This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11383620) has popped up on the BBC.

As somebody with a great interest in trying to find the history in religion and folklore, this article really caught my eyes. I've always been one to give traditional tales the benefit of the doubt, that there is always a possibility that they may be based on a real historical event, if only a logical explanation can be found.

This doesn't just apply to what we term 'religion', by the way. Think of the stories of Beowulf, Robin Hood and King Arthur here in Britain. These may be historical figures...or maybe not...who knows? In my studies of religion and folklore, I often take this viewpoint. To find the historical truth in a narrative, to then understand how they developed with time.

Does anybody else buy this potential explanation? Or is it just...pointless?

Moses is just another story about the orphan who saved mankind. Why do we treat Orpheus, Perseus and Hercules as mythological characters but Moses as a historical figure?

[Devrim]

Does anybody else buy this potential explanation? Or is it just...pointless?

Yes, pretty much so. I'd imagine that anybody going to that extent to 'prove' that this could have happened is pretty much motivated by their religious beliefs. I have seen the red Sea, and can't imagine winds parting it. Funnily enough there are no reports of wind doing it since.

The Exodus is an absurd tale:


According to Exodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus) 12:37-38 NIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version), the Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-11) Numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Numbers) 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-12) The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some two million people,[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-13) compared with an entire estimated Egyptian population of around 3 million.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-14) Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-15) No evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe, nor is there evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds,[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-16) nor of a massive population increase in Canaan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan), which is estimated to have had a population of only 50,000 to 100,000 at the time.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-Finkelstein_2002-17) Some scholars have interpreted these numbers as a mistranslation - reading the Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Language) word eleph as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, reduces the Hebrew population involved to roughly 20,000 individuals,[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-18)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-19) - but the view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that the Exodus story was written not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_People), Israel; the essentially theological motivation of the story explains the improbability of the scenario described above. [21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-HEwXDb5oC_2005_p.5-20) It has also been suggested that the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but contains a secret message, a gematria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria) for bene yisra'el kol ros, "the children of Israel, every individual;"[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-21) while the number 600,000 symbolises of the total destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to see the Promised Land.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-22)

More interestingly there are also serious doubts about whether it is even a myth based on any real event at all:


While some archaeologists leave open the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200, they dismiss the possibility that the Exodus could have happened as described in the Bible.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-23) A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-HEwXDb5oC_2005_p.5-20) and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-Finkelstein_1994-24) the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-25)


This doesn't just apply to what we term 'religion', by the way. Think of the stories of Beowulf, Robin Hood and King Arthur here in Britain. These may be historical figures...or maybe not...who knows? In my studies of religion and folklore, I often take this viewpoint. To find the historical truth in a narrative, to then understand how they developed with time.

Like the Exodus story these are all myths. They may be based on historical people, but there were no dragons for Beowulf to slay. They didn't exist.

Devrim

[Nolan]

It could have parted it? Ha.

It could have made the riverbed completely dry? Don't think so.

It was parted just long enough for the Israelites to pass through but conveniently drowned the Egyptian army? Cool story bro.

[Dimentio]

I always find those Israelite military victories in the Bible entertaining. Like in one battle during the Israel-vs-Judah civil war where half a million soldiers would have perished. Or the Amalekites, which were exterminated thrice.

[Queercommie Girl]

This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11383620) has popped up on the BBC.

As somebody with a great interest in trying to find the history in religion and folklore, this article really caught my eyes. I've always been one to give traditional tales the benefit of the doubt, that there is always a possibility that they may be based on a real historical event, if only a logical explanation can be found.

This doesn't just apply to what we term 'religion', by the way. Think of the stories of Beowulf, Robin Hood and King Arthur here in Britain. These may be historical figures...or maybe not...who knows? In my studies of religion and folklore, I often take this viewpoint. To find the historical truth in a narrative, to then understand how they developed with time.

Does anybody else buy this potential explanation? Or is it just...pointless?

Well at least it's better that people are interpreting the bible in a more scientific way, treating "miracles" as natural events and ethical metaphors rather than go with the fundamentalist "God literally created the world in 7 days" lunacy.

I believe Marxism does not attack religion directly. It is not militant atheism. But Marxism opposes 3 elements in all religions:

1) Reactionary defense of class society;

2) Discrimination against other people due to various reasons;

3) Unscientific superstitions that apparently cannot be critically challenged due to the need to "respect tradition".

The only kind of religion that can exist in a Marxist society is "religion tamed", i.e. religion that promotes socialism and equality among all people, and treats all "miracles" etc as mere ethical metaphors.

[Red Panther]

It may have been based on a true phenomenon but I am still critical of both the bible and of religion itself. I don't think this proves or disproves religion at all and, to be honest I don't think it is that important overall.
If it as true though it woud have looked pretty cool though! :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's pointless (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/inventing_excuses_for_a_bible.php).

[Dimentio]

My main question is how things like that could get funded.

[hatzel]

My main question is how things like that could get funded.

I guess because:


The study is part of a larger research project by Mr Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges.I assume the simulation was merely to show an example. You have to pick somewhere to test your theory out, so why not there?

EDIT: I hadn't actually looked at this thread since I posted it, so I'll just say: what?! Of course Orpheus is real! Or, I would happily look into it. In fact, I've just finished writing an essay about the historicity of Kalevala. If I specialised in Greek mythology, though, rather than Finnish, then I'd be happy to put forward some suggestions about the historical Orpheus. Remember, many at the time considered him real. I guess the reason we don't any more is just because people stopped being...you know, Greek pagans, so...it all magically shifted from history to story. Rightly or wrongly.

[Dave B]

The parting of the sea could or even would have been an observed phenomena although not probably in the Red Sea, but certainly in the area of the Mediterranean. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions eg the one on Santorini would have and did cause Tsunami’s which are preceded by the sea withdrawing and then rushing back in.


In, lets say a channel or even an inlet or bay, the sea could "part" and then rush back in again.

It would have been an incorporation of a fantastic observed fact into a fictional or mythological story.

Depending on what you think a dragon is the existence of such things is not quite so imaginary as one might think. It would be surprising if only modern humanity had discovered or observed the fossil record first and it wouldn’t be too difficult to construct a dragon out of those, with a bit of imagination and retelling.


I think there is written evidence of the "ancient" Chinese being familiar with fossils of such a kind.


Just as it is possible to see how a Rhinoceros could morph into a unicorn thus Pliny the Elder describes a;


"a very fierce animal called the monoceros which has the head of the stag (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Deer), the feet of the elephant (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Elephant), and the tail of the boar (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Boar), while the rest of the body is like that of the horse; it makes a deep lowing noise, and has a single black horn, which projects from the middle of its forehead, two cubits in length."

The literary technique of mixing fantasy with fact is as old as fables itself. Some no doubt would be highly amused at the idea of talking pigs in Orwell’s animal farm or the kind of things that went on in Swift’s political satire; Gullivers Travels.


There is a potentially serious point to it all and that is to deconstruct these myths and work your way back through them as in Strauss' "The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined" described as;



"the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell."


And then Bruno Bauer and Feuerbachs "Essence of Christianity" and Engel’s "On the History of Early Christianity"


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)


Where apart from "associating" early christianity with ‘spontaneous communism’ he postulates a deconstruction of the Revelation According to John, and things don’t get much more fantastic than that.


.

[Conquer or Die]

Well at least it's better that people are interpreting the bible in a more scientific way, treating "miracles" as natural events and ethical metaphors rather than go with the fundamentalist "God literally created the world in 7 days" lunacy.

Wrong. "Miracles" which can be scientifically proven or natural events in the Bible are proof, not the lack of, God to fundamentalists.


I believe Marxism does not attack religion directly. It is not militant atheism. But Marxism opposes 3 elements in all religions:

1) Reactionary defense of class society;

2) Discrimination against other people due to various reasons;

3) Unscientific superstitions that apparently cannot be critically challenged due to the need to "respect tradition".

The only kind of religion that can exist in a Marxist society is "religion tamed", i.e. religion that promotes socialism and equality among all people, and treats all "miracles" etc as mere ethical metaphors.

No, you won't decide that. You can't decide what is and what isn't appropriate.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wrong. "Miracles" which can be scientifically proven or natural events in the Bible are proof, not the lack of, God to fundamentalists.

The problem being that if there is a naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon, supernatural entities and forces are rendered superfluous.

In any case, the mere fact that the world is knowable and predictable to any significant degree is an unmistakeable indicator that there is no supernatural element to the universe, otherwise science would be constantly frustrated in its attempts to understand the universe by supernatural forces and entities screwing up the results on a whim.

Religion and other forms of magical thinking are simply projections of our teleological tendencies onto a non-teleological but nevertheless knowable universe.

[Dean]

If wind had ever parted the red sea it was probably low enough to wade or walk through anyhow. The article is right - what a trivial issue to use our resources on!

[Queercommie Girl]

Wrong. "Miracles" which can be scientifically proven or natural events in the Bible are proof, not the lack of, God to fundamentalists.


If they are natural events, then by definition they can't be miracles.



No, you won't decide that. You can't decide what is and what isn't appropriate.

I decide that if you start supporting feudal or capitalist restoration, then you are my class enemy, no matter what superficial religious coating you dress up your reactionary doctrines in.

[Conquer or Die]

If they are natural events, then by definition they can't be miracles.

Not the case. The wind was sent from God. It happened because nature is a tool of God. There needs to be no alteration from natural laws to support this theory of Divine favor or intervention.




I decide that if you start supporting feudal or capitalist restoration, then you are my class enemy, no matter what superficial religious coating you dress up your reactionary doctrines in.

Your subjective butthurt will not outplay your objective stupidity. As for your threat, I will not take kindly to that. I will murder your effete ass in a cold second if you think you're a revolutionary when you're not and trying to play hard.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not the case. The wind was sent from God. It happened because nature is a tool of God. There needs to be no alteration from natural laws to support this theory of Divine favor or intervention.

Parsimony says that if a natural event occurs, its cause is far more likely to also be natural.


Your subjective butthurt will not outplay your objective stupidity. As for your threat, I will not take kindly to that. I will murder your effete ass in a cold second if you think you're a revolutionary when you're not and trying to play hard.

Sounds like we might have an Internet Tough Guy here.

I guess it fits in with your heterosexist use of the term "effete", since only real macho men can be revolutionaries. :rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

Not the case. The wind was sent from God. It happened because nature is a tool of God. There needs to be no alteration from natural laws to support this theory of Divine favor or intervention.


Fuck you and fuck your God. What you said here is fundamentally illogical.



Your subjective butthurt will not outplay your objective stupidity. As for your threat, I will not take kindly to that. I will murder your effete ass in a cold second if you think you're a revolutionary when you're not and trying to play hard.
I don't care that you don't take kindly to my "threat". I will literally burn down the churches of religious reactionaries like you if you literally support reactionary politics. Call it "persecution" if you like.

Yes, call that a threat if you will. And I dare you to act against me based on what I have said here.

[Queercommie Girl]

Parsimony says that if a natural event occurs, its cause is far more likely to also be natural.


It's not even that actually, it's actually that the entire concept of the "supernatural", as something that is fundamentally beyond the reach of empirical enquiry, is fundamentally philosophically flawed from an epistemological perspective.

In the most general sense, what is the "supernatural" is simply things we do not yet understand in a "natural" way. But in principle there cannot exist any metaphysical barriers to the potential of human understanding. In this sense paganism is superior to Christianity because although pagans are certainly not scientific in the modern rationalist sense, at least they view their "magical supernatural world" in an empirical and experimental way, not in a dogmatic and repressed manner. Pagans dare to channel what Christians call "demonic forces" and taste the "forbidden fruits" of knowledge and life. They dare to construct the "tower of babel" in direct contradiction to the commandments of God. Indeed, a lot of proto-scientific traditions in pre-modern times were produced by pagans or those heavily influenced by paganism, like the alchemists in Europe and the Daoist pagans in China who invented gunpowder.

What is socialism if not the ultimate and general freeing up of human potentials, the courage to explore the unknown to the extent of breaking through all "taboos" and barriers? The idea that there is some "metaphysical divine realm" that is forever beyond the potential reach of human knowledge and power is surely an ideological tool of oppression.

So what if some intelligent entity like "god" really created the material universe and humanity itself? Why does that automatically imply we humans must bow down in front of it? If one day we could find and kill our creator and steal his knowledge and power, then why not? We should be like the ancient Greek heroes of old who dared to steal the heavenly fire for the benefit of humanity or the ancient materialist philosopher Xunzi in China who said: "Rather than revere Heaven and sing hymns to it, why don't we actually try to understand and exploit it?" To say that one must never rebel against God is like the ruling class saying that workers should never rebel against capitalist authority or reactionary primitivist luddites saying that human engineers and scientists should never rebel against the raw forces of nature.

Long Live Humanity!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's not even that actually, it's actually that the entire concept of the "supernatural", as something that is fundamentally beyond the reach of empirical enquiry, is fundamentally philosophically flawed from an epistemological perspective.

In the most general sense, what is the "supernatural" is simply things we do not yet understand in a "natural" way. But in principle there cannot exist any metaphysical barriers to the potential of human understanding.

There may not be metaphysical barriers, but certainly humans have a limited capacity for processing information. With quantum physics and relativity, we've already reached our limit of phenomena that can be intuitively grasped.

It may turn out that there are some things about the universe that cannot be understood by humans (or at least we find the maths too hard), but which can be comprehended by quantitively and qualitively more complicated intelligences.


What is socialism if not the ultimate and general freeing up of human potentials, the courage to explore the unknown to the extent of breaking through all "taboos" and barriers? The idea that there is some "metaphysical divine realm" that is forever beyond the potential reach of human knowledge and power is surely an ideological tool of oppression.

So what if some intelligent entity like "god" really created the material universe and humanity itself? Why does that automatically imply we humans must bow down in front of it? If one day we could find and kill our creator and steal his knowledge and power, then why not? We should be like the ancient Greek heroes of old who dared to steal the heavenly fire for the benefit of humanity or the ancient materialist philosopher Xunzi in China who said: "Rather than revere Heaven and sing hymns to it, why don't we actually try to understand and exploit it?" To say that one must never rebel against God is like the ruling class saying that workers should never rebel against capitalist authority or reactionary primitivist luddites saying that human engineers and scientists should never rebel against the raw forces of nature.

Long Live Humanity!

I've long thought that if there was a deity, humanity's prime task should be to kill it and replace it with something better. Like AIs.

[RedStarOverChina]

The more likely scenario: the whole thing was made up.

[Conquer or Die]

Fuck you and fuck your God. What you said here is fundamentally illogical.

Oookay :rolleyes:


I don't care that you don't take kindly to my "threat". I will literally burn down the churches of religious reactionaries like you if you literally support reactionary politics. Call it "persecution" if you like.

Yes, call that a threat if you will. And I dare you to act against me based on what I have said here.

Sweetheart, do you even know how to shoot a gun?

"I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR CHURCHES LIKE THE KLAN BEFORE ME!"

You are literally the most stupid person on the internet.

[Crimson Commissar]

Oookay :rolleyes:


Sweetheart, do you even know how to shoot a gun?

"I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR CHURCHES LIKE THE KLAN BEFORE ME!"

You are literally the most stupid person on the internet.
I'd like to hear your opinion on this, so:

Why should we humans worship God? What has he done for us? Why do you believe he is worthy of our worship?

No theist I've ever met has truly answered these questions. They merely assume that since their God supposedly created us, we must bow before him and obey EVERY command he gives us.

[ComradeMan]

This is what I hate about discussions of religion. It always comes down to a flame war- fundamentalist religion is bad but the fundamental atheism of some is just as nauseous. It's like that British scientists, Dawkins- he got severely bad reviews for his book from atheists. The fundamental atheists usually have as bigotted and limited knowledge of religion as those they attack have of science- it's almost like two sides of the same coin. The strawmen, the literal interpretations, and so on and so on. The other thing I note is they seem to focus their attention on Christianity and Judaism to a lesser extent- too worried about the fatwas no doubt! :D The reification the failure to see that because some religionists may be lunatics, fanatics, homophobes or racists it does not mean that an abstract set of philosophies and beliefs is any of those things. If you swap words around it's almost the same as those who attack communism by immediately pointing to Stalin etc. Before people jump on the bandwagon too, fundamentalist religionists are just as bad and half the time they actually have no idea of what they are speaking about- all the more reason for atheists not to base their arguments against those of the fundamentalists.

I personally don't care what religion anyone is as long as they don't ram it down others' throats, but I think many might be fed up of having fundamentalist atheism rammed down their throats too. As for Iseul's outburst, well the hypocrisy is stunning. After speaking about the LGBT problem with Christianity and its reactionary connotations your only answer is to stoop to the level of those who were throwing gays on bonfires in the Middle Ages.

The other thing is this atheist obsession with religion- the whole raison d'etre of being an atheist is that you don't believe in religion so why obsess about is so much? Constantly seeking to disprove something you don't believe in anyway!

Before the fundamentalist religionists start- you lot ought to actually sit down and read your scriptures with a good dictionary of whatever ancient language they were written in.

:cool:

[Queercommie Girl]

Oookay :rolleyes:


You are pretty stupid if you don't even realise the irrationality of your stance.

If everything can be completely explained through "natural" means, then what logical room is there for God?

That's something you can never hope to justify.

Also note, the emphasis in my statement is "fuck your God", not just any "God". Although I am a firm materialist, I don't have a problem with progressive religionists. But you are not progressive. I specifically laid out that for a socialist religions are only socially progressive if

1) they do not support reactionary systems like capitalism and landlordism;
2) they treat everyone equally regardless of race, gender and sexuality;
3) they are open to scientific criticism.

I can't see how any real socialist, religious or not, would disagree with these criteria. The very fact that not only you disagreed with these criteria but actually threatened to "murder" me just because I stated these criteria simply shows that you must be a reactionary, or a reactionary pretending to be a progressive socialist. And I don't treat reactionaries kindly at all. That's our socialist ethics.

So I guess in your mind "real religions" are those that are free to defend capitalism and feudalism, free to be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and free to be anti-science? For someone with this kind of reactionary view, for me to just say things like "fuck you" is already very lenient indeed.



Sweetheart, do you even know how to shoot a gun?
No less than someone like you who claims to be an absolute pacifist. :rolleyes:



"I WILL BURN DOWN YOUR CHURCHES LIKE THE KLAN BEFORE ME!"

You are literally the most stupid person on the internet.
I said you would be reactionary if you defended religions that apologise for landlordism and capitalism, and then you threatened to "murder" me in cold blood. How do you think I would have responded to that? Revolution is never a dinner party, idiot.

Here is someone who holds onto the faith of the Bronze Age barbarians and literally believe that the vast majority of humanity might indeed go to eternal hell for not believing Jesus calling me "stupid", I don't know whether or not I should feel flattered or literally laugh at your idiocy.

By the way, you should know that the KKK actually used Christian fundamentalism to justify their fascistic and ultra-racist actions, you illiterate dolt.

[Queercommie Girl]

I personally don't care what religion anyone is as long as they don't ram it down others' throats, but I think many might be fed up of having fundamentalist atheism rammed down their throats too. As for Iseul's outburst, well the hypocrisy is stunning. After speaking about the LGBT problem with Christianity and its reactionary connotations your only answer is to stoop to the level of those who were throwing gays on bonfires in the Middle Ages.


I am a materialist but I don't attack religions in general, as Marx stated, direct attacks on religions can often be counter-productive, since religions are underpinned by the specific socio-economic conditions of class society, and will not fade away unless these conditions are fundamentally transformed.

Therefore I only attack reactionary types of religion that apologises for class society and discriminatory types of religion that are racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. Of course I also welcome the scientific and rational critique of superstition in general, but people still have the freedom of belief.

As for my "outburst", well you should note that Conquer of Die has got some pretty reactionary ideas (probably why he is restricted in the first place), he is hardly what one would call a "progressive religionist". And as you can see in this thread, he literally said he would "murder me in cold blood" first, which is certainly not something someone who adheres to any kind of "religious ethics" would say.

I don't believe in the Christian ethic of "turn the other cheek", but rather adhere to the revolutionary socialist ethic of "fighting back", so as far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with "fighting fire with fire", I don't see that as hypocrisy at all and my conscience is clear.

Suppose there are really fundamentalists going around throwing queer people into fires, then these fundamentalists would indeed deserve the fire themselves, there is no "hypocrisy" at all. "Forgiveness" is never unconditional.

[Conquer or Die]

You are pretty stupid if you don't even realise the irrationality of your stance.

If everything can be completely explained through "natural" means, then what logical room is there for God?

That's something you can never hope to justify.

Who is to say that the creative, mental process isn't the act of God itself? Darwinism is currently the best way of understanding nature, but it doesn't necessarily void the possibility for God to exist.


Also note, the emphasis in my statement is "fuck your God", not just any "God". Although I am a firm materialist, I don't have a problem with progressive religionists. But you are not progressive.

So you're willing to let the little people believe in their "God" so long as it doesn't interfere with your master-knowledge of the universe.


I specifically laid out that for a socialist religions are only socially progressive if

What the fuck? No majoritarian democracy here? No appeal to any other authority besides your own? Why do YOU get to determine everything? It's not even Marx this time!


1) they do not support reactionary systems like capitalism and landlordism;
2) they treat everyone equally regardless of race, gender and sexuality;
3) they are open to scientific criticism.

Lacks the teeth of your former post in which you stated that a religion can ONLY exist if it fits YOUR parameters for what is progressive and what is not progressive. You can't be a tyrant about what people choose to believe.

Here is religion - voluntary groups of people who select to practice their freedom of conscious in appreciating a diety or belief system without fear of reprisal. They are guaranteed an unlimited vocabulary and a safe practice, but are not given carte blanche to ruin the lives of others.

To be against that is to be reactionary, Iseul.


I can't see how any real socialist, religious or not, would disagree with these criteria.

I don't necessarily disagree with the criteria. I never said that. I disagreed with you being the arbiter of what is and what isn't.


The very fact that not only you disagreed with these criteria but actually threatened to "murder" me just because I stated these criteria simply shows that you must be a reactionary, or a reactionary pretending to be a progressive socialist. And I don't treat reactionaries kindly at all. That's our socialist ethics.

You called me a reactionary, which is a point blank threat. It's no longer amusing to play "who can say the most shocking thing on the internet forum board" so I'm not going to bite on your next threat. I'm simply not worried about you, Iseul.


So I guess in your mind "real religions" are those that are free to defend capitalism and feudalism, free to be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and free to be anti-science? For someone with this kind of reactionary view, for me to just say things like "fuck you" is already very lenient indeed.

For you to have leniency you must have some control or power over me which you don't. Check your arrogance at the door.

A church cannot literally defend somebody convicted of murder. A church cannot defend a capitalist's expropriation. You cannot tell a church what to believe.


No less than someone like you who claims to be an absolute pacifist. :rolleyes:

A weird, telling hang up about yourself. I never once claimed to be an absolute pacifist, I was merely defending them in a forum thread. After you were butthurt by some comments I made you insinuated that I approach my Christian-Pacifist worldview. You wanted me desperately to be hypocritical when I was just making conversation. You made things personal and incorrectly labeled me. I am not a pacifist.


I said you would be reactionary if you defended religions that apologise for landlordism and capitalism, and then you threatened to "murder" me in cold blood. How do you think I would have responded to that? Revolution is never a dinner party, idiot.

You made the threat. And it's precisely the fact that revolution isn't a dinner party that political power would need to be exercised against petty, self interested, and ineffectual wannabe tyrants such as yourself. It's also because you precisely know these specific verses that a threat by any other name was taken.


Here is someone who holds onto the faith of the Bronze Age barbarians and literally believe that the vast majority of humanity might indeed go to eternal hell for not believing Jesus calling me "stupid", I don't know whether or not I should feel flattered or literally laugh at your idiocy.

You are stupid. A stupid person would say "I don't need to read this because it disagrees with me." Regardless of everything else, that's stupid.


By the way, you should know that the KKK actually used Christian fundamentalism to justify their fascistic and ultra-racist actions, you illiterate dolt.

I'm sure it made you feel better to think that I didn't know about the Christian complexion of the Klan or its supremacist philosophy centered around Christianity.

I'm sure it made you feel better to say that you would literally burn down "my" church and everybody in it.

I now believe that you can begin to think about not saying things which you know aren't going to be true or would be ridiculously evil just because they make you feel better. This might be the first step for yourself into a better life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is what I hate about discussions of religion. It always comes down to a flame war- fundamentalist religion is bad but the fundamental atheism of some is just as nauseous.

BULLSHIT! How many times have atheist organisations been found to have been covering up child abuse? Certainly not nearly as many times as the Catholic Church has been.


It's like that British scientists, Dawkins- he got severely bad reviews for his book from atheists.

So what? Atheists can be idiots too.


The fundamental atheists usually have as bigotted and limited knowledge of religion as those they attack have of science- it's almost like two sides of the same coin. The strawmen, the literal interpretations, and so on and so on.

That's simply not true. Time and time again, atheists have demonstrated that they understand religion more than the believers do, and little wonder; believers have to take religion on faith, whereas atheists have no such handicap.


The other thing I note is they seem to focus their attention on Christianity and Judaism to a lesser extent- too worried about the fatwas no doubt! :D

You're an idiot. Christianity is focused on because that is the dominant religion in the West, and there have been plenty of atheists who have criticised other religions.


The reification the failure to see that because some religionists may be lunatics, fanatics, homophobes or racists it does not mean that an abstract set of philosophies and beliefs is any of those things.

But it's funny how such people have no trouble finding religious justification for their shitty behaviour, yet it's harder to find secular justifications to be a shitty example of a human being.


If you swap words around it's almost the same as those who attack communism by immediately pointing to Stalin etc.

We have millennia of history to point to when it comes to the bad behaviour of theists, unlike the bad behaviour of socialists.


I personally don't care what religion anyone is as long as they don't ram it down others' throats, but I think many might be fed up of having fundamentalist atheism rammed down their throats too.

How the fuck is atheism (there's no such thing as "fundamentalist atheism") being rammed down anyone's throat?


The other thing is this atheist obsession with religion- the whole raison d'etre of being an atheist is that you don't believe in religion so why obsess about is so much? Constantly seeking to disprove something you don't believe in anyway!

Because the vast majority of the world's population takes religious claims seriously. Atheists may not believe in religion, but lots of other people do.


Before the fundamentalist religionists start- you lot ought to actually sit down and read your scriptures with a good dictionary of whatever ancient language they were written in.

The Bible is pretty straightforward about certain things - such as the punishment for homosexual behaviour and the place of women in society.

[ComradeMan]

@NoXion

BULLSHIT! How many times have atheist organisations been found to have been covering up child abuse? Certainly not nearly as many times as the Catholic Church has been.

How many times have Catholics burned downed churches, raped and murdered nuns, monks and clerics in the last century? Some really nasty stuff happened in the Spanish Civil War too and they were supposedly anarchists. BTW the institution of the Catholic Church is not a synonym for Christianity. In fact there a whole load of Christians who are hostile to the Catholic chuch, bit like Leninists , Stalinists and Trotskyists. :)

So what? Atheists can be idiots too.

I agree. So-called Christians can be idiots too- but where's the fault, with the -ology or -ism or with the person. It's the same with Islam- it's not Islam per se that's the problem it's some people's interpretations of it.

That's simply not true. Time and time again, atheists have demonstrated that they understand religion more than the believers do, and little wonder; believers have to take religion on faith, whereas atheists have no such handicap.

Not so sure about that one. Richard Dawkins recently did not do much good to the cause as such either. Time and time again all I see atheists do is cherrypick the weird/supernatural bits of religion and challenge them with modern science, completely ignoring all the other stuff.

You're an idiot. Christianity is focused on because that is the dominant religion in the West, and there have been plenty of atheists who have criticised other religions.

Why can you not refrain from throwing insults when someone does not agree with you? Troll? Is Christianity really the dominant religion in the West or does it form a common cultural basis? How many people are nominally Christians because they celebrate Christmas or may get married in Church but that's about it? BTW Why are we focusing only on the West? I would say Christianity is the dominant religion in Latin America too and would form thus a huge part of the so-called non-West Third World/Non-Aligned world.
But it's funny how such people have no trouble finding religious justification for their shitty behaviour, yet it's harder to find secular justifications to be a shitty example of a human being.

But people will always find justification for just about anything won't they... you can't just blame that which is used to justify it. This is getting back to the communism argument. Factually a whole host of things get fired at communism from Stalin to Mao to LGBT rights in Cuba- but is that because of communism? That's people for you---:rolleyes:

We have millennia of history to point to when it comes to the bad behaviour of theists, unlike the bad behaviour of socialists.

Well socialists in a modern sense have only been around for 200 years or less so it's a bit of a stacked argument. Since most of the world has held some religion or belief system since anyone can remember it's not surprising that bad behaviour by people could also be seen as bad behaviour by theists.

How the fuck is atheism (there's no such thing as "fundamentalist atheism") being rammed down anyone's throat?

Anything that has fundamentals can become fundamentalist/fanatic.

Because the vast majority of the world's population takes religious claims seriously. Atheists may not believe in religion, but lots of other people do.

So? That's their right- as long as they don't ram it down your throat either.

The Bible is pretty straightforward about certain things - such as the punishment for homosexual behaviour and the place of women in society.

The Bible is not straightforward about anything, that's the probkem. The "Devil reads scripture for his own ends" goes the saying doesn't it?

For a start the Bible is not a book but a collection of books written over a long space of time under differing circumstances- all of which were a long time ago.

Let's take the LGBT thing: the word for homosexual as we understand it doesn't even exist in the Old Testament since there was no such concept as sexuality-specific etiquettes and they were not really present in the ancient world. The problem is with the translations into modern languages in which words and terms have acquired different culture-specific loadings within time. There are a whole host of so-called biblical pronouncements that are based on very ambiguous translations at best. The word translated as homosexual is believed to have referred to a temple male-prostitute for exampke, the myth of Soddom is another one- Soddom was destroyed because it did not show hospitality to strangers not because they were homosexual. The word translated as "witch" probably meant "poisoner" and so on and so forth. This is the problem with those who defend or attack the Bible on literal interpretations in modern languages.

Now, I agree with you that the Bible has some pretty radical stuff in it but then at the time the whole damn world was pretty reactionary- a late Bronze/early-Iron Age tribe that is fighting for survival and competing with others who have more or less the same idea of cultures. In fact the Bronze-Age/Iron-Age is rife with sackers of cities and razing stuff to the ground etc, not just the Bible. But that was the context. It doesn't mean to say that you can negate the beauty or perhaps wisdom of a proverb or psalm because of all the heavy shit that goes down in the Book of Kings etc. I think this would be the same of most belief systems based on ancient scriptures- the Vedas are an example that come to mind too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How many times have Catholics burned downed churches, raped and murdered nuns, monks and clerics in the last century? Some really nasty stuff happened in the Spanish Civil War too and they were supposedly anarchists.

Considering the stuff that believers have done to each other as well as to infidels down through the centuries, I would say turnabout is fair play in this case. But in the long term, I feel ridicule is a better weapon against religious superstition than oppression.


BTW the institution of the Catholic Church is not a synonym for Christianity. In fact there a whole load of Christians who are hostile to the Catholic chuch, bit like Leninists , Stalinists and Trotskyists. :)

Are you denying the enormous influence that the Church has had over Europe for most of the past couple of millennia?


I agree. So-called Christians can be idiots too- but where's the fault, with the -ology or -ism or with the person. It's the same with Islam- it's not Islam per se that's the problem it's some people's interpretations of it.

People will be idiots with or without religion, but religion encourages idiocy with its emphasis on faith.


Not so sure about that one. Richard Dawkins recently did not do much good to the cause as such either. Time and time again all I see atheists do is cherrypick the weird/supernatural bits of religion and challenge them with modern science, completely ignoring all the other stuff.

Other stuff like what? The superstitious crap is one of the defining characteristics of religion, and it's not like there aren't plenty of people who believe ridiculous things and have plenty of influence.


Why can you not refrain from throwing insults when someone does not agree with you? Troll?

Say something stupid and I will call you out on it. It's simple.


Is Christianity really the dominant religion in the West or does it form a common cultural basis?

I would say that both amount to the same thing. The reason worshipping a undead Jewish man-deity isn't seen by most people in the West as hilariously ridiculous is because they've been exposed to the idea since birth. If I were to declare that the universe had been created by the Cosmic Prawn, nobody would take me seriously except the meths drinkers and the Crop Circle Society.


How many people are nominally Christians because they celebrate Christmas or may get married in Church but that's about it? BTW Why are we focusing only on the West?

Because that is the cultural milleu that I am familiar with.


I would say Christianity is the dominant religion in Latin America too and would form thus a huge part of the so-called non-West Third World/Non-Aligned world.

OK, in which case many if not all of the atheist criticisms of Christianity should apply, especially the ones involving the Catholic Church.


But people will always find justification for just about anything won't they... you can't just blame that which is used to justify it. This is getting back to the communism argument. Factually a whole host of things get fired at communism from Stalin to Mao to LGBT rights in Cuba- but is that because of communism? That's people for you---:rolleyes:

When you have people who have been raised since birth to believe in gods, religious justifications have more emotional force than secular justifications.


Well socialists in a modern sense have only been around for 200 years or less so it's a bit of a stacked argument. Since most of the world has held some religion or belief system since anyone can remember it's not surprising that bad behaviour by people could also be seen as bad behaviour by theists.

The problem being that there is no secular justification for a lot of religious behaviour. Condoms are effective, but Catholic dogma necessitates that lies are spread about their effectiveness, directly hurting people who would otherwise have used protection. Opposition to abortion is centred mainly around "the sanctity of human life", a fictitious concept in practice.


Anything that has fundamentals can become fundamentalist/fanatic.

The only thing fundamental to atheism is a lack of belief in gods, something that all atheists share by definition. Hence fundamentalism when applied to atheism is a meaningless concept.


So? That's their right- as long as they don't ram it down your throat either.

That's what religion has to do in order to survive - although most of the time religious indoctrination is directed towards intellectually defenceless children.


The Bible is not straightforward about anything, that's the probkem. The "Devil reads scripture for his own ends" goes the saying doesn't it?

Seems pretty cut and dried to me: Gen 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/18.html#22)

See also What the Bible says about homosexuality (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/homosexuality.html)


For a start the Bible is not a book but a collection of books written over a long space of time under differing circumstances- all of which were a long time ago.

Then it's hardly a firm basis for one's worldview then, is it?


Let's take the LGBT thing: the word for homosexual as we understand it doesn't even exist in the Old Testament since there was no such concept as sexuality-specific etiquettes and they were not really present in the ancient world. The problem is with the translations into modern languages in which words and terms have acquired different culture-specific loadings within time. There are a whole host of so-called biblical pronouncements that are based on very ambiguous translations at best. The word translated as homosexual is believed to have referred to a temple male-prostitute for exampke, the myth of Soddom is another one- Soddom was destroyed because it did not show hospitality to strangers not because they were homosexual. The word translated as "witch" probably meant "poisoner" and so on and so forth. This is the problem with those who defend or attack the Bible on literal interpretations in modern languages.

The Bible is unambiguous about what should be done to people who commit homosexual acts, even if the original writers did not share our conceptions of sexuality.


Now, I agree with you that the Bible has some pretty radical stuff in it but then at the time the whole damn world was pretty reactionary- a late Bronze/early-Iron Age tribe that is fighting for survival and competing with others who have more or less the same idea of cultures. In fact the Bronze-Age/Iron-Age is rife with sackers of cities and razing stuff to the ground etc, not just the Bible. But that was the context. It doesn't mean to say that you can negate the beauty or perhaps wisdom of a proverb or psalm because of all the heavy shit that goes down in the Book of Kings etc. I think this would be the same of most belief systems based on ancient scriptures- the Vedas are an example that come to mind too. [/B]

Again, this means that the Bible becomes a work of historical or cultural interest, not something to base one's morality on.

Besides, why worship a god who is apparently such a piss-poor communicator that he allows his words to be so easily garbled?

[ComradeMan]

@NoXion

Considering the stuff that believers have done to each other as well as to infidels down through the centuries, I would say turnabout is fair play in this case. But in the long term, I feel ridicule is a better weapon against religious superstition than oppression.

Hang on a minute- your mixing definitions. For a start with up until relatively recent times probably 99% of humanity was a believer in something or other and infidel just means you believe in something else. So it's more of a question of what humans having been doing to humans down the centuries rather than belief in itself. Considering that the most secular and perhaps most atheistic century in recorded history was the 20th century which also happens to be probably the most bloody of all centuries too it makes you wonder. A Christian could turn round and say that had people adhered to the true tenets of Christ then something like the Holocaust would never have happened.

Are you denying the enormous influence that the Church has had over Europe for most of the past couple of millennia?

No, but that influence is not a single monolithic block that you reify. The church(es) now are not those of 1000 years ago as are the people of now not those of 1000 years ago and so on.

People will be idiots with or without religion, but religion encourages idiocy with its emphasis on faith.

Depends what your definition of faith is. Some might counter-argue that faith is a personal matter, it has to be, therefore encouraging people to go with their own personal faith may be a good thing- don't confuse faith and religious dogma- i.e. indoctrination. Religious dogma has no element of faith to it whatsoever and just works on the basis of believe because I, or the scriptures tell you to.

John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".

Other stuff like what? The superstitious crap is one of the defining characteristics of religion, and it's not like there aren't plenty of people who believe ridiculous things and have plenty of influence.

Is it? I think that's a huge sweeping generalisation. Why not destroy poetry and philosophy too on that basis because metaphysics is intrinsic to a large extent in those areas? A Zen Buddhist would perhaps find your definition very bizarre and so would a Jain from India seeing as the Jains are practically an "atheistic religion/belief system". The point being that if we take the core-message of Christ, for one example, "do unto others" and "don't be judgemental" they have nothing to do with any kind of superstition. Have you never thought too that a lot of the so-called superstitious crap as you put it is metaphor and allegory? Perhaps it's been lost on Southern Baptists :)- for example "turning water into wine" was an Hebrew-Aramaic expression meaning something like "making the best of a bad job".

Say something stupid and I will call you out on it. It's simple.

You're very arrogant in your assumption of some kind of superior position, and even if this were the case- real "power" and superiority are in restraint.

I would say that both amount to the same thing. The reason worshipping a undead Jewish man-deity isn't seen by most people in the West as hilariously ridiculous is because they've been exposed to the idea since birth. If I were to declare that the universe had been created by the Cosmic Prawn, nobody would take me seriously except the meths drinkers and the Crop Circle Society.

Well it's obviously not seen as hilariously ridiculous to start with- look at the numbers- how do you justify that most people in the West think it is hilariously ridiculous? Has a survey been done that asked them this exact question? Whether you, I or anyone else think that it is ridiculous or not it's their right. If you were to declare the universe had been created by a Cosmic Prawn then nobody would take you seriously no doubt- so why would they not take you seriously yet for centuries have taken a lot of other stuff seriously? You might ask why after 70 years of the Soviet Union the Russian Orthodox Church is full- to give one example.

Because that is the cultural milleu that I am familiar with.

Well then you ought to be more careful with your words, because you seem to show no understanding in your arguments of the difference between faith and religion and you also use blanket terms such as "religion" when it seems you mean one particular aspect. :confused:

OK, in which case many if not all of the atheist criticisms of Christianity should apply, especially the ones involving the Catholic Church.

Non sequitur- you seemed to equate "Christianity" with "Western"- so I am not sure how this relates? :confused:

When you have people who have been raised since birth to believe in gods, religious justifications have more emotional force than secular justifications.

I'm not really sure- if you look at most so-called religious wars, underneath there was an economic/geopolitical motive and religion was just a convenient veneer that worked at the time- in a similar way as football can be used by thugs to wage war on other thugs and so on.

The problem being that there is no secular justification for a lot of religious behaviour. Condoms are effective, but Catholic dogma necessitates that lies are spread about their effectiveness, directly hurting people who would otherwise have used protection. Opposition to abortion is centred mainly around "the sanctity of human life", a fictitious concept in practice.

Okay- that is Catholic dogma, but you can't take Catholic dogma and say it's religious dogma as a blanket term. You need to be specific and say that you have a problem with Catholic dogma in this particular area.

The only thing fundamental to atheism is a lack of belief in gods, something that all atheists share by definition. Hence fundamentalism when applied to atheism is a meaningless concept.

No- I think you are wrong here. Fundamentalism and fanaticism can be applied to almost any sphere of human activity or belief. An esteemed scientist and avowed atheist who then goes to extremes in a crusade against religion so much so that he has a bus go round the city proclaiming atheism- and ends up making a bit of a fool of atheism- even according to other atheists, well that's pretty damn fundamentalist in most people's books.

That's what religion has to do in order to survive - although most of the time religious indoctrination is directed towards intellectually defenceless children.

I agree that religious indoctrination is a problem- but it is not a universal. But your four year old daughter says "Where's Grandpa?" (i.e. dead)- what do you say? Would it be indoctrination to say "He's in a better place?". You've got to put things in perspective too. There are nutcases out there but then intellectually defenceless children are unfortunately indoctrinated by all kinds of things, not just religious ideas.

You got the wrong reference. Genesis 18:22 refers to Sodom with the whole thing about finding fifty righteous men in Sodom and it will be spared etc...

I think you meant this one:-

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

However there is an interpretation that says this refers to "paederastia"- pederasty- as was practised to a widespread extent amongst the ancient Greeks. Yet others have seen this as a prohibition against a bisexual relationship i.e. with a man and a woman, do not lie with a man as you would with a woman- i.e. choose one or the other. Yet others have interpreted this as a prohibition against anal sex alone and not other forms of homosexual contact whatsoever. Bear in mind the Bible also has prohibitions against heterosexual relationships when women are menstruating. So although a lot of people have interpreted this as a blanket prohibition against homosexuality per se- it's not as clear cut as that either.

1 Samuel 20:41-42
David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.

2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27
Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

Now despite what the snake-handling, Bible-thumping Reverend J.W. Screamin' Burningcross II :) might think- these passages certainly indicate something more than a slap on the back and a beer! :D

Then it's hardly a firm basis for one's worldview then, is it?

Well look- the ancient Greeks were slave-owning, they practised pederasty and women had next to no rights but we still treasure the gems of ancient Greek art, thought and philosophy and they still influence us to this day. The Romans were complete imperialistic sons of *****es to a great extent but no one can build a better arch to this day. You can't write off everything an entire culture has produced can you? It's a bit like the people who bash the USSR but forget about Yuri Gagarin! Although the Bible has undoubtedly a major role in Christianity and Judaism and an influence on Islam too in a sense- there is also a whole myriad of cultures, theology, world-view, art and philosophy that have sprung from these. What about the influence of Thomas More? Enigmatic figure that he was.

The Bible is unambiguous about what should be done to people who commit homosexual acts, even if the original writers did not share our conceptions of sexuality.

Well I have shown you how the Bible is in actual fact very ambiguous about it.

Again, this means that the Bible becomes a work of historical or cultural interest, not something to base one's morality on.

Out of interest- what should one base one's morality on? Morality is a culturally subjective term. As the Gnostic Christ states "You [mankind] create your own right and wrong".

Besides, why worship a god who is apparently such a piss-poor communicator that he allows his words to be so easily garbled?

But the words are not so garbled if you actually bother to research and look into them which is what a lot of religionists and atheists don't do!!!!

[Red Poplar]

ComradeMan, I'm impressed by your knowledge on religion and the Bible. :)


I personally don't care what religion anyone is as long as they don't ram it down others' throats, but I think many might be fed up of having fundamentalist atheism rammed down their throats too. As for Iseul's outburst, well the hypocrisy is stunning. After speaking about the LGBT problem with Christianity and its reactionary connotations your only answer is to stoop to the level of those who were throwing gays on bonfires in the Middle Ages.

I agree, fundamentalist atheism is just as bad as fundamentalist Christianity, and while atheists claim that we believers don't have good reasons to worship (and believe in) God, they always keep mentioning crusades, inquisition, paedophilia, and always the same worn out arguments. The big mistake is to equate the top of the Catholic Church with the religion in itself. All of us are the Catholic Church - 2,200,000,000 believers, with all our values and flaws.



The other thing is this atheist obsession with religion- the whole raison d'etre of being an atheist is that you don't believe in religion so why obsess about is so much? Constantly seeking to disprove something you don't believe in anyway!

Yeah, I also don't understand that. As a Catholic, I've never felt the urge to try and convince an atheist that God exists, or that he'll rot in hell if he doesn't convert. That would be nonsense, everyone has the right to believe in what he/she wants, without being preached to.

In my opinion, when you are constantly obsessed with disapproving something, it often means that you're insecure in your own beliefs. Maybe they're subconsciously afraid about what would happen if God really exists. Because we believers are in a win/neutral situation - if God exists, good to us, probably bad to you, while if he doesn't, we're even. As weird as it sounds.



Before the fundamentalist religionists start- you lot ought to actually sit down and read your scriptures with a good dictionary of whatever ancient language they were written in.

:cool:

Right, but people don't understand how language and expression have changed over 2,000 years. In a famous ancient love poem (I don't know its name in English), compliments intended towards a woman would be found offensive and insulting by nowadays' women. The same goes about the Bible, mind that many texts from it are symbolical, metaphorical, and as I said, different than today.

[hatzel]

Ah...why does everything in this sub-forum always turn into this? I mean...is there even any point of putting titles to the threads if it will just turn into these religious vs. atheist 'debates' (aka slagging-off-fests)?

I'll also point out that I've personally find a lot of pretty weak 'arguments' on both sides, reading through these posts. Might be good to keep stuff even slightly relevant...but I can't be bothered to go through each and every post and point out exactly what seems silly to me, so I'll let you figure it out for yourself...

To bring this whole thing back to something resembling the initial idea: isn't it strange how the faithful get shot down for blindly believing things, through faith alone, with no concrete scientific proof, and if they then look for concrete scientific proof, they get shot down again for basing their quest for concrete scientific proof on their desire to confirm their blind faith. Lose-lose situation, it seems...I'm not complaining, though! Just pointing out...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hang on a minute- your mixing definitions. For a start with up until relatively recent times probably 99% of humanity was a believer in something or other and infidel just means you believe in something else. So it's more of a question of what humans having been doing to humans down the centuries rather than belief in itself.

Infidel, atheist, it doesn't matter - what's important is the fact that we've been killing each other over lies and falsehoods that are obvious to anyone with the least bit of education.


Considering that the most secular and perhaps most atheistic century in recorded history was the 20th century which also happens to be probably the most bloody of all centuries too it makes you wonder.

You're wrong about the 20th century. Millions of people died horribly, but billions more lived lives that were better than in any previous century.


A Christian could turn round and say that had people adhered to the true tenets of Christ then something like the Holocaust would never have happened.

And I would call them a shithead who is either deliberately lying or woefully misinformed - plenty of sincere Christians have engaged in pogroms against Jews, and the vicious German anti-Semite Martin Luther (author of On The Jews And Their Lies) probably thought himself a good Christian too. The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of Christian-inspired anti-Semitism, and any insinuation that "Christian morality" could have prevented it is an insult to the memory of the victims.


No, but that influence is not a single monolithic block that you reify. The church(es) now are not those of 1000 years ago as are the people of now not those of 1000 years ago and so on.

Monolothic or not, the influence is there and it is malign.


Depends what your definition of faith is. Some might counter-argue that faith is a personal matter, it has to be, therefore encouraging people to go with their own personal faith may be a good thing- don't confuse faith and religious dogma- i.e. indoctrination. Religious dogma has no element of faith to it whatsoever and just works on the basis of believe because I, or the scriptures tell you to.

People may argue that faith is a private matter, but that doesn't make it so. The fact of the matter is that all religions make claims that have to be taken on faith, ie without any supporting evidence, and that those religions spread primarily by childhood indoctrination but also by preying on people when their mental defences are down.


John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".

Stop preaching. That verse is irrelevant to the discussion.


Is it? I think that's a huge sweeping generalisation. Why not destroy poetry and philosophy too on that basis because metaphysics is intrinsic to a large extent in those areas? A Zen Buddhist would perhaps find your definition very bizarre and so would a Jain from India seeing as the Jains are practically an "atheistic religion/belief system". The point being that if we take the core-message of Christ, for one example, "do unto others" and "don't be judgemental" they have nothing to do with any kind of superstition.

Which begs the question of why be a Christian at all. If the merit of certain advice is self-evident, there's no need to carry all the additional baggage that comes with it.


Have you never thought too that a lot of the so-called superstitious crap as you put it is metaphor and allegory? Perhaps it's been lost on Southern Baptists :)- for example "turning water into wine" was an Hebrew-Aramaic expression meaning something like "making the best of a bad job".

By what standard do you take passages literally or not?


You're very arrogant in your assumption of some kind of superior position, and even if this were the case- real "power" and superiority are in restraint.

I was calling you an idiot, not stating that the sun shines out of my ass.


Well it's obviously not seen as hilariously ridiculous to start with- look at the numbers- how do you justify that most people in the West think it is hilariously ridiculous? Has a survey been done that asked them this exact question? Whether you, I or anyone else think that it is ridiculous or not it's their right.

Of course people are free to believe in whatever stupid shit they can come up with - we don't have the ability to program minds after all - religious belief is an enormous obstacle to rational thought and should be destroyed as a meaningful social force.


If you were to declare the universe had been created by a Cosmic Prawn then nobody would take you seriously no doubt- so why would they not take you seriously yet for centuries have taken a lot of other stuff seriously? You might ask why after 70 years of the Soviet Union the Russian Orthodox Church is full- to give one example.

People take Christianity seriously because for centuries it has been a dominant force in society - only fairly recently, historically speaking, has that grip begun to loosen.


Well then you ought to be more careful with your words, because you seem to show no understanding in your arguments of the difference between faith and religion and you also use blanket terms such as "religion" when it seems you mean one particular aspect. :confused:

I mainly have Christianity in mind, but that does not mean what I say cannot be applied to religions in general, especially when I am talking about faith, which is something that all religions require, rather than being something seperate from religion as you seem to think.


Non sequitur- you seemed to equate "Christianity" with "Western"- so I am not sure how this relates? :confused:

You must be fucking trolling. Are you seriously denying the influence of Christianity on Western civilisation? Fucking know-nothing ignoramus.


I'm not really sure- if you look at most so-called religious wars, underneath there was an economic/geopolitical motive and religion was just a convenient veneer that worked at the time- in a similar way as football can be used by thugs to wage war on other thugs and so on.

Even in the event that there is an underlying economic/geopolitical element to a religious war, the fact remains that religious faith does nothing except make the situation worse, because it prevents critical thinking and subverts any rational thinking skills that people do have.


Okay- that is Catholic dogma, but you can't take Catholic dogma and say it's religious dogma as a blanket term. You need to be specific and say that you have a problem with Catholic dogma in this particular area.

The Church's irrational attitude towards condoms and contraception in general is only one example. There are many more.


No- I think you are wrong here. Fundamentalism and fanaticism can be applied to almost any sphere of human activity or belief. An esteemed scientist and avowed atheist who then goes to extremes in a crusade against religion so much so that he has a bus go round the city proclaiming atheism- and ends up making a bit of a fool of atheism- even according to other atheists, well that's pretty damn fundamentalist in most people's books.

I'm sorry, did you just seriously claim that riding around in a bus is a fanatical action on par with bombing abortion clinics? You disgust me.


I agree that religious indoctrination is a problem- but it is not a universal. But your four year old daughter says "Where's Grandpa?" (i.e. dead)- what do you say? Would it be indoctrination to say "He's in a better place?".

No, it would be a lie. I would tell the kid the truth - that grandpa is dead and is not coming back. It may be upsetting to the child at the time, but it's far better psychologically to swallow an uncomfortable truth early on than buy into a lie (from one's parents, no less!) only to discover it later.


You've got to put things in perspective too. There are nutcases out there but then intellectually defenceless children are unfortunately indoctrinated by all kinds of things, not just religious ideas.

So? That does not lessen the magnitude of religious crimes.


You got the wrong reference. Genesis 18:22 refers to Sodom with the whole thing about finding fifty righteous men in Sodom and it will be spared etc...

I'm not talking about Sodom and Gomorrah, you retrograde halfwit. I'm talking about Christian attitudes to homosexuality as exemplified by passages in the Bible.


I think you meant this one:-[/B]

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

However there is an interpretation that says this refers to "paederastia"- pederasty- as was practised to a widespread extent amongst the ancient Greeks. Yet others have seen this as a prohibition against a bisexual relationship i.e. with a man and a woman, do not lie with a man as you would with a woman- i.e. choose one or the other. Yet others have interpreted this as a prohibition against anal sex alone and not other forms of homosexual contact whatsoever. Bear in mind the Bible also has prohibitions against heterosexual relationships when women are menstruating. So although a lot of people have interpreted this as a blanket prohibition against homosexuality per se- it's not as clear cut as that either.

What is pretty clear cut is how that passage is interpreted - which is almost always in an anti-homosexual reading. Now you can blather on about pederasty and different interpretations and such all you want, but the fact remains that homophobic reactionaries tend to be Christians who use Bible passages to justify their hate.


1 Samuel 20:41-42
David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.[/I]

2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27
Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

Now despite what the snake-handling, Bible-thumping Reverend J.W. Screamin' Burningcross II :) might think- these passages certainly indicate something more than a slap on the back and a beer! :D

You are a nincompoop. Even today there are cultures where male friends can kiss each other and even hold hands and not be considered homosexual, and a culture which values men over women will most certainly rate a very strong friendship with a man more highly than a romantic relationship with a woman.


Well look- the ancient Greeks were slave-owning, they practised pederasty and women had next to no rights but we still treasure the gems of ancient Greek art, thought and philosophy and they still influence us to this day. The Romans were complete imperialistic sons of *****es to a great extent but no one can build a better arch to this day. You can't write off everything an entire culture has produced can you?

No, but nobody looks to the Iliad for moral guidance, do they? Nobody consults Caesar's diaries for advice on foreign policy. Yet every day people are encouraged to look towards the Bible for guidance, or to their biblically-inspired clergyman.


It's a bit like the people who bash the USSR but forget about Yuri Gagarin! Although the Bible has undoubtedly a major role in Christianity and Judaism and an influence on Islam too in a sense- there is also a whole myriad of cultures, theology, world-view, art and philosophy that have sprung from these. What about the influence of Thomas More? Enigmatic figure that he was

Thomas who?


Well I have shown you how the Bible is in actual fact very ambiguous about it.

Bullshit. You attempted to obfuscate it with shit that only biblical scholars generally know rather than the average believer. Take the passage on face value like most believers do and it's simple enough.


Out of interest- what should one base one's morality on? Morality is a culturally subjective term. As the Gnostic Christ states "You [mankind] create your own right and wrong".

Well, he got something right. Morality is something that humans construct for their own purposes, whether they realise it or not. Now, we can either face up to this and construct a rational, secular moral system informed (but not dictated) by the findings of modern science, or we can go back to what we've always done and make shit up that serves the purposes of the priesthood and the ruling class.


But the words are not so garbled if you actually bother to research and look into them which is what a lot of religionists and atheists don't do!!!!

Lies. You yourself said earlier that there were different interpretations among scholars concerning a certain passage, and in any case how do we know that even the scholars got it right?

[ComradeMan]

@NoNoXion

You're the one who is trolling. Someone is politely engaging you in debate all you can do is come out with foul language, abuse and evermore inflammatory language.

Thomas who? Who's the ignoramus now?

The fact that you try to engage in a theological discussion and then fuck your references up does little for your debating skills.

You don't actually explore the arguments or points at all- you just work on the basis of "it's all bullshit because I don't believe in it", this ironically makes you rather similar to religious fanatics and Creationists.

You also refuse to acknowledge the ambiguity surrounding LGBT issues- which I have tried at least to point out.

So really there is not point debating with you if you refuse to debate. It's like trying to play chess with someone who smahes the board and knocks the pieces off in a tantrum.

I'll leave you with one last thought- re the Holocaust, no one who truly held the tenet espoused by Christ of "do unto others" would throw someone into a gas-oven.

PS Why am I preaching when I highlight relevant verses in the Bible connected to the points in discussion but you are not preaching when you highlight verses in the Bible that you think support your argument?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

@NoNoXion

You're the one who is trolling. Someone is politely engaging you in debate all you can do is come out with foul language, abuse and evermore inflammatory language.

Blah blah blah. When you can't make an argument, whine about the other guy's language.


Thomas who? Who's the ignoramus now? The fact that you try to engage in a theological discussion and then fuck your references up does little for your debating skills.

The fact that you fail to realise that most religious believers haven't even heard of the guy indicates you are suffering from a severe case of barking up the wrong fucking tree.


You don't actually explore the arguments or points at all- you just work on the basis of "it's all bullshit because I don't believe in it", this ironically makes you rather similar to religious fanatics and Creationists.

No it doesn't, you fucking moron. They believe in that shit, I don't. Simple, but apparently far beyond your capabilities. You want an excuse to have your cake and eat it, to feel smugly superior to both no matter who is right in the end. Fuck off.


You also refuse to acknowledge the ambiguity surrounding LGBT issues- which I have tried at least to point out.

The ambiguity only exists in the minds of those who think ancient interpretations of texts have anything to do with the modern interpretations and behaviour of religionists.


So really there is not point debating with you if you refuse to debate. It's like trying to play chess with someone who smahes the board and knocks the pieces off in a tantrum.

Maybe if you actually came up with some decent arguments instead of standard apologetics bullshit and whining about civility you wouldn't be feeling that way.


I'll leave you with one last thought- re the Holocaust, no one who truly held the tenet espoused by Christ of "do unto others" would throw someone into a gas-oven.

And if only Hitler had been hugged more by his mother, WWII wouldn't have happened.


PS Why am I preaching when I highlight relevant verses in the Bible connected to the points in discussion but you are not preaching when you highlight verses in the Bible that you think support your argument?

John 8:32 had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

[ComradeMan]

I am reluctant to continue this discussion, in fact I think it's a waste of time with you however I'll leave you with this.

THOMAS MORE!!!!!!!! A man for all seasons....

Considering he is considered a martyr Saint in the Roman Catholic Religion and his work Utopia influenced much early socialist thought you can hardly write him off. You keep saying most this and most that- you've never heard of him but a lot of other people have.

Utopia. "I have no doubt…that wherever men have private property and money is the measure of everything, there it is hardly possible for the commonwealth to be justly governed or to flourish in prosperity," (More 182).

http://www.enscriptchun.net/words/sa/ps3.html

[Red Poplar]

Thomas who?

Never heard of Thomas More? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_more


Now seriously, Noxion, you should cut the crap about religion, you've proven time and time again that you don't know what you're talking about, and that's not the problem, the problem is that you dismiss more than a half of the world's population as childish, by your constant shitting against religion. If you're a firm atheist, then why do you have to do so? What are you? Are you more intelligent and rational than billions of people who believe in a god(s)? Not to mention that you constantly use offensive language, and constant repeating of the same, worn out excuses for arguments. If I hadn't already picked a side in this debate, I certainly wouldn't pick yours, because you can't convince anyone with your arguments. You claim that the reason why Christianity is widespread is because it's enforced, while you want to enforce atheism. What's the difference? Both are oppression. So leave us believers alone - we don't want to enforce anything, you shouldn't too. Get your nose away from other people's business.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Never heard of Thomas More? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_more

Now seriously, Noxion, you should cut the crap about religion, you've proven time and time again that you don't know what you're talking about, and that's not the problem, the problem is that you dismiss more than a half of the world's population as childish, by your constant shitting against religion.

If I didn't think people were capable of learning better, I would not even bother posting in this forum and would leave the religious to wallow in the mire of their own superstition.


If you're a firm atheist, then why do you have to do so? What are you? Are you more intelligent and rational than billions of people who believe in a god(s)?

Oh good fucking grief, surely even you know an appeal to popularity is a fallacy?


Not to mention that you constantly use offensive language, and constant repeating of the same, worn out excuses for arguments.

If I repeat myself, it is only because religion and its apologists have yet to come up with any original arguments.


If I hadn't already picked a side in this debate, I certainly wouldn't pick yours, because you can't convince anyone with your arguments.

But you've already picked a side, so your judgement as to my argument's effectiveness is worthless from the start.


You claim that the reason why Christianity is widespread is because it's enforced, while you want to enforce atheism. What's the difference? Both are oppression.

Not true. There are many more ways of being an atheist than there are of being a theist.


So leave us believers alone - we don't want to enforce anything, you shouldn't too. Get your nose away from other people's business.

Blatant lies. There are plenty of religious people who would be happy to see their beliefs enacted into law.

[Crimson Commissar]

Never heard of Thomas More? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_more


Now seriously, Noxion, you should cut the crap about religion, you've proven time and time again that you don't know what you're talking about, and that's not the problem, the problem is that you dismiss more than a half of the world's population as childish, by your constant shitting against religion. If you're a firm atheist, then why do you have to do so? What are you? Are you more intelligent and rational than billions of people who believe in a god(s)? Not to mention that you constantly use offensive language, and constant repeating of the same, worn out excuses for arguments. If I hadn't already picked a side in this debate, I certainly wouldn't pick yours, because you can't convince anyone with your arguments. You claim that the reason why Christianity is widespread is because it's enforced, while you want to enforce atheism. What's the difference? Both are oppression. So leave us believers alone - we don't want to enforce anything, you shouldn't too. Get your nose away from other people's business.
We don't want to oppress people. We want to build a society around science and knowledge, not blind faith and a non-existant God. In this society, religion dominates society. In many cases it is not one religion. It is all religions. Atheists are seen as the scum of society who should bow before the religious simply because of "tolerance". We are told to just shut up and ignore the religious fundamentalists who constantly shove their beliefs down our throats. We are told that critiscizing religion is innapropriate and offensive. Religion is corrupt, authoritarian and anti-science. And for these reasons, it is also anti-humanity and cannot be allowed to exist any longer. Through education and the implementation of Socialism, we can eliminate religion. If we allow shit like this to exist then we're just holding society back.

[ComradeMan]

We don't want to oppress people. We want to build a society around science and knowledge, not blind faith and a non-existant God. In this society, religion dominates society. In many cases it is not one religion. It is all religions. Atheists are seen as the scum of society who should bow before the religious simply because of "tolerance". We are told to just shut up and ignore the religious fundamentalists who constantly shove their beliefs down our throats. We are told that critiscizing religion is innapropriate and offensive. Religion is corrupt, authoritarian and anti-science. And for these reasons, it is also anti-humanity and cannot be allowed to exist any longer. Through education and the implementation of Socialism, we can eliminate religion. If we allow shit like this to exist then we're just holding society back.

Dude there are loads of problems with what you are saying even though I can kind of understand too.

Atheists are seen as the scum of society? By whom and where? It doesn't tally with someone like Richard Dawkins holding such a high position and getting a show on TV to promote his views in Britain for example. Some forms of religious belief are atheistic, Jainism and schools of Buddhism. As for atheists being persectuted and stigmatised, what about axiological atheists such as Sartre? Freud? Russell? If you went to Sweden you'd probably find atheists and agnostics in the majority! Hardly the scum of the earth.

Religion is corrupt? No, some of the institutions of religion are corrupt because some of the people in them are corrupt- usually driven by motives that are far more temporal than spiritual. You can't say religion which covers a range of belief systems and philosophies is corrupt anymore than you can say "communism", this-ism or that-ism.

Religion is anti-science. Depends which religion and to whom you talk and about what but seeing as religions do not promote themselves as sciences, other than UFO freaks :D and Scientologists, then I see no conflict. Even the Catholic Church endorsed evolutionary theory. Just as the priests, the rabbis, the imams etc should stay out of the science lab then perhaps scientists should not interfere with spirituality.

Religion is anti-humanity? Which religion/belief system? Indigenous American spirituality? Jainism? The message of "Jesusism"- i.e. the original movement.

On the same basis you could turn around and say science is evil. Yes, hurray for the scientists that have given us H-bombs, good old Einstein who collaborated with the US military on the Manhattan Project and we got Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result. Thank you for Agent Orange too, depleted uraniam, thalidomide, chemical and biological warfare, pharmaceutical experimentation and so on and so forth. Hell, we should denounce science as evil and anti-humanity. Hang on... but what about anti-biotics, keyhole surgery, childhood vaccinations, genetic science... :crying:?

Religion is authoritarian... then you say "If we allow shit like this to exist then we're just holding society back".:scared: Isn't that an authoritarian statement?

Now, I get the feeling that some people posting here are talking about the American experience of religion, especially when they focus on Christianity because it always seems that the examples that are used are either corruption in the Catholic Church and/or religious extremism- the Qu'ran burning for instance. This is not necessarily the case in the WHOLE world by EVERYONE though! You could also challenge the issues in Islam- but I think you would find that a lot of those issues again fall back on cultural interpretations and are not exactly to be laid at the feet of Mohammed.

Hey, there was this guy Jesus who came from a background that was held dubious by established society at the times. He was a simple worker, a carpenter, and came from a humble background. He spread a social and anti-authority message amongst the workers- fisherfolk, labourers and the marginalised, "prostitutes", petty-criminals and the others "oppressed" of society. He stopped a woman from being stoned for a presumed charge of adultery and challenged the corruption of the priesthood of the time- so he was anti-clerical in a sense. He challenged authority and was active in helping the poor and the sick. Because his social movement got big quickly and menaced the established priesthood and authority and even though they had no evidence as such against him they found him guilty of trumped up charges of blasphemy, although they were really scared he was starting some kind of popular movement against authority, and in the end he suffered the death penalty at the hands of the authoritarian Roman Empire. Sounds pretty damn socialist to me in many respects....:lol:

The problem with religion, like the problems with many things is that spirituality and messages, like Jesus' for example, were then slowly elaborated and manipulated by authority to form "religion"- from the Roman concept of "religio"- that which binds, i.e. legalistic and authoritarian.

I am not trying to defend any one religion in particular nor force my views on anyone- I am just trying to highlight the problems in the attacks. What lets the other side down is they don't know how to answer religionists without getting shot down in flames half the time by anyone else who has bothered to do some research.

At the end of the day, if someone says "I am an atheist, I don't have faith and my materialistic/empirical outlook on life forces me to challenge religious beliefs on the basis of a lack of evidence"- well that's fine, that's their choice. But setting out to disprove what cannot be proven or disproven most of the time or cherrypicking religious texts to show how reactionary they are whilst ignoring all the other stuff and so on is naive.

Someone could quite easily cherrypick the writings of Marx and Engels, Proudhon etc and some of the historical examples of actions and sayings of avowed communists/anarchists/socialists, put together all the quotes and make it look like a pamphlet for the Klan!!!

It comes down to a matter of faith, an existential argument.

[Red Poplar]

Blatant lies. There are plenty of religious people who would be happy to see their beliefs enacted into law.

There are also plenty of non-religious people who would be happy to see their beliefs enacted into law. ;)



We don't want to oppress people.

Religion...cannot be allowed to exist any longer... we can eliminate religion.

Contradictory? :lol:



In this society, religion dominates society. In many cases it is not one religion. It is all religions.

Most of nowadays' countries are secular, so you aren't forced to be religious by anyone. It's true that religious fundamentalists are invasive, but so are the atheist fundamentalists.



Atheists are seen as the scum of society who should bow before the religious simply because of "tolerance". We are told to just shut up and ignore the religious fundamentalists who constantly shove their beliefs down our throats. We are told that critiscizing religion is innapropriate and offensive.

By who?

Actually, because of "tolerance", we true Christians tolerate you atheists although we're a vast majority compared to you. I said "true" Christians because a Christian is taught to be tolerant and respect other people's free will. Having met many Christians and atheists in my life, my impression is that Christians are more tolerant than atheists, because many atheists were trying to shove their non-beliefs down my throat.



Religion is corrupt, authoritarian and anti-science. And for these reasons, it is also anti-humanity and cannot be allowed to exist any longer. Through education and the implementation of Socialism, we can eliminate religion. If we allow shit like this to exist then we're just holding society back.

1) Corrupt - you're repeating the same arguments again, some corrupt priests don't mean that the entire religion is corrupt. Generalization is always a big mistake.

2) Authoritarian - "Religion...cannot be allowed to exist any longer... we can eliminate religion." Who's authoritarian now?

3) Anti-science - Wrong. Being a Christian doesn't forbid you from accepting scientific arguments. Many scientists are religious, not necessarily in a classic way, but as I said, refer to Francis Collins PhD.

You think you can eliminate religion? Yeah, right. I'd like to see you try. :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Atheists are seen as the scum of society? By whom and where?

Try Cardinal Cormack Murphy O'Connor (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/cardinal_cormack_murphy-oconno.php), who sees atheists as "not fully human". This is a Cardinal of the Catholic Church we are talking about here.


There are also plenty of non-religious people who would be happy to see their beliefs enacted into law. ;)

Tu Quoque. The fact remains that there are many more believers who want their beliefs enacted into law than there are hardline anti-theists who want religion abolished by force. Further, in some parts of the world, and throughout large parts of history, the believers have actually succeeded.

[ComradeMan]

One Catholic Cardinal's outburt is hardly representative of how 1.147 billion people may think is it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

One Catholic Cardinal's outburt is hardly representative of how 1.147 billion people may think is it?

Considering that a lot of Catholics have no problem giving money (and other forms of power) to the organisation that employs O'Connor, I would say it actually is.

[ComradeMan]

Considering that a lot of Catholics have no problem giving money (and other forms of power) to the organisation that employs O'Connor, I would say it actually is.

Are you anti-religion or anti-catholic? Most of those over-a-billion catholics have probably never even heard of O'Connor. It's like saying every single Soviet citizen is responsible for the atrocities committed by Stalin.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you anti-religion or anti-catholic? Most of those over-a-billion catholics have probably never even heard of O'Connor.

True, but a lot of them will have heard about the child abuse, maybe even experienced it for themselves.


It's like saying every single Soviet citizen is responsible for the atrocities committed by Stalin.

Soviets citizens had little choice about Stalin. However, Catholics can choose to get themselves excommunicated if they so wish.

[ComradeMan]

True, but a lot of them will have heard about the child abuse, maybe even experienced it for themselves.



Soviets citizens had little choice about Stalin. However, Catholics can choose to get themselves excommunicated if they so wish.

Yeah and there has been all hell to pay about this. But out of 1.147 billion Catholics how many have been abused? Not many. The abuse in the Church is sick but it's not the spiritual beliefs of Catholicism more like the failings of people in that institution. I am not a big fan on institutionalised anything but you have to see the difference.

Stalin could not have done it alone.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah and there has been all hell to pay about this.

Really? Out of all known cases, how many have been arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced? Why haven't there been charges for covering up the abuse, or simply moving offending clergy instead of handing them into the authorities?


But out of 1.147 billion Catholics how many have been abused? Not many.

Who knows how many abuse victims there have been? Besides, that does nothing to obviate the fact that abuse has occurred and has systematically been covered up.


The abuse in the Church is sick but it's not the spiritual beliefs of Catholicism more like the failings of people in that institution. I am not a big fan on institutionalised anything but you have to see the difference.

I'm not seeing the difference. Who else funds the Catholic Church but the Catholics?


Stalin could not have done it alone.

And the Catholic Church does the horrible shitty things it does with the permission, or at least the acquiescence, of the vast majority of its membership.

[Crimson Commissar]

Hey, there was this guy Jesus who came from a background that was held dubious by established society at the times. He was a simple worker, a carpenter, and came from a humble background. He spread a social and anti-authority message amongst the workers- fisherfolk, labourers and the marginalised, "prostitutes", petty-criminals and the others "oppressed" of society. He stopped a woman from being stoned for a presumed charge of adultery and challenged the corruption of the priesthood of the time- so he was anti-clerical in a sense. He challenged authority and was active in helping the poor and the sick. Because his social movement got big quickly and menaced the established priesthood and authority and even though they had no evidence as such against him they found him guilty of trumped up charges of blasphemy, although they were really scared he was starting some kind of popular movement against authority, and in the end he suffered the death penalty at the hands of the authoritarian Roman Empire. Sounds pretty damn socialist to me in many respects....:lol:
If that was the true Jesus, then of course he was a Socialist. But the Jesus that many Christians describe, who is the prophet of a reactionary and authoritarian belief system, is nothing less than a disgusting fascist bastard. We can't know for sure who Jesus really was, or if he even existed at all. But we can definitely tell that the Christian representation of it is reactionary as FUCK.

[ComradeMan]

If that was the true Jesus, then of course he was a Socialist. But the Jesus that many Christians describe, who is the prophet of a reactionary and authoritarian belief system, is nothing less than a disgusting fascist bastard. We can't know for sure who Jesus really was, or if he even existed at all. But we can definitely tell that the Christian representation of it is reactionary as FUCK.

A lot of the Christian bigots you probably mean have probably never really read the New Testament....! :cool:

[ComradeMan]

Really? Out of all known cases, how many have been arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced? Why haven't there been charges for covering up the abuse, or simply moving offending clergy instead of handing them into the authorities?

Who knows how many abuse victims there have been? Besides, that does nothing to obviate the fact that abuse has occurred and has systematically been covered up.

I'm not seeing the difference. Who else funds the Catholic Church but the Catholics?

And the Catholic Church does the horrible shitty things it does with the permission, or at least the acquiescence, of the vast majority of its membership.

Look, I'm not going to defend the institution of the Catholic Church here- you've picked the wrong one for that! :laugh: But this debate is not about the institution of the Catholic Church but about faith and the religions that surround faith.

As far as the abuse is concerned- yes, it's sick and they are only now doing something about it- which is shameful, but they are doing something about it and I hope that the guilty parties will be brought to justice.

But the problem with your argument is that you are tantamount saying that all 1.147 billion Catholics, and let's remember the victims were also Catholics, have given permission for abuse and acquiesced in it- this is not true. As for the funding of the insitution of the Catholic Church- it's not just from money in the collection plate. The "Vatican PLC" is a vast business empire. There was a Pope John Paul I who wanted to change all of this according to some sources- he died after only 33 days. :crying: Have a look into the "Istituto per le Opere di Religione". But then again that has nothing to do with matters of personal faith and it also has nothing to do with the individual believer.

To take one example. What about America? The Americans pay taxes and "democratically" vote for the successive governments that we all know about. Does that mean that we say Americans de facto give permission and acquiesce in every single dastardly act of the Washington regime? Does a Guatemalan now have the right to attack American people indiscriminately because of the acts of the US government in the past in Guatemala?