Jump to content

Many atheists don't seem sympathetic to poor.


mt774

Recommended Posts

I mean, you are going up to a person and telling him that everything he believes in is fake and a lie. Isn't that just a bit much?

That's just those who are inclined to go up to people.

 

(some) Religious people do exactly the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, you are going up to a person and telling him that everything he believes in is fake and a lie. Isn't that just a bit much?

That's just those who are inclined to go up to people.

 

(some) Religious people do exactly the same thing.

Yeah, I think that trying to shove your beliefs (whatever they may be) down peoples throats is just stupid.

 

I mean, there's nothing wrong with discussing/debating these things, but being so adamant about the fact that what you believe is "right" and that anyone who believes something different is "wrong" is ridiculous.

 

That's why they're called beliefs right?

38773_s.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I mean, you are going up to a person and telling him that everything he believes in is fake and a lie. Isn't that just a bit much?

That's just those who are inclined to go up to people.

 

(some) Religious people do exactly the same thing.

Yeah, I think that trying to shove your beliefs (whatever they may be) down peoples throats is just stupid.

 

I mean, there's nothing wrong with discussing/debating these things, but being so adamant about the fact that what you believe is "right" and that anyone who believes something different is "wrong" is ridiculous.

 

That's why they're called beliefs right?

The Bible teaches Christians to share the word of God with everyone. However, it also teaches them to respect other people. As such, when I deal with Christians and they start telling me about God, I simply inform them I am not one to care for such things. This results in them dropping the subject.

 

I find Atheists are more obnoxious with their anti beliefs than Christians are with their beliefs. I have seen many Atheists reduce people to tears for believing in God. I have never seen a Christian reduce an Atheist to tears for not believing. Perhaps, there is something to be said about Jesus' teachings on Compassion.

 

Regardless, a person's beliefs are their own and we need to accept that. If you are Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Catholic etc that is fine. Just respect other people.

 

@Atheists: Prove to the Christians, etc that having no God still allows for morals and compassion to thrive. Don't attack Christians for their beliefs, do as you want them to do. Respect their beliefs. By always attacking ( and attacking is what many atheists do ) you just prove to them that to be just, kind, compassionate, moral, etc you need God in your life. Which then makes it harder to show them God isn't needed. You become your own worst enemy.

 

@Christians: Actually read the book you base your belief on. Don't just listen to the Pastor, Preacher, Bishop, etc. Read it yourself. Learn about Jesus and God on your own. Remember Jesus said a Church is when 3 or more people discuss his teachings. Therefore, engaging a small group of your friends to talk about God results in a Church. Prepare yourself for people to question your faith, Jesus says you will be tested. However, don't continuously force your belief onto someone. I know Jesus says to spread the word but there are ways of doing that. Engage people. Don't use the threat of Hell to win. Consult the Bible. It is your biggest tool.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why? Why do you care about the helpless? I mean, I do too. But why is that? They do nothing for me, they're a complete drain on society, they're filthy and disgusting. Yet I feel pity for them. You can all say that religion is a scam, but I can't help but think that this illogical compassion is a bigger scam. It's a horrible burden. Imagine it, actually feeling bad about your success because some stranger isn't doing so well. Does that make any sense?

It can't just be human nature, can it? I tell you, if it weren't for my conscience I would be so much happier. I would have hoped that Atheists would rid themselves of this burden, yet they're just as constrained as I am.

The problem goes deeper than religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

Edited by Marwin

L71cGcK.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Typhus: Empathy is hard wired into us because it's the simplest way to get a bunch of individuals to care for each other and therefore act as a group. Most of the time it works to your advantage. Sometimes, you end up carrying for wrong people. Unless you're a complete psychopath and happen to not have the empathy (good for you, I say, if you keep your head about it,) you can't really help but care. Rational override can help with that, but with most people that results in the "pretending they aren't there," kind of response. And that's not really good either.

Prior to filing a bug against any of my code, please consider this response to common concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why? Why do you care about the helpless? I mean, I do too. But why is that? They do nothing for me, they're a complete drain on society, they're filthy and disgusting. Yet I feel pity for them. You can all say that religion is a scam, but I can't help but think that this illogical compassion is a bigger scam. It's a horrible burden. Imagine it, actually feeling bad about your success because some stranger isn't doing so well. Does that make any sense?

It can't just be human nature, can it? I tell you, if it weren't for my conscience I would be so much happier. I would have hoped that Atheists would rid themselves of this burden, yet they're just as constrained as I am.

The problem goes deeper than religion.

We naturally have compassion for all human being, given that they haven't inflicted on us in a negative way. and I know that they only have one life, and if they're suffering, then it saddens me that they will not live their only life happily.

 

religion usually only gives you more of a feeling of connectivity to one another, and that we are all god's children or whatever, and we should be "god like" and care for one another. pretty much giving a god credit to the feelings we already have for one another, or exaggerating the feeling, which isn't necessarily bad but it can make you do good things for the wrong reasons.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible teaches Christians to share the word of God with everyone. However, it also teaches them to respect other people. As such, when I deal with Christians and they start telling me about God, I simply inform them I am not one to care for such things. This results in them dropping the subject.

Respect the bald, otherwise God will send bears after your arse. 2 Kings 2:23-25.

 

Seems like a perfectly reasonable response to children teasing someone. What a great demonstration of respect for human life.

 

I find Atheists are more obnoxious with their anti beliefs than Christians are with their beliefs. I have seen many Atheists reduce people to tears for believing in God. I have never seen a Christian reduce an Atheist to tears for not believing. Perhaps, there is something to be said about Jesus' teachings on Compassion.

 

Funny, I've never heard of an atheist bombing an abortion clinic.

 

Regardless, a person's beliefs are their own and we need to accept that. If you are Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Catholic etc that is fine. Just respect other people.

 

@Atheists: Prove to the Christians, etc that having no God still allows for morals and compassion to thrive. Don't attack Christians for their beliefs, do as you want them to do. Respect their beliefs. By always attacking ( and attacking is what many atheists do ) you just prove to them that to be just, kind, compassionate, moral, etc you need God in your life. Which then makes it harder to show them God isn't needed. You become your own worst enemy.

 

You seem to have created this strawman of what an atheist is, when all atheism defines is what that person isn't. We've had two thousand years of violence committed against people who don't believe in a deity. Killing non-believers in the name of various gods has been a 'socially responsible' thing to do in many places, just as it was up until the 17th century in Europe. Hell, I can't go to most of the Middle East. Do you have a good reason why atheists shouldn't be angry?

 

To address your strawman argument, if everyone around you believed in Santa Claus, and threatened you with either death in some places, or social isolation in other places if you ever professed to not believe in Santa Claus, wouldn't you feel a bit frustrated? If Santa's book of Who's Naughty and Nice contains instructions to put those who are naughty to the sword, and the criteria for being naughty might simply be to have sex with a woman during or just after her period, what basis does Santa have for claiming moral superiority?

 

More to the point, what kind of morality is one based on the fear of going to hell? Do you need the reward for doing something good? I sure as hell don't. You tell me which is a more robust moral structure.

 

@Christians: Actually read the book you base your belief on. Don't just listen to the Pastor, Preacher, Bishop, etc. Read it yourself. Learn about Jesus and God on your own. Remember Jesus said a Church is when 3 or more people discuss his teachings. Therefore, engaging a small group of your friends to talk about God results in a Church. Prepare yourself for people to question your faith, Jesus says you will be tested. However, don't continuously force your belief onto someone. I know Jesus says to spread the word but there are ways of doing that. Engage people. Don't use the threat of Hell to win. Consult the Bible. It is your biggest tool.

 

Have you actually read the bible? I would encourage people who call themselves Christian to do so. How do you explain away the less-than-morally-acceptable things that God commands be done in his name? In Australia a few years ago, the fastest growing group of people professing to be atheist are actually students at Catholic schools, because when the book is studied, it doesn't stand up to critical analysis as a code of morality when you're also teaching your students to be critical thinkers, ie to think for themselves.

 

Anyway, should I get some of the less comfortable parts of the bible?

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

So if your baby boy isn't circumcised, God's got a nice and fiery place waiting for him.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So it's okay to kill homosexuals, huh? Tell me, if God knows everything (he's supposed to be omnipotent, omnicient, etc, so he damn well should know), then why does he a) create human beings (as well as the rest of the animal kingdom) with homosexual tendencies, and b) demand that they be killed for it?

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

It's alright to slaughter the babies of your enemy, apparently.

 

Perhaps these examples might demonstrate why many non-Christians have little to no tolerance for Christianity.

 

I could go on quote-mining the Bible for a few hours, and end up with a post that is several pages long. The point is, if you're going to teach anyone about morality, the Bible is amongst the worst texts you could possibly consult. Sure, you can cherry pick the ugly parts, but there are so many, and all you'd be teaching is that there are times that it's okay to kill someone for eating a lobster, for example. It all seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

I mean, if you take nothing else from my post, take these two points:

1. Thousands of years of social marginalisation and persecution results in a small and vocal group of people who have nothing in common apart from their lack of belief in a deity.

2. Atheism only describes the lack of belief in a god, and says nothing about the other beliefs that a person may hold. Speaking generally about this group is completely retarded because it says nothing about the morality of the person concerned.

 

 

That's my .02c, I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood atheists.

 

I mean, you are going up to a person and telling him that everything he believes in is fake and a lie. Isn't that just a bit much?

Isn't that called preaching? Isn't that was religionists do all the time from the point of view of non-believers? I'm assuming you don't mean the sort of people who'd kick the church door open on a Sunday morning and start ranting and raving about them wasting their time, because I don't think that happens, and even if it does, it's hardly representative of atheists in general as your comment implies.

 

If someone asks me if I believe in their God, I'd say no. If they pushed me on it, I'd say it was utter bollocks. If they're offended by that then a) they shouldn't have asked, and b) they're clearly less a 'believer' and more a 'depender' on religion if they can't stand to have their foundations shaken.

31805323.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood atheists.

 

I mean, you are going up to a person and telling him that everything he believes in is fake and a lie. Isn't that just a bit much?

 

Being agnostic is just a more neutral stance.

who the hell does this? It's still not as sufferable as the religious bigots that fear anyone that isn't christian, white and middle class like themselves, preachers that spend time holding up billboards outside they're homes with "god hates homesexuals" written on. They're kids get bullied at school and rightly so, thats the kind of society that religion can be responsible for. Ok you get atheists that actively hate religion and take it too far but every one of them you get preachers spending time going from house to house trying to convert people. It's disgusting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Bible teaches Christians to share the word of God with everyone. However, it also teaches them to respect other people. As such, when I deal with Christians and they start telling me about God, I simply inform them I am not one to care for such things. This results in them dropping the subject.

Respect the bald, otherwise God will send bears after your arse. 2 Kings 2:23-25.

 

Seems like a perfectly reasonable response to children teasing someone. What a great demonstration of respect for human life.

 

I find Atheists are more obnoxious with their anti beliefs than Christians are with their beliefs. I have seen many Atheists reduce people to tears for believing in God. I have never seen a Christian reduce an Atheist to tears for not believing. Perhaps, there is something to be said about Jesus' teachings on Compassion.

 

Funny, I've never heard of an atheist bombing an abortion clinic.

 

Regardless, a person's beliefs are their own and we need to accept that. If you are Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Catholic etc that is fine. Just respect other people.

 

@Atheists: Prove to the Christians, etc that having no God still allows for morals and compassion to thrive. Don't attack Christians for their beliefs, do as you want them to do. Respect their beliefs. By always attacking ( and attacking is what many atheists do ) you just prove to them that to be just, kind, compassionate, moral, etc you need God in your life. Which then makes it harder to show them God isn't needed. You become your own worst enemy.

 

You seem to have created this strawman of what an atheist is, when all atheism defines is what that person isn't. We've had two thousand years of violence committed against people who don't believe in a deity. Killing non-believers in the name of various gods has been a 'socially responsible' thing to do in many places, just as it was up until the 17th century in Europe. Hell, I can't go to most of the Middle East. Do you have a good reason why atheists shouldn't be angry?

 

To address your strawman argument, if everyone around you believed in Santa Claus, and threatened you with either death in some places, or social isolation in other places if you ever professed to not believe in Santa Claus, wouldn't you feel a bit frustrated? If Santa's book of Who's Naughty and Nice contains instructions to put those who are naughty to the sword, and the criteria for being naughty might simply be to have sex with a woman during or just after her period, what basis does Santa have for claiming moral superiority?

 

More to the point, what kind of morality is one based on the fear of going to hell? Do you need the reward for doing something good? I sure as hell don't. You tell me which is a more robust moral structure.

 

@Christians: Actually read the book you base your belief on. Don't just listen to the Pastor, Preacher, Bishop, etc. Read it yourself. Learn about Jesus and God on your own. Remember Jesus said a Church is when 3 or more people discuss his teachings. Therefore, engaging a small group of your friends to talk about God results in a Church. Prepare yourself for people to question your faith, Jesus says you will be tested. However, don't continuously force your belief onto someone. I know Jesus says to spread the word but there are ways of doing that. Engage people. Don't use the threat of Hell to win. Consult the Bible. It is your biggest tool.

 

Have you actually read the bible? I would encourage people who call themselves Christian to do so. How do you explain away the less-than-morally-acceptable things that God commands be done in his name? In Australia a few years ago, the fastest growing group of people professing to be atheist are actually students at Catholic schools, because when the book is studied, it doesn't stand up to critical analysis as a code of morality when you're also teaching your students to be critical thinkers, ie to think for themselves.

 

Anyway, should I get some of the less comfortable parts of the bible?

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

So if your baby boy isn't circumcised, God's got a nice and fiery place waiting for him.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So it's okay to kill homosexuals, huh? Tell me, if God knows everything (he's supposed to be omnipotent, omnicient, etc, so he damn well should know), then why does he a) create human beings (as well as the rest of the animal kingdom) with homosexual tendencies, and b) demand that they be killed for it?

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

It's alright to slaughter the babies of your enemy, apparently.

 

Perhaps these examples might demonstrate why many non-Christians have little to no tolerance for Christianity.

 

I could go on quote-mining the Bible for a few hours, and end up with a post that is several pages long. The point is, if you're going to teach anyone about morality, the Bible is amongst the worst texts you could possibly consult. Sure, you can cherry pick the ugly parts, but there are so many, and all you'd be teaching is that there are times that it's okay to kill someone for eating a lobster, for example. It all seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

I mean, if you take nothing else from my post, take these two points:

1. Thousands of years of social marginalisation and persecution results in a small and vocal group of people who have nothing in common apart from their lack of belief in a deity.

2. Atheism only describes the lack of belief in a god, and says nothing about the other beliefs that a person may hold. Speaking generally about this group is completely retarded because it says nothing about the morality of the person concerned.

 

 

That's my .02c, I'm out.

First, learn to quote. I wrote what you quoted and attributed to Murdoc.

 

Second, I've read enough of the Bible and spoken to enough Bible Scholars to know I don't give a sh*t about the whole thing.

 

If the Bible is the worst text to teach people morality, what text do you propose we use? Considering, many Atheist texts tend to dismiss the concept of morality as a manifestation of Biblical teachings, I am awaiting your alternative. Perhaps, the teachings of Buddha? Or the Koran? Maybe you want to use another religious text, which then could be faulted as the Bible is. Is the Bible perfect? No, and that is always attributed to the faults of man by the very people who believe in it. They also acknowledge that man isn't perfect and that even the belief in God by a man will not be perfect.

 

This is why you have the many different sub-sects of the major religions, from Christianity to Islam. Due, to the imperfections of man and the way man interprets the texts of their respective Gods. If man was perfect, then we wouldn't have Shiite Muslims or Mormons or Catholics, etc.

 

You seem to have forgotten that most religious texts have a provision that says they are the words of God given to man via man. This is how they get away with contradictions, misunderstandings, etc. Man is at fault for all this. Of course, the Bible, not the Torah, is suppose to focus on the New Testament as the works of God that apply today, considering Jesus' word supersedes that of the Old Testament. This makes all the Old Testament nothing more than stories of past morality and teachings.

 

 

Edited by Iminicus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunrise Driver

Another question turned into flame war where nobody won't convince anybody. And BTW this belongs to D&D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have forgotten that most religious texts have a provision that says they are the words of God given to man via man. This is how they get away with contradictions, misunderstandings, etc. Man is at fault for all this. Of course, the Bible, not the Torah, is suppose to focus on the New Testament as the works of God that apply today, considering Jesus' word supersedes that of the Old Testament. This makes all the Old Testament nothing more than stories of past morality and teachings.

The word of God is absolute, no? Or is that until it is superseded after he's slept on it for a while? Was he just in a bad mood during his Old Testament days? He's starting to sound very human, and not at all omniscient. Almost as if religion is a very human invention. This get-out clause of supersession and misinterpretation is commonly banded about to explain away the contradictions and hypocrisies of religion, and but even those on close inspection are merely further contradictions and hypocrisies.

 

And to suggest that morality changes over time is a complete nonsense.

31805323.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You seem to have forgotten that most religious texts have a provision that says they are the words of God given to man via man. This is how they get away with contradictions, misunderstandings, etc. Man is at fault for all this. Of course, the Bible, not the Torah, is suppose to focus on the New Testament as the works of God that apply today, considering Jesus' word supersedes that of the Old Testament. This makes all the Old Testament nothing more than stories of past morality and teachings.

The word of God is absolute, no? Or is that until it is superseded after he's slept on it for a while? Was he just in a bad mood during his Old Testament days? He's starting to sound very human, and not at all omniscient. Almost as if religion is a very human invention. This get-out clause of supersession and misinterpretation is commonly banded about to explain away the contradictions and hypocrisies of religion, and but even those on close inspection are merely further contradictions and hypocrisies.

 

And to suggest that morality changes over time is a complete nonsense.

Yes, the word of God is absolute, however, the Old Testament applies to the Jewish faith, whereas, the New Testament applies to Christianity. There is a difference. The New Testament deals with the teachings of Christ exclusively, through his own gospels or the gospels of those that knew him. The Old Testament deals with the gospels of Moses etc.

 

Considering he was a vindictive asshole during the Old Testament, I would conclude he was in a bad mood. However, Christians only include the Old Testament because many of Jesus' teachings go back to that. Otherwise, I'm sure the Bible would simply be the New Testament.

 

As I said, the Bible is the word of God handed to HUMANS, therefore, it isn't perfect. And yes, that is a convenient excuse to explain away all contradictions, inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and hypocrisies. I don't deny that and I do care as I AM NOT RELIGIOUS.

 

Morality does change over time. If it didn't we'd still allow the marriage of 13 year old girls to 20 year old males, such as within the Islamic faith. We'd also allow many of the older morality teachings in the Old Testament to stand.

 

Barguast, I'm not a theological scholar, nor do I want to be one. I just happen to have spent too much time around several and picked up some excellent counter arguments to them. I see religion as simply a tool of mass control, which it is to some extent. It still doesn't mean it can't be used for the greater good of society and I don't mean in the whole Jesus was a Communist.

 

[sorry if my thought train is all over. I honestly don't give a sh*t about that. To reiterate, I DON'T f*ckING CARE FOR RELIGION AND I AM NOT A RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR. If you have further questions on the morality of the Bible and how Christians view the Old Testament and its teachings, I suggest you seek out a Pastor, Priest, Bishop, etc. Stop relying on people from the internet to teach you about a religion. Go to the source or if you don't wanna read about find someone who has studied it.]

Edited by Iminicus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...

 

 

Eastern Europe is an interesting case, because while Estonia polls belief in a god at about 16%, about 50% of the population there considers there to be spirits or "some other force", and 26% define themselves as being atheist. Most of Eastern Europe has similar stats with the notable exception of Poland, where the atheists are 1% of the population.

Just to clarify here, belief in spirits obviously doesnt equal religion. Also, Ive noticed an odd overlap with people who believe in God and spirits at the same time. Another interesting thing is that the believers are mostly old people, the younger generation is completely apathetic towards any sort of belief. In fact, religions in general are resented (excluding buddhism).

 

Belief in spirits can be attributed to this regions culture and traditions. Most of such beliefs are related to nature and would be considered paganism. Im guessing that majority of the people in the poll just replied with 'dont know' or 'dont care' to the questions (which leaves plenty of room for agnostics and people who just didnt want to classify their views).

 

I can add that Lithuania is also very religious (at least compared with the rest of this region).

 

 

@Vanja: Fried babies? I find those to be most delicious

I think you would get along quite well with Svip then.

tounge.gif

 

 

But why? Why do you care about the helpless? I mean, I do too. But why is that?

I cant say with any certainty... but I think (at least with me) its because morality is often based on the 'do unto others as you would have them do' way of thinking. Putting yourself in someone elses shoes helps determine the correct way of acting. Empathy can be a powerful thing (sadly proven by how easy it is to abuse).

 

 

This is why you have the many different sub-sects of the major religions, from Christianity to Islam. Due, to the imperfections of man and the way man interprets the texts of their respective Gods. If man was perfect, then we wouldn't have Shiite Muslims or Mormons or Catholics, etc.

 

Indeed. This essentially why we have so many different buddhist sects. The original buddhist texts (the Pali Canon) were written down from memory several hundred years after Siddhartha Gautamas death (he was the very first Buddha). Over the years the texts were given different meanings which resulted in the formation of different factions. Many years (and translations) later and we have dozens of differing beliefs which have very little to do with the original teachings (and even contradicting them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Iminicus

 

The Old Testament applies to Judaism as well as Christianity. Otherwise, the two texts wouldn't coexist in the Christian handbook that is the bible. 'Vindictive asshole' doesn't fit with the infinite, omniscience, omnibenevolent, omniwhatever God that is sold in churches these days. It's a nonsense. Mood swings, vindictiveness, mistakes, etc. are all human traits and, once again, it just goes to show that God is a very human invention. As you state, the bible is certainly a human work. We're told it comes from God, and that all the inaccuracies are mistranslations. I'll not requote the excerpts that have been posted, but I'd love to know how entire parables and transparent metaphors got skewed so much.

 

I don't even know why you're defending something that you claim to have no belief in, and seemingly little respect for.

 

As for morality, your example isn't change through time, it's change through context. Marrying 13 year olds was no more moral two millenia ago than it is today. Social exceptability is not morality.

 

As for your final point, I totally agree. Religion is a mass control mechanism as well as an evolutionary construct. It comes from our natural urge to band together into groups for security, to strengthen that group, and to protect it from other groups. It's a security blanket for those who can't handle the thought of death and loss, and a big stick to hit over the head of people with no intrinsic moral compass of their own.

 

I'm not sure if your final paragraph was referring to me or not, but I'm not asking you to teach me about religion. I'm debating it from my own point of view and opinion, which I'd love to have it shaken if only someone could defend or support religion from any position other than 'it's a matter of faith' or 'God is mysterious'. In other words, 'I don't want to talk about it la-la-la can't hear you'.

31805323.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...

 

 

I don't even know why you're defending something that you claim to have no belief in, and seemingly little respect for.

 

 

Im pretty sure that Iminicus isnt against these views but rather the way people express them. Meaning, theres no point in being a dick if you disagree with someone.

 

 

I'm not sure if your final paragraph was referring to me or not, but I'm not asking you to teach me about religion. I'm debating it from my own point of view and opinion, which I'd love to have it shaken if only someone could defend or support religion from any position other than 'it's a matter of faith' or 'God is mysterious'. In other words, 'I don't want to talk about it la-la-la can't hear you'.

 

Ignoring the other side reduces a debate to a monologue. Its all well and good defending your own views but you also need to first understand what the oppositions perspective is and why. Its essential if youre determined to pick someones arguments appart. And its something that many atheists actually fail at because they focus their energy on trivial things without understanding why it makes so much sense to religious people. Lack of understanding has essentially the same effect as yelling 'la-la-la' from the top of your lungs because youre debating on completely different levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes two to tango! Every single time I've had this discussion before (I should note that I've never been the instigator) it always goes the same way. All contradictions are supported by more contradictions, all inaccuracies are attributed to human error, all good comes from God, and all evils come from mankind (oddly enough, I find few Christians believe in the devil these days). It's all cherry picking their supportive information and dismissing the obvious flaws with something as loose and insubstantial such as the ultimate debate breaker - "Well that's what I think, anyway" (dozingoff.gif)

 

People sure get fired up when it comes to religion, to the point where it seems to be off-limits as far as debating it goes. It seems to be fine for religionists to shove their beliefs down your throat, but when atheists do the same, they're accused of being insensitive to others' beliefs. Being dicks, if you will. What is this, if not the protection of an innocent, warm, comforting, but ultimately unstable and nonsensical lie? I'm sure I'll get flak for making this comparison, but it seems much like telling a child that Santa doesn't exist (of course, it is fine to tell a non-believing child that he does exist), but it seems a fairly good comparison at the moment! ph34r.gif

 

P.S. Joke; Santa of course does exist, kiddies. colgate.gif

31805323.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...

 

Yes, belief is a rather odd thing.

 

Anyway, if a flaw is obvious and the evidence is concrete then its pretty much your duty (as a debater) to point it out. You cant, however, go in guns blazing without understanding the subject at hand, because thatll just make you look like an idiot.

 

 

People sure get fired up when it comes to religion, to the point where it seems to be off-limits as far as debating it goes.

 

Thats why you need to be careful in how you approach the matter. Being a dick will just ensure that the person youre debating wont ever listen to what you have to say (and that applies regardless of the subject).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the excuses religious people have for inaccuracies in the Old Testament. I especially love how they try to justify slavery, saying how those weren't slaves God talked about, they were just servants. Riiiiight. That's why the passages about "servants" talk about setting them free!

 

Tell me, how do religious people justify this:

 

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

 

f*ck it, just read the whole thing: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to move this to D&D. icon14.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vercetti Gangsta
I love the excuses religious people have for inaccuracies in the Old Testament. I especially love how they try to justify slavery, saying how those weren't slaves God talked about, they were just servants. Riiiiight. That's why the passages about "servants" talk about setting them free!

 

Tell me, how do religious people justify this:

 

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

 

f*ck it, just read the whole thing: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

Are you sure that's from the Bible? Sounds like the U.S. foreign policy. orly.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a disastrous thread, that's only going to head one way. All I can say is that all atheists are different, so it's wrong to simply form a general opinion of them like you have done.

 

I'm not an atheist, but it's wrong to simply condemn them all like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you sure that's from the Bible? Sounds like the U.S. foreign policy.  orly.gif

 

Morals don't change over time? What...

 

Guys, now this is in D&D I expect D&D level contributions, please.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morals don't change over time? What...

MORALITY does not change over time. Again, I'm making a distinction from mere social acceptance. If you have an example of something that was once wrong, but now right (or vice versa) I'd love to know..?

31805323.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morals don't change over time? What...

MORALITY does not change over time. Again, I'm making a distinction from mere social acceptance. If you have an example of something that was once wrong, but now right (or vice versa) I'd love to know..?

Is that a joke question? I'm sorry but if you are seriously asking for that then I don't even know how to dignify that with a response...

 

once wrong, now ok - sex before marriage is a big one as are intertwining things to that.. a few others that stick out are things like strip searches at airports which were wrong before 9/11 but now people understand the purpose of them

 

once ok, now wrong - slavery, social darwinism/imperialism, hangings as a form of execution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should probably have been clearer, but I meant morality that it true to both religionists and atheists. That is, impersonal morality that isn't influenced by rulebooks (ie. religious texts) or what basically amount to threats of consequence. Basic inate morality, not whatever happened to be permissible by X authority at Y point in time. For instance, slavery has never been morally right, but was perhaps more easily swallowed by an ignorant society that was told it was okay. Indiscriminant killing is not morally justifiable. Or is it justifiable if the perpetrator believes it to be? Of course not.

 

Sex before marriage; it's wrong because we're told it is, and because bad things will happen if we break the rules. That isn't morality, that's conceding to a threat, and adhering to convention.

31805323.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.