Why I am an Athiest

[Nikolay]

I've been a Catholic all my life, I went to church every Christmas, and said grace before dinner. I never really understood Catholicism until I was 13. And what I learned was quite exciting. The Bible stories were quite interesting. Sunday Mass was very cool as well. And the thought of going to heaven after I died was something I actually looked forward to. I prayed almost everyday, wishing for things that never happened, thanked God for things he's done for me. And then it suddenly hit me. Why is the world shit and why hasn't the things I've asked for happen? Does he want us to suffer and be exploited by chubby capitalists? Does he enjoy watching innocent Arabs being slaughtered by their dictators? And why the hell does he let small innocent children in Africa have AIDs and have no food in their stomach. If God loves us so much, why are we suffering? And believe me, I prayed why he's letting us suffer, and never received an answer.

I recently started to read the Bible a bit more, and in more detail. And many fundamental teachings in the Bible I strongly disagree with. Such as its opposition to homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. It's all plane bullshit to me now. Just a couple months ago, I was planning on going to church every single Sunday for now on, and now, that's not the case. I don't believe in God anymore, and I've wasted my whole life worshiping a person that never existed.

Have any of you felt like this? Abandoned when you had faith?

PS. Sorry for my foul language. I'm just in rant mode. xD

Marc

[Zav]

I've been a Catholic all my life, I went to church every Christmas, and said grace before dinner. I never really understood Catholicism until I was 13. And what I learned was quite exciting. The Bible stories were quite interesting. Sunday Mass was very cool as well. And the thought of going to heaven after I died was something I actually looked forward to. I prayed almost everyday, wishing for things that never happened, thanked God for things he's done for me. And then it suddenly hit me. Why is the world shit and why hasn't the things I've asked for happen? Does he want us to suffer and be exploited by chubby capitalists? Does he enjoy watching innocent Arabs being slaughtered by their dictators? And why the hell does he let small innocent children in Africa have AIDs and have no food in their stomach. If God loves us so much, why are we suffering? And believe me, I prayed why he's letting us suffer, and never received an answer. I recently started to read the Bible a bit more, and in more detail. And many fundamental teachings in the Bible I strongly disagree with. Such as its opposition to homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. It's all plane bullshit to me now. Just a couple months ago, I was planning on going to church every single Sunday for now on, and now, that's not the case. I don't believe in God anymore, and I've wasted my whole life worshiping a person that never existed.
Have any of you felt like this? Abandoned when you had faith?
PS. Sorry for my foul language. I'm just in rant mode. xD
Marc
Good for you! :) One less person in quagmires of superstition. There is a reason the Church once wouldn't allow non-clergy to read the Bible. That is pretty much how I abandoned Christianity. I think it's the same with a lot of people here.

[Azraella]

Eh, these days I just call myself an eccentric pandeist. I am a pagan, sure, but only as far as the things I call "gods" are fragments of the psyche.

I left Christianity after my brother died and I had a fit of misotheism.



And many fundamental teachings in the Bible I strongly disagree with. Such as its opposition to homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.


Things like progressive Christianity exists too. So I guess it's how you interpret it too. My husband self-describes hirself as a "faggot for Christ" and is probably one of the most devout Christians I know.



And what I learned was quite exciting. The Bible stories were quite interesting. Sunday Mass was very cool as well. And the thought of going to heaven after I died was something I actually looked forward to. I prayed almost everyday, wishing for things that never happened, thanked God for things he's done for me. And then it suddenly hit me. Why is the world shit and why hasn't the things I've asked for happen? Does he want us to suffer and be exploited by chubby capitalists? Does he enjoy watching innocent Arabs being slaughtered by their dictators? And why the hell does he let small innocent children in Africa have AIDs and have no food in their stomach. If God loves us so much, why are we suffering? And believe me, I prayed why he's letting us suffer, and never received an answer.


Ze also thinks how God was portrayed in Futurama is the best description of God ze has ever seen in fiction. Ze believes there is a human element to God's will in the vein of liberation process theology.

[Zav]

Eh, these days I just call myself an eccentric pandeist. I am a pagan, sure, but only as far as the things I call "gods" are fragments of the psyche.

I left Christianity after my brother died and I had a fit of misotheism.

Things like progressive Christianity exists too. So I guess it's how you interpret it too. My husband self-describes hirself as a "faggot for Christ" and is probably one of the most devout Christians I know.

Ze also thinks how God was portrayed in Futurama is the best description of God ze has ever seen in fiction. Ze believes there is a human element to God's will in the vein of liberation process theology.
Your neutral pronouns and circle-ansuz avatar made my day. :) You win a Mjölnir cookie.

[eric922]

Eh, these days I just call myself an eccentric pandeist. I am a pagan, sure, but only as far as the things I call "gods" are fragments of the psyche.
I've read that your view of the gods being Jungian archetypes is a fairly common one amongst pagans. It is similar to my view on Buddhist Bodhisattvas. Though I have to say, it must be a difficult view to have at times. You risk making the atheists mad because you are "religious" and you risk making the more strict polytheists mad because you don't actually believe the gods are real.

Anyway, I always enjoy reading your posts on these issues.

[Pretty Flaco]

I've been a Catholic all my life, I went to church every Christmas, and said grace before dinner. I never really understood Catholicism until I was 13. And what I learned was quite exciting. The Bible stories were quite interesting. Sunday Mass was very cool as well.

lol when i was a kid it made me wanna damn near shoot myself. maybe if we would have kept going and i got confirmed, a couple of shots of the blessed blood of christ would have made it bearable. ;)

[harte.beest]

I consider myself an atheist,:)

Why doesn't it bother you, that the first gospel of the Bible was written in 70 AD, the Gospel of Mark, it's the first account of Jesus Christ written 37 years after he died

There is no historical record of Jesus, thousands of historians, recording every politician, every soldier, every prisoner, but no mention of the "son of god" walking on water. Nobody except "Mark" recorded who he was. The identity of Mark is also a mystery.

Quotes from nobeliefs. com


No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..."

Josephus Flavius the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus whose birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

[l'Enfermé]

To the Comrade above me: Doesn't the Bible state that in Jerusalem, all the dead rose from their graves through the streets of Jerusalem when Jesus was raised from the dead? I mean that would be a pretty important event that historians in the Roman Empire surely wouldn't have forgotten to mention...

[Nikolay]

lol when i was a kid it made me wanna damn near shoot myself. maybe if we would have kept going and i got confirmed, a couple of shots of the blessed blood of christ would have made it bearable. ;)

I never got confirmed myself. I mainly enjoyed the stories. But a good chunk of the service was quite boring. ;P

[Samwise]

There is no historical record of Jesus

I'm sorry, but this is plain bullshit, that keeps coming up in horribly misinformed atheist circles. Read some Barth Ehrman, a fellow militant atheist and one of the best known biblical historians on this. ("Did Jesus Exist?: The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth")

Whatever you might think of him, that dude existed. However, if he was a lunatic cynical rabbi or the divine son of god is very much open for debate. ;)

[KingoftheSwing]

I really understand that people believe in higher powers. It gives a lot of people support when it comes to meaning of life and such. But i will never ever understand why that is a reason to follow a fcking ancient rule book or follow a preacher. Believing should be something personal, a personal interpretation of philosophical questions maybe extended by discussions with friends. But following a religion is just choosing to be opressed by a powerfull religious elite. It just has nothing to do with believing anymore.
And what about that stubborn mentality of every religious for being convinced that his religion is the only right one. Every religion claims their people are the chosen ones. WTF if you're muslim it just means you were born in a islamic community. If you believe in Westboro baptist church it just means you were born in that fucked up family. Not that you're the chosen one.
And the worst of all are the ones who literally interpretate the bible or Quran or whatever. The bible clearly approves of slavery, does that mean a good chrisian trades slaves? In the Quran Muhammad marries and fucks a nine-year-old. Does that mean a good muslim is a pedophile? Those guys really are stopping evolution and if there is a God like they describe, i would be pleased to go to hell...

[Yuppie Grinder]

I've been a Catholic all my life, I went to church every Christmas, and said grace before dinner. I never really understood Catholicism until I was 13. And what I learned was quite exciting. The Bible stories were quite interesting. Sunday Mass was very cool as well. And the thought of going to heaven after I died was something I actually looked forward to. I prayed almost everyday, wishing for things that never happened, thanked God for things he's done for me. And then it suddenly hit me. Why is the world shit and why hasn't the things I've asked for happen? Does he want us to suffer and be exploited by chubby capitalists? Does he enjoy watching innocent Arabs being slaughtered by their dictators? And why the hell does he let small innocent children in Africa have AIDs and have no food in their stomach. If God loves us so much, why are we suffering? And believe me, I prayed why he's letting us suffer, and never received an answer.

I recently started to read the Bible a bit more, and in more detail. And many fundamental teachings in the Bible I strongly disagree with. Such as its opposition to homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. It's all plane bullshit to me now. Just a couple months ago, I was planning on going to church every single Sunday for now on, and now, that's not the case. I don't believe in God anymore, and I've wasted my whole life worshiping a person that never existed.

Have any of you felt like this? Abandoned when you had faith?

PS. Sorry for my foul language. I'm just in rant mode. xD

Marc
I too was raised Catholic and now feel a lot of contempt for the religion. It's an ideology of guilt and self-hate, basically.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Athiest"? I'm athier than all of you combined...

I've never understood why anyone would "need" to believe in a higher power, as opposed to having such a longing inculcated into them by a heavily theist/"spiritual" culture/upbringing. The "support" provided by such a belief is usually a bunch of trite rationalisations for the way reality turns out.

This is reflected when people talk of the search for the meaning of life. But such a search presupposes that there is meaning out there to be found, when in fact the most reliable means we know for finding things out about reality (science) tells us that the universe has no purpose, meaning or goal that we can discern.

"The meaning of life" is a con-job that keep clergy and theologians comfy, rather than them being forced to find less parasitic lifestyles. Meaning is something that humans create for themselves, whether they consciously realise that or not.

[pluckedflowers]

the most reliable means we know for finding things out about reality (science) tells us that the universe has no purpose, meaning or goal that we can discern.

That's not what science does. There is no such thing as a scientific test for determining whether or not the universe has a purpose. The very idea is absurd.

And I point this out not because I'm interested in defending theological teleology, but because this kind of inflated conception of what science does has many potentially reactionary uses. After all, no biologist or physicist has ever provided proof of the existence of class struggle. Therefore, it must not exist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's not what science does. There is no such thing as a scientific test for determining whether or not the universe has a purpose. The very idea is absurd.

It's not question of a single test or observation saying that, it's a matter of all scientific experiments and observations to date utterly failing to reveal any kind of cosmic teleology.


And I point this out not because I'm interested in defending theological teleology, but because this kind of inflated conception of what science does has many potentially reactionary uses. After all, no biologist or physicist has ever provided proof of the existence of class struggle. Therefore, it must not exist.

Class struggle isn't under the purview of biologists or physicists. There is scientific evidence for class struggle, unless you think things like sociology and anthropology aren't science.

[harte.beest]

There is no historical record of Jesus

I'm sorry, but this is plain bullshit, that keeps coming up in horribly misinformed atheist circles. Read some Barth Ehrman, a fellow militant atheist and one of the best known biblical historians on this. ("Did Jesus Exist?: The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth")

Whatever you might think of him, that dude existed. However, if he was a lunatic cynical rabbi or the divine son of god is very much open for debate. ;)

Barth Erhman is not a "militant atheist" he is a Christian apologist, what makes you think hes is an atheist at all? He calls himself a Christian, and a "New Testament scholar", he was President of the "Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature" and is professor of religous studies at the University of NC.

Doesn't sound like a militant atheist, if you ask me.

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith

They try to convince you Jesus was real that way you can still believe in a "Historical Jesus", their christians not atheists

[pluckedflowers]

It's not question of a single test or observation saying that, it's a matter of all scientific experiments and observations to date utterly failing to reveal any kind of cosmic teleology.

Still, I just don't see how one would go about testing for teleology. This is why intelligent design, for example, isn't bad science. It just isn't science. It's bad philosophy masquerading as science.


There is scientific evidence for class struggle, unless you think things like sociology and anthropology aren't science.

No, I would agree with you that they are. I thought you were using the narrower definition.

[harte.beest]

To the Comrade above me: Doesn't the Bible state that in Jerusalem, all the dead rose from their graves through the streets of Jerusalem when Jesus was raised from the dead? I mean that would be a pretty important event that historians in the Roman Empire surely wouldn't have forgotten to mention...
Yeah the zombie apocalypse isn't improtant, what matters is a 32 book biography of a low level general, and 1000's of pages of conversations between ambassadors and diplomats during the roman-egyptian war but writing about the zombie apocalypse and a floating magic star baby.......... I mean c'mon that' s just a waste of parchment:thumbup1:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Still, I just don't see how one would go about testing for teleology.

The same way we can determine that organisms evolved naturally rather than being specially created by a deity.


This is why intelligent design, for example, isn't bad science. It just isn't science. It's bad philosophy masquerading as science.

Intelligent Design Creationism suffers from a combination of a lack of evidence plus the general mendacious behaviour of its advocates. There's no reason in principle why we should not be able to discern the supernatural aspect of the universe, should it exist.

[fabian]

I've noticed that trend- dislike Christianity, become an atheist. Like there aren't any other theism, or deism, or agnostism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've noticed that trend- dislike Christianity, become an atheist. Like there aren't any other theism, or deism, or agnostism.

It depends on the reasons for disliking Christianity, I think. Such reasons could equally apply to other forms of theism and to Deism. Agnosticism is a philosophically empty position, either functionally no different to atheism, or representing a suspicious lack of interest in resolving the question.

[Zealot]

Haven't you heard? We live in the terrible world you so elegantly described because...Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit! Who knew that a food item would cause so much troubles for us. Moral of the story: Do anything you like just don't touch those God damned apples.

[Zealot]

Barth Erhman is not a "militant atheist" he is a Christian apologist, what makes you think hes is an atheist at all? He calls himself a Christian, and a "New Testament scholar", he was President of the "Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature" and is professor of religous studies at the University of NC.

Doesn't sound like a militant atheist, if you ask me.

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith

They try to convince you Jesus was real that way you can still believe in a "Historical Jesus", their christians not atheists

The hell are you on about? Ehrman is an Atheist who left Christianity because of the very fact that he made a rigorous study of the Bible.

[harte.beest]

The hell are you on about? Ehrman is an Atheist who left Christianity because of the very fact that he made a rigorous study of the Bible.
Okay technically he "self-identifies" as an agnostic, but that's after being an evangelical fundamentalist his entire adult life

here's something from wiki:


Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism. His graduate studies, however, eventually convinced him that one ought to acknowledge the contradictions in the biblical manuscripts rather than attempt to harmonize or reconcile discrepancies. He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering


The fact is, he's not an atheist, he's a christian apologist calling himself agnostic. Which basicallly means he still beleives in god, he just doesn't believe in any organized religion. Atheism means no belief in god, he believes in god, therefore he is not an atheist, and he's nowhere near being a "militant atheist"

Here's something a real atheist and a PhD in ancient history (not bible study) has to say about Mr. Erhman:



Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic
by Dr. Richard Carrier
(conclusion)


It is for all the reasons documented in this article (which are again just a sample of many other errors of like kind, from false claims, to illogical arguments, to self-contradictions, to misrepresentations of his opponents, to errors of omission), especially this book’s complete failure to interact with even a single complete theory of mythicism (which alone renders the book useless, even were it free of error), that I have no choice but to condemn this thing as being nothing more than a sad murder of electrons and trees.


Erhman nothing but another apologist you can easily find a millon more just like him, always trying to prove Jesus was a real person and his philopshy is good "so hey just bow down and worship it couldn't hurt";).....so they can convert you, and more importantly your family, to real christianity later on

It is not my job to prove Jesus didn't exist, it's a christians job to prove he did, and nobody ever has, or will

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Carl Sagan

[Revolution starts with U]

There is more evidence for Jesus than Socrates. Just sayin...

signed,
Unapologetic post-theist.

[harte.beest]

There is more evidence for Jesus than Socrates. Just sayin...

signed,
Unapologetic post-theist.

:mad:

The "There is less proof Socrates lived then Jesus lived" argument, is a loooong debunked APOLOGIST argument

Jesus


There is no primary, contemporary evidence for Jesus. No document is known to have been written by anyone who knew him. Eyewitness authorship has been attributed by church tradition to some documents, but the scholarly consensus is against those attributions. Jesus was purportedly born in Nazareth, but recent archaeological discoveries have concluded that the town of Nazareth did not exist at the time he was to have been born.

The earliest known references to Jesus are in letters attributed to a missionary called Paul. By scholarly consensus they were written sometime around 50 CE, give or take a few years. Their author could have known Jesus but gives no indication that he did. He instead claims to have learned nothing about him except by divine revelation. He does not identify any other source for anything he said about Jesus, and in one letter, to the Galatians, he explicitly denies having any other source.


Socrates


The real Socrates, if there was one, was born in Athens around 470 BCE, lived in that city almost his entire life, acquired a reputation as a philosopher, and was executed by the city government when he was about 70 years old. Many other details about his life are probably true if that much is true, but the question of his historicity will be settled if we have strong evidence for a man by that name having lived at that time, acquired such a reputation, and died in that manner.

Socrates is mentioned in documents written by three people who were alive during his purported lifetime. Whether the three writers worked independently of one another cannot be known with certainty.


The Socrates Seminar


Let us suppose that historians were to convene a Socrates Seminar to take a fresh look at all the evidence about that philosopher. Let us suppose that after several months of study they were to call a press conference to make an announcement like this.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a humbling experience for the historical community. Our research has compelled us to conclude that we have been working under several unjustified assumptions. With those assumptions cast aside, a careful and impartial review of the evidence forces us to conclude that Socrates was nothing but a figment of Plato's imagination."If this were to happen, and supposing again for a moment that the evidence for Jesus really is equivalent to the evidence for Socrates, would Christians ever make a similar announcement about Jesus? Shall we say, Probably not?


(freethoughtpedia. com Socrates_vs_Jesus)

[Azraella]

It should be noted that some of Paul's letters are likely to be forgeries, but that's another discussion. And to be honest? I have like literally no interest in proving if there is a historical Jesus or not, most evidence for or against is usally written by fuckwads with axes to grind.

[Revolution starts with U]

:mad:

The "There is less proof Socrates lived then Jesus lived" argument, is a loooong debunked APOLOGIST argument

Jesus


Socrates


The Socrates Seminar


(freethoughtpedia. com Socrates_vs_Jesus)

I stand corrected :thumbup1:

[Igor]

I recently started to read the Bible a bit more, and in more detail. And many fundamental teachings in the Bible I strongly disagree with. Such as its opposition to homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. It's all plane bullshit to me now. Just a couple months ago, I was planning on going to church every single Sunday for now on, and now, that's not the case. I don't believe in God anymore, and I've wasted my whole life worshiping a person that never existed.


I think this kind of stuff precisely shows how actual religious beliefs are rarer in the West than some people would like to think. If the faults of organized, man-made religion were enough to convince you there's no god or gods, there's a very real chance you never actually believed in the Christian God, but the institution of church instead because that what you were raised to do. When you realize the institution sucks, you abandon the idea of God as well. You probably were some kind of an atheist all the way along, so there's no need for me to welcome you to the club.

Just don't turn into one of those smug militant atheist types ok? They're terrible alright.

[Azraella]

I don't know. For me, I always believed in some form of God(in a tangible sense) but when I left the Christian church, it was because I had grown to hate god, not because I never really believed. Now that I am older and wiser, I don't hate the implicate order. I just accept that it will never really do anything for me.

[KingoftheSwing]

@Azraella: what exactly is paganism? I thought it was an ancient term used by christians to indicate non-believers

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is more evidence for Jesus than Socrates. Just sayin...

signed,
Unapologetic post-theist.

The thing is, hardly anyone claims Socrates as the Son of God. Thus it hardly matters that Socrates may have been fictional - if not the man himself, then whoever wrote his script certainly had something interesting to say.

On the other hand, it's kind of necessary for Christians that Jesus actually existed.

[Igor]

@Azraella: what exactly is paganism? I thought it was an ancient term used by christians to indicate non-believers

Yeah but the term has been adapted by those who adhere to pre-Christian religions in Europe, like people who still believe in Norse or Hellenic gods, for example.

[Sea]

I've been an atheist all my life, raised as one in fact.

I do say grace from time to time, though.

QLTlvMJANZE

[Ready4Revolution]

Any biases aside, you might enjoy learning about Dorothy Day- radical anarchist, Wobbly, and quite Catholic.

[Samwise]

The fact is, he's not an atheist, he's a christian apologist calling himself agnostic. Which basicallly means he still beleives in god, he just doesn't believe in any organized religion.

That's quite a stretch, don't ya think ?

I also find the idea, that to prove the existence of something, you need 100% purely unbiased documents. Any historian onboard, who can confirm this weird claim ? I would guess such an approach would render a whole bunch of material entirely useless.


...so they can convert you, and more importantly your family, to real christianity later on

I'm entirely convinced that Joseph Smith existed, but I am still not a mormon.

[harte.beest]

That's quite a stretch, don't ya think ?

I also find the idea, that to prove the existence of something, you need 100% purely unbiased documents. Any historian onboard, who can confirm this weird claim ? I would guess such an approach would render a whole bunch of material entirely useless.



I'm entirely convinced that Joseph Smith existed, but I am still not a mormon.

I never mentioned anything about bias, In fact, I mentoined a non bias source Jewish historian who was the first non-bias source, the problem was he wasn't born until 5 years after Jesus supposedly died

I said there is nothing written about Jesus until 50 AD, and the first "gospel" wasn't written until 70 AD. If you're a christian please explain why nobody bothered to write anything down about the "son of god" until decades after his death?

Did your church tell you paper wasn't invented yet?

[homegrown terror]

Eh, these days I just call myself an eccentric pandeist. I am a pagan, sure, but only as far as the things I call "gods" are fragments of the psyche.

I left Christianity after my brother died and I had a fit of misotheism.



Things like progressive Christianity exists too. So I guess it's how you interpret it too. My husband self-describes hirself as a "faggot for Christ" and is probably one of the most devout Christians I know.



Ze also thinks how God was portrayed in Futurama is the best description of God ze has ever seen in fiction. Ze believes there is a human element to God's will in the vein of liberation process theology.

i've always seen the gods not as creators of the universe, but as its oldest, wisest and most powerful citizens. i tend to use the humanocentric personifications of them as a frame of reference, but see them more as ambiguous forces of nature. case in point, the concept that lightning is Thor's hammer striking at the giants and beasts of chaos. if you think about it, every time lightning strikes, it takes a stream of disorganised, chaotic electrons and moves them in a straight, coordinated, orderly fashion, so in a way, lightning striking does bring peace out of chaos.

[eric922]

@Azraella: what exactly is paganism? I thought it was an ancient term used by christians to indicate non-believers
Well the word itself comes from a Latin word that basically means country dweller. The people who lived in the country were much slower at adopting Christianity than those who lived in cities. Now, it refers to anyone who follows a nature based religion such as Wicca or the various attempts to reconstruct the old polytheistic religions such as the religion of the Greeks or Egyptians. If you're really interested in the subject Marget Alder's book "Drawing Down the Moon" is still one of the best works on the topic of neo-paganism, though I've heard Starhawk's "Spiral Dance" is also good, but I haven't read that one yet.

[Samwise]

I said there is nothing written about Jesus until 50 AD, and the first "gospel" wasn't written until 70 AD.

How weird, that a fellowship consisting mostly of fisherman, slaves, women, and other social outsiders didn't write anything down, especially in a historical context that was very fond of oral tradition. Considering that a dude named Celsus even 200 years AD was still calling the christian community a bunch of illiterate dumbasses makes this even weirder.

:rolleyes:

[harte.beest]

How weird, that a fellowship consisting mostly of fisherman, slaves, women, and other social outsiders didn't write anything down, especially in a historical context that was very fond of oral tradition. Considering that a dude named Celsus even 200 years AD was still calling the christian community a bunch of illiterate dumbasses makes this even weirder.

:rolleyes:
I do agree that the christian community is bunch of illiterate dumbasses :laugh:

[homegrown terror]

I do agree that the christian community is bunch of illiterate dumbasses :laugh:

christians CAN read, they just DON'T read anything that's not written "by" their god or about their god.

[harte.beest]

christians CAN read, they just DON'T read anything that's not written "by" their god or about their god.
Most Christians know less about their own religion then atheists do. Simply because they never bother to learn anything about "god" outside of church.

[Valdyr]

I'm an atheist (more accurately post-theist) for philosophical reasons, there is simply no place for any kind of deity or transcendent divinity in my views, nor does the question even come up with this schema.

Returning to the science discussion, which I think is interesting, I'm doubtful that "science" could ever prove or disprove any God beyond the banal disembodied human-like agent of fundamentalists and 18th century natural theologians. Science is not some neutral, ahistorical quasi-algorithmic process that just scans the universe and spits out "truths," it is a human practice with implicit philosophical, social, etc. views.

For example, there are many systems and structures in evolutionary biology that I can model teleologicaly, and it sometimes at first seems better to do so. So why isn't it teleological? Because there are implicit assumptions regarding what sorts of explanations constitute science, are fruitful, etc.

This isn't to say, like the fundies often do, that science is some "pure" thing that is being "biased" by a dogmatic a priori assumption of foregoing teleology. Quite the opposite - I think the at least partially philosophical detonation of teleology is a condition of possibility for effective scientific practice. But since science can't be separated as cleanly from interpretation, philosophy, context etc. as some of its proponents would like, the battle against oppressive superstitions can't just be a matter of "what science (in the abstract) tells us" alone.

This isn't to say that philosophy needs to "ground" science either, but that they cannot be fully separated - there is a dialectical relationship between first-order scientific inquiry and second-order interpretive inquiry. Fuck scientism.

[Igor]

christians CAN read, they just DON'T read anything that's not written "by" their god or about their god.

This anti-Christian bullshit is stupid. Very small minority of Christians are actually fundamentalists and being religious is very much part of working class culture in most parts of the world. There are countless of scientists and professors who are religious, and I'm pretty sure they didn't get to their position by reading only the Bible. Fucking Darwin was deeply religious. From an atheist to another, get over your smug atheist phase. Having religious views makes you in no way a less rational or intelligent human being.

Also yeah no they all can't read, Christianity happens to be a very big thing in parts of Africa and Asia where illiteracy is a real problem and religious belief is pretty much the only thing resembling salvation from the crippling poverty. That's global capitalism for you, but I guess "illiterate dumbasses" is totally cool too when it comes to these people.

[roy]

well i personally love jesus

[homegrown terror]

This anti-Christian bullshit is stupid. Very small minority of Christians are actually fundamentalists and being religious is very much part of working class culture in most parts of the world. There are countless of scientists and professors who are religious, and I'm pretty sure they didn't get to their position by reading only the Bible. Fucking Darwin was deeply religious. From an atheist to another, get over your smug atheist phase. Having religious views makes you in no way a less rational or intelligent human being.

Also yeah no they all can't read, Christianity happens to be a very big thing in parts of Africa and Asia where illiteracy is a real problem and religious belief is pretty much the only thing resembling salvation from the crippling poverty. That's global capitalism for you, but I guess "illiterate dumbasses" is totally cool too when it comes to these people.

1) the extremist minority of any oppositional group is always the one that must be dealt with most harshly. i know that not all christians are extremists (hell, most of my in-laws are christian, and i get along with them fine) but just like there are "good" cops out there occasionally, you can't tell the difference by looking, so until you know one way or another it's afest to err on the side of caution.

2) i specifically said christians AREN'T illiterate, just that they tend to view secular reading as of a lesser importance (in some cases, as an evil)

3) i'm not an atheist, i'm just an anti-abrahamic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1) the extremist minority of any oppositional group is always the one that must be dealt with most harshly. i know that not all christians are extremists (hell, most of my in-laws are christian, and i get along with them fine) but just like there are "good" cops out there occasionally, you can't tell the difference by looking, so until you know one way or another it's afest to err on the side of caution.
Well there aren't "good cops" - there may be cops who don't do the job they're supposed to and that can sometimes be good for us, but to do their job, inherently they are doing a disservice to our class.

Christianity, on the other hand is a set of beliefs and explanations for things. Reactionary views and actions aren't inherent in the loose grouping of ideas, but socially, this is often the role of organized religion because of the way some section of religion has been directly or indirectly tied to the ruling class of society.

But for average believers, their religiosity in a general sense doesn't tell us much about what they actually believe in a practical sense in relation to class struggle. Someone who believes Jesus was the son of God might also have fascist ideas or they might be a quaker or have egalitarian ideals.

Right now in the US, the religious right has a lot of power and has over the last generation. But what is the problem here - a spiritual movement or a political one using religion as a vehicle and arena for organizing? So opposing all religious believers misses the mark and can be potentially alienating to people who otherwise might be receptive to engaging in class struggle.

[homegrown terror]

Well there aren't "good cops" - there may be cops who don't do the job they're supposed to and that can sometimes be good for us, but to do their job, inherently they are doing a disservice to our class.

Christianity, on the other hand is a set of beliefs and explanations for things. Reactionary views and actions aren't inherent in the loose grouping of ideas, but socially, this is often the role of organized religion because of the way some section of religion has been directly or indirectly tied to the ruling class of society.

But for average believers, their religiosity in a general sense doesn't tell us much about what they actually believe in a practical sense in relation to class struggle. Someone who believes Jesus was the son of God might also have fascist ideas or they might be a quaker or have egalitarian ideals.

Right now in the US, the religious right has a lot of power and has over the last generation. But what is the problem here - a spiritual movement or a political one using religion as a vehicle and arena for organizing? So opposing all religious believers misses the mark and can be potentially alienating to people who otherwise might be receptive to engaging in class struggle.

i can see where you're coming from, and i agree with you on a level of working-class struggle, however, as an anarcho-syndicalist, i can't abide by any religion that demands absolute obedience, whether to a "god" or to the men that supposedly speak for that "god." whether an individual chooses to see their religion that way or not, the underlying tenets of christianity, judaism and islam (along with several other religions, but that's a topic for another discussion) say that subservience, whether to god, allah or yahweh, is a requirement, and that belief in "his" infallible word is to be utterly unquestioned. people who "interpret" scripture for modern consumption are, in a very base sense, going against their religion, and as long as they're help under its sway, that fundamentalism is a rubber band they keep stretching: one of two options will happen. either they find the strength to break the band and come free, or the band snaps them back to its base when their progressive strength fains under its tension.

EDIT: sorry, i've just realised that i seem to post in a lot of run-on sentences. my english teachers would all be horrified.

[DasFapital]

Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" is a good book about the origins of the New Testament. I would highly recommend.

[harte.beest]

This anti-Christian bullshit is stupid.

I am not anti-Christian am I anti-stupid, I hate all forms of stupidity equally


Very small minority of Christians are actually fundamentalists and being religious is very much part of working class culture in most parts of the world.

Who gets to define who is fundamentalist? according to Newsweek 50% of all Christians believe in creationism, the largest denomination is southern baptist and they are considered fundamentalist as well. So what' do you call being fundamentalist?

I think what you mean is compared to YOU most people aren't fundamentalist..... you psycho Christian :mad:
There are countless of scientists and professors who are religious, and I'm pretty sure they didn't get to their position by reading only the Bible.

71% of scientists are atheist according Pew Research Center, 60% of professors are atheist as oppose the national average of 5% so please tell me where your getting this "countless of scientists and professors who are religious" nonsense did you just make it up? Or is did you get it from some kind of Christian propaganda? ....because in America scientists and professors are WAAAY more atheist then the average person.


Fucking Darwin was deeply religious.

another outright lie

"an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
-Charles Darwin


From an atheist to another, get over your smug atheist phase. Having religious views makes you in no way a less rational or intelligent human being.

why don't you get over your "pretending not to be a Christian phase" and go back to church, that way can tell everyone "you once were lost but now are found"

yes statiscally......... Having religious views makes you a less rational and intelligent human being


Also yeah no they all can't read, Christianity happens to be a very big thing in parts of Africa and Asia where illiteracy is a real problem and religious belief is pretty much the only thing resembling salvation from the crippling poverty.

Christianity and Africa? do you mean the LRA and their army of child soldier's, or are you talking about the missionaries who tell aids ridden Africa that condoms are evil?

you can make up as many "facts" as you want, and come up with as many smart ass responses as you care for, but it doesn't change the fact that your entire religion is made up.

no more real then, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster

Christians are always crying about how oppressed they are, and how everyone picks on them and they never do anything to anybody, it's such crap, and I hate the assholes who say "that's not real Christianity" THE MOST....and completely dissociate themselves with any form of Christianity they don't "approve of"

So you can't blame a Christians for anything because as soon you convince them that world was not created 6000 years ago, they just simply say all the Christians who still do believe that are "not real Christians" "SO stop picking on them because they don't have anything to do with it" it's such BULLSHIT



"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution.

The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England]and in New England"

-Benjamin Franklin


Christianity was invented decades after his death, even though plenty of historians recorded everything, about everyone, they magically missed recording anything about Jesus.

Pontius pilot killed Jesus right? so why are there 128 biographies about him but Jesus' entire story wasn't whispered into someone's ear during a wet dream until 40 years after he "supposedly" died???

[Igor]

1) the extremist minority of any oppositional group is always the one that must be dealt with most harshly. i know that not all christians are extremists (hell, most of my in-laws are christian, and i get along with them fine) but just like there are "good" cops out there occasionally, you can't tell the difference by looking, so until you know one way or another it's afest to err on the side of caution.

2) i specifically said christians AREN'T illiterate, just that they tend to view secular reading as of a lesser importance (in some cases, as an evil)

3) i'm not an atheist, i'm just an anti-abrahamic.

Well, what about you actually attack the extremist organizations instead of making broad generalizations of hundred of millions of people. Sounds like a plan to me. And I'm not talkng about "occasional good cops" here, I have no reason to hold anything against the vast, overwhelming majority of your average Christians.

Also I know you said that, and I disagreed. Christianity is growing very fast in the developing world, where illiteracy is actually a problem and reading about other stuff simply isn't an option. And no, I don't think most Christians view secular reading as "evil" of "lesser importance", because they're about different things than religious writings. A religious person has no reason to consider economic analysis or scientific publications of little value because of their religion because the texts are not about their religion. You need to hang less with Westboro types, I guess.

[Igor]

Also hi harte.beest! That's quite the post you have there. So let's start off with a few pointers;

First of all, the whole thing about intelligence and religion is kind of problematic. Education, as we know it, is a system that's basically upholding the class structure. Some religious people might hold views that simply fly against the face of any kind of science, but it's really somewhat classist to say it's only because they're stupid. The poorest are usually the most religious, this is applicable both globally and within most countries, especially the United States, as we see from the South. If we pretend for a moment your statistics are indeed solid fact and 50% of the Christians were indeed believers in creationism, however it's defined. It's pretty much guaranteed that they'd also be the half of practicing Christians who were financially worse off and have way less formal education on average than the other half. You can celebrate your privilege all you can here, but the path of going to college and learning how to be a rational atheist smugatron isn't simply an option for many people in the States, very much less so in countries like the Philippines or Congo. Consider that before you run around calling people stupid.

It's not that you can't be well educated, analytic and religious, as well though. Religious questions are not usually questions that tend to have straightforward scientific answers, especially because these people don't tend to treat religious texts as a dogma to be taken literally. Seriously, most Christians I know tend to be like this. And even with the numbers you gave, really significant portion of American academia is indeed Christian, which should be a dent against this whole "well religious people are stupid" theory. People with high education are less likely to be religious but well, academics are less likely to many other things your average workers do. There's a good chance being educated will totally disillusionate people from organized religion and more strict religious views, but for some people, it really can't answer all the questions.

Also Christianity and Africa? No, I don't mean LRA. No, I don't mean condom bans. I mean the biggest religion in sub-Saharan Africa. Also no, southern baptism isn't the "largest denomination", Roman Catholic Church is. Christianity does exist outside the United States, after all.

Nobody here claimed the Bible to be historically accurate so I don't know what rest of your post is about. And I'm really not sure where all the shit about me being a Christian is about, I'm part of no denomination, was raised secular and excluding funerals and weddings can't really recall the last time I visited a church. But my views are not really that relevant when it comes to this argument, so I guess you can keep believing I'm some kind of Bible-thumping baptist type if it makes you feel good.

[harte.beest]

Also hi harte.beest! That's quite the post you have there. So let's start off with a few pointers;

First of all, the whole thing about intelligence and religion is kind of problematic. Education, as we know it, is a system that's basically upholding the class structure. Some religious people might hold views that simply fly against the face of any kind of science, but it's really somewhat classist to say it's only because they're stupid.

Education has nothing to do with it because in order to have religious views you must get an education in them. You're the one being classist by saying these people are just SOOOOOO... uneducated and poor we shouldn't judge them at all, "because they all live in mudhuts, and don't really know what they're doing"

Why don't we ask the LBGT community, what they think about what goes on in sub-saharan Africa everyday because of Christianity, and exactly how much we should pity them for being uneducated.


The poorest are usually the most religious, this is applicable both globally and within most countries, especially the United States, as we see from the South. If we pretend for a moment your statistics are indeed solid fact and 50% of the Christians were indeed believers in creationism, however it's defined. It's pretty much guaranteed that they'd also be the half of practicing Christians who were financially worse off and have way less formal education on average than the other half.
Again you're the one being classist here, what does poverty have to do with anything? Yes, you're right, the poorest are usually the most religious, but this has more to do with them being poor, and desperate, then it has to do with anything about their "level of education".


You can celebrate your privilege all you can here, but the path of going to college and learning how to be a rational atheist smugatron isn't simply an option for many people in the States, very much less so in countries like the Philippines or Congo. Consider that before you run around calling people stupid.

Consider that you could be talking to an African immigrant right now before you go around calling people over-privileged college smugatrons.... whatever the hell that's supposed to mean:mad:...... your attitude of "poor people from the Congo and Philippines shouldn't be accountable" is far more dehumanizing, if not racist, then simply saying, we should be holding them accountable for their own actions..... (you know like their adults and everything:rolleyes:)


It's not that you can't be well educated, analytic and religious, as well though. Religious questions are not usually questions that tend to have straightforward scientific answers, especially because these people don't tend to treat religious texts as a dogma to be taken literally. Seriously, most Christians I know tend to be like this.
Yeah their called apatheist, also referred to as "I don't give a fuck-ists"

Most people identify their religion as being whatever they're families religion is, as if it represents a race, or a culture, I know many Christians, Jews and Muslims who's families haven't been to a place of worship for three generations but everyone still calls themselves Greek orthodox... or whatever they are


And even with the numbers you gave, really significant portion of American academia is indeed Christian, which should be a dent against this whole "well religious people are stupid" theory. People with high education are less likely to be religious but well, academics are less likely to many other things your average workers do. There's a good chance being educated will totally disillusionate people from organized religion and more strict religious views, but for some people, it really can't answer all the questions.

What questions? Do you mean like how big the universe is? or Where do we "go" after we die? or How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Why the fuck do I need answer these questions for you before I can get people to stop telling stupid people a magical genie sits in the sky on golden cloud throne granting wishes?

Also Christianity and Africa? No, I don't mean LRA. No, I don't mean condom bans. I mean the biggest religion in sub-Saharan Africa. Also no, southern baptism isn't the "largest denomination", Roman Catholic Church is. Christianity does exist outside the United States, after all.

Oh yeah right :laugh:............. the "biggest religion" in sub Saharan Africa, like that says anything, there's over 10,000 denominations of Christianity in Africa, most of which, westerners would be horrified by, and maybe 10% of Africa is Christian. Africa has thousands of religions, Christianity just happens to be the highest, but the way your implying it, is that over 50% of Africa is christian.... which is a lie

you'll also notice, your only qualifying these people as "Christians" when it suits you're argument, but if i was to find some obscure cannibalist African form of Christianity and asked you "why do Christians behave this way?" Your answer would be "oh there fundamentalist wackos they don't represent us real christians"....bs


Nobody here claimed the Bible to be historically accurate so I don't know what rest of your post is about.

If you claim Jesus was a real person in any form, then you are. The bible is the only "proof" he ever lived. If your saying anyone has the "right" to brainwash their child and/or their community into believing this because their might be a "possibility", then again, yes, you are


And I'm really not sure where all the shit about me being a Christian is about, I'm part of no denomination, was raised secular and excluding funerals and weddings can't really recall the last time I visited a church. But my views are not really that relevant when it comes to this argument, so I guess you can keep believing I'm some kind of Bible-thumping baptist type if it makes you feel good.

how am i supposed to know, how I am supposed to ask every single person who blindly defends christianity........exactly how much bullshit their full of. "oh I don't believe in that I'm a secular unitarian I believe in a different god....."

I'll take credit for the worst atheist in the world (which by the way to a Christian, the worst atheists are Stalin and Mao) and you take credit for Hitler and Kony and anyone who ate human flesh while a crucifix dangled from their (as you say) "uneducated" neck.............

.......... deal?:thumbup1:

[#FF0000]

i am broke as a joke and have been for a good chunk of my life and i was always an atheist.

Sort of off topic but I am hella tired of people who try and act like they need to dumb things down or something for actual working class people. I'm talking about the people who are like "REAL WORKERS DON'T LIKE THAT BOURGIE ART BULLSHIT" when talking about modern art and shit.

[Zealot]

Okay technically he "self-identifies" as an agnostic, but that's after being an evangelical fundamentalist his entire adult life

Right, he changed his views after realising they were absurd. Whether or not he's an agnostic or atheist, I couldn't care less.


The fact is, he's not an atheist, he's a christian apologist calling himself agnostic. Which basicallly means he still beleives in god, he just doesn't believe in any organized religion. Atheism means no belief in god, he believes in god, therefore he is not an atheist, and he's nowhere near being a "militant atheist"

Okay, now this is where it gets desperate because you obviously have not read any of Ehrman's works. He is not, I repeat not, a Christian apologist. He has come on the attack against the Bible and the resurrection ample times as demonstrated in his books, lectures and debates against actual Christian apologists. Agnostic does not mean you still believe in god, much less a Christian apologist...shit I don't even know where to begin with that idiocy.

No investigation, no right to speak.

[eric922]

The fact is, he's not an atheist, he's a christian apologist calling himself agnostic. Which basicallly means he still beleives in god, he just doesn't believe in any organized religion. Atheism means no belief in god, he believes in god, therefore he is not an atheist, and he's nowhere near being a "militant atheist"

I'm just going to address your point about agnosticism. From the Oxford English Dictionary on Agnostic:




a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I realized that my religion was a bronze aged invention. Enough said.

[Igor]

Education has nothing to do with it because in order to have religious views you must get an education in them. You're the one being classist by saying these people are just SOOOOOO... uneducated and poor we shouldn't judge them at all, "because they all live in mudhuts, and don't really know what they're doing"

Well, basic religious education is quite much easier to achieve than actual education. I'm not saying we shouldn't judge them for their views, I'm saying it's kind of classist to consider to be stupid just because they have views they've probably never even really questioned due to the environment they've been brought up in. Improving education is really the key here.


Why don't we ask the LBGT community, what they think about what goes on in sub-saharan Africa everyday because of Christianity, and exactly how much we should pity them for being uneducated.

Yeah, LGBT rights in Africa are fucked up. I'm not denying this and every Christian who's against standing up for LGBT people in Africa or anywhere has some pretty damn reprehensible views we should openly try and combat. I don't think anyone disagrees here. The fact that Christianity has acted and is acting as we speak as an instrument for enforcing bigoted attitudes is something I don't think anyone here would question. But you seriously can't hold all the individual Christians responsible that, there are countless of pro-LGBT Christians.


Again you're the one being classist here, what does poverty have to do with anything? Yes, you're right, the poorest are usually the most religious, but this has more to do with them being poor, and desperate, then it has to do with anything about their "level of education".


Well, you said it. Poverty has to do with lots of things, like not being able to access education and the fact that religion does offer hope for lot of people who are not doing so well.


Consider that you could be talking to an African immigrant right now before you go around calling people over-privileged college smugatrons.... whatever the hell that's supposed to mean:mad:...... your attitude of "poor people from the Congo and Philippines shouldn't be accountable" is far more dehumanizing, if not racist, then simply saying, we should be holding them accountable for their own actions..... (you know like their adults and everything:rolleyes:)

Of course they should be accountable when they hold bigoted views! It's just that there's usually a reason for these bigoted views and it has more to do with the environment they were brought up in than actual nature of the people in question.


What questions? Do you mean like how big the universe is? or Where do we "go" after we die? or How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

well you better get someone who's actually religious to answer these questions


Oh yeah right :laugh:............. the "biggest religion" in sub Saharan Africa, like that says anything, there's over 10,000 denominations of Christianity in Africa, most of which, westerners would be horrified by, and maybe 10% of Africa is Christian. Africa has thousands of religions, Christianity just happens to be the highest, but the way your implying it, is that over 50% of Africa is christian.... which is a lie

It is the biggest religion though. I claimed nothing else. You're the one implying Christianity in Africa would consist only of condom-hating missionaries and Ugandan militants.


you'll also notice, your only qualifying these people as "Christians" when it suits you're argument, but if i was to find some obscure cannibalist African form of Christianity and asked you "why do Christians behave this way?" Your answer would be "oh there fundamentalist wackos they don't represent us real christians"....bs

You're pulling shite out of your arse. I've claimed nothing like this. Though, I'm pretty sure nobody would define an "obscure cannibalist" form of Christianity that fundamentalist though. However, I'm not in any way denying that people with most reprehensible views could be as Christian as anyone else. Your post is really reading out like a one fucking big strawman.


If you claim Jesus was a real person in any form, then you are. The bible is the only "proof" he ever lived. If your saying anyone has the "right" to brainwash their child and/or their community into believing this because their might be a "possibility", then again, yes, you are

Am I claiming? Did I ever claim? No. This is completely off topic, and you're still just saying stuff you assume I believe.


how am i supposed to know, how I am supposed to ask every single person who blindly defends christianity........exactly how much bullshit their full of. "oh I don't believe in that I'm a secular unitarian I believe in a different god....."

well yeah that's cool


I'll take credit for the worst atheist in the world (which by the way to a Christian, the worst atheists are Stalin and Mao) and you take credit for Hitler and Kony and anyone who ate human flesh while a crucifix dangled from their (as you say) "uneducated" neck.............

.......... deal?:thumbup1:

que

[Zealot]

This anti-Christian bullshit is stupid. Very small minority of Christians are actually fundamentalists and being religious is very much part of working class culture in most parts of the world. There are countless of scientists and professors who are religious, and I'm pretty sure they didn't get to their position by reading only the Bible. Fucking Darwin was deeply religious. From an atheist to another, get over your smug atheist phase. Having religious views makes you in no way a less rational or intelligent human being.

Also yeah no they all can't read, Christianity happens to be a very big thing in parts of Africa and Asia where illiteracy is a real problem and religious belief is pretty much the only thing resembling salvation from the crippling poverty. That's global capitalism for you, but I guess "illiterate dumbasses" is totally cool too when it comes to these people.

While labeling Christians as "illiterate dumbasses" is taking it a bit too far, it's not actually a very extreme claim to say that Christians know close to nothing about their own religion. Research and surveys tend to indicate that Atheists actually know more about religion and the Bible than does the average Christian. Does this make them illiterate? No, it simply means that, as Bart Ehrman once pointed out, many Christians would rather read The Da Vinci Code than a book written by the almighty God himself.

[homegrown terror]

a lot of us anti-christians know a lot about the bible because either a) we were forced into the faith as children, b) we like to know their drivel in order to better refute it or c) both a and b.

[harte.beest]

Okay, now this is where it gets desperate because you obviously have not read any of Ehrman's works. He is not, I repeat not, a Christian apologist. He has come on the attack against the Bible and the resurrection ample times as demonstrated in his books, lectures and debates against actual Christian apologists. Agnostic does not mean you still believe in god, much less a Christian apologist...shit I don't even know where to begin with that idiocy.

No investigation, no right to speak.

No I have not read erhman, I'm only picking on him because he was called a militant atheist who believes a historical Jesus lived. This is not true. that is all I was saying.

he talks about the resurrection and the bible because he's disproving the "magical" Jesus and trying to prove Jesus lived as a man or was philosopher or something, not a magical being, he argues with OTHER apologists.

I have no problem with erhman I'd rather people believe in a historical Jesus then a magical one. I'd rather people be apologists if they were forced into believing in Jesus, since childbirth, but I will not have people believe, that he's a "militant atheist" as he was referred to earlier




I'm just going to address your point about agnosticism. From the Oxford English Dictionary on Agnostic:




a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Yes, thank you, but there are many different kinds of agnostics beyond that definition there's pragmatists, apatheists, and ignostics, all under that same umbrella term "agnostic"



Improving education is really the key here.
I'm sure the pope would agree with you



It is the biggest religion though. I claimed nothing else. You're the one implying Christianity in Africa would consist only of condom-hating missionaries and Ugandan militants.


The Majority of "Christians" in Africa are pretending to be Christian to avoid persecution

here's what Christians "really" think about Christianity and Africa:


Although over 70% of South Africans, of all race groups, call themselves “Christians”, this is of course not the case at all, and only refers to nominal“Christians”, not true ones. The vast majority of blacks who profess Christianity remain committed to the heathenism and witchcraft of their ancestors.

http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2005/11/11/witchcraft-bestiality-cannibalism-horrifying-abominations-being-committed-in-south-africa/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fundamentalist or not, the universal problem with religion is that by definition it encourages belief in things without evidence. That is dangerous.