Is youtube (and/or the internet) basically atheist land?

[Asuka Soryu]

It just makes me laugh at the aetheists who complain that people are foricing their religion on people, when there's plenty of aethiests forcing their opinions on people.

This argument irritates me.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

When you're one of the most disliked minorities on the planet you can get a bit pissed.

When you call me a 'fucking retard' for believing in God, I tend to dislike you.

 

[CosmicCommander]

Read the bible. There are somethings it gets right (don't steal, don't murder, etc.). There are somethings it gets wrong (bats are not birds). There are things it gets really wrong (there are no warehouses in the sky where god keeps the hailstones). And there are things that fall into the last category (treatment of women, gays, owning slaves, etc.).

I'm not talking about the Bible here. Viciously, angrily, and stupidly proclaiming that Religious people are idiots is not on. Don't jump from that to a defense of the scripture.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Read the bible. There are somethings it gets right (don't steal, don't murder, etc.). There are somethings it gets wrong (bats are not birds). There are things it gets really wrong (there are no warehouses in the sky where god keeps the hailstones). And there are things that fall into the last category (treatment of women, gays, owning slaves, etc.).

I'm not talking about the Bible here. Viscous, angrily, and stupidly proclaiming that Religious people are idiots is not on. Don't jump from that to a defense of the scripture.

But if you are Christian, you have to believe in the Bible. All of it. The good, the dumb, and the "I can't believe you just said that!" parts.

If you are a Christian and you believe that God carries the Sun across the sky in a chariot, then you are an idiot.

If you are a Christian and you didn't know the Bible says that, then you are an idiot. How can you proclaim to believe in something you have so little knowledge of?

You could try and dismiss that as metaphor, but the people who wrote it didn't believe it was. And then you get to the moral lessons in the bible, like the treatment of slaves, or poisoning your wife if you think she's pregnant with another man's child, or the proper punishment for working on the sabbath.

This is stuff that would get you called a lot worse than idiot, if it weren't for the fact that it's been around for so long and that so many people pretend to be Christians.

 

[jackpipsam]

well that video is SO true

when you go to god, YOU GET ZAPED!

 

[CosmicCommander]

But if you are Christian, you have to believe in the Bible. All of it. The good, the dumb, and the "I can't believe you just said that!" parts.

No you don't, genius. The Anglican church around the corner to me doesn't take everything in there literally; and it recognizes the facts that contrast with many statements in the scripture. There's such a thing as liberal Christianity.

The assumption every Christian who studies the Bible extensively is a Fundamentalist just pisses me off-...

If you are a Christian and you believe that God carries the Sun across the sky in a chariot, then you are an idiot.

...

If you are a Christian and you didn't know the Bible says that, then you are an idiot. How can you proclaim to believe in something you have so little knowledge of?

Maybe they don't look for, or want to believe in parts like that? Maybe they just like the belief in a being higher than them, and believe the Bible provides a moral lesson for them to follow?

You could try and dismiss that as metaphor, but the people who wrote it didn't believe it was.

Yeah, because if a person doesn't follow the way a piece of text is originally intended they're READING IT WRONG.

And then you get to the moral lessons in the bible, like the treatment of slaves, or poisoning your wife if you think she's pregnant with another man's child, or the proper punishment for working on the sabbath.

I like how you take all this stuff from the Old Testament, and not the New One... Y'know... The one Christianity is meant to be based around? The concept of love, forgiveness, and kindness? Although those passages exist, why the hell should you have to fundamentally follow them?

If a person is a Christian, and they know their faith, they are not savage, cruel, brutes.

This is stuff that would get you called a lot worse than idiot, if it weren't for the fact that it's been around for so long and that so many people pretend to be Christians.

Here's one thing that annoys me- I wasn't talking about Christianity in the first place, I was just annoyed that a piece of material was cited that essentially said "ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN A RELIGION ARE FUCKWITS DURP"; and you just came along, and started citing points about Christianity.

Religion does not mean Christianity. It means this:

Please take my point, next time.

 

[Levethian]

Relevant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8tLOBlSMHU&feature=feedu

Liked what he had to say - sensible stuff.

Everyone go away and watch some Hitchens debates, or some Dawkins if you like, and Stephen Fry. Watch Ann Widdecombe, Howard Jacobson for the other side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmFYpuYh6w0&feature=player_embedded

And thanks for that

I'd never expect a Youtube athiest to throw up an intelligent argument, and it's common practice for christians to just throw a bible in your face, so it's really just a pointless flamewar that's not worth getting into.

QFT.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Again, it's a case of anonymity negating the need for manners. That, and the ease with which a Google search can reinforce your strongly-held belief.

You also need to consider that hold that religion had on [Western] society until a few decades ago. Any kind of rebellion against an oppressive force is going to be ugly at first. Look at the Red Terror, for example.

The question is, will it end in a civilized manner?

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

But if you are Christian, you have to believe in the Bible. All of it. The good, the dumb, and the "I can't believe you just said that!" parts.

No you don't, genius. The Anglican church around the corner to me doesn't take everything in there literally; and it recognizes the facts that contrast with many statements in the scripture. There's such a thing as liberal Christianity.

No there's no such thing as a "liberal Christian." You either follow the teachings of Christ, as he originally intended, or you are not a Christian, at least not a religious Christian. End of story.

If you believe that slavery is not okay, even though Christ clearly said it was, then you have no more right to call yourself a Christian than I do. Unless you want to start calling yourself "Ethnically Christian" like there are Ethnic Jews (nearly 30% of self-identified Jews are atheists).

I follow some of the teachings of Christ, not because Christ said them, but because they independently make sense. (Don't steal, help the less fortunate, etc.) And I think some of his teachings are abhorrent. (Mostly Saul / Paul. That man was a first-rate asshole.)

If you are a Christian and you believe that God carries the Sun across the sky in a chariot, then you are an idiot.

...

If you are a Christian and you didn't know the Bible says that, then you are an idiot. How can you proclaim to believe in something you have so little knowledge of?

Maybe they don't look for, or want to believe in parts like that?

If they didn't know that, then they are idiots for not doing the research into what they claim to believe in. It would be like saying you believe in a heliocentric solar systems, but think the Earth is still the center of the solar system. And when confronted with this saying, "I didn't know what Heliocentric meant."

And if you don't want to believe it, then you are not a Christian.

Maybe they just like the belief in a being higher than them, and believe the Bible provides a moral lesson for them to follow?

Then they are not Christians.

You could try and dismiss that as metaphor, but the people who wrote it didn't believe it was.

Yeah, because if a person doesn't follow the way a piece of text is originally intended they're READING IT WRONG.

Exactly.

How the hell do you think you are making a convincing point?

Seriously. If you interpret something that was supposed to be taken literally as a metaphor, you are by definition reading it wrong.

And then you get to the moral lessons in the bible, like the treatment of slaves, or poisoning your wife if you think she's pregnant with another man's child, or the proper punishment for working on the sabbath.

I like how you take all this stuff from the Old Testament, and not the New One... Y'know... The one Christianity is meant to be based around?

Two points...

1.) Jesus says slavery is okay. Paul said women are not allowed to talk in church or being in a position of authority over a man. That's in the New Testament.
2.) Jesus says all of the old laws are to be maintained. ('He who breaks the least of the laws will be least in heaven.')

But of course, you didn't know that. Or perhaps you knew that but decided not to follow the teachings of the person you pretend to follow.

The concept of love, forgiveness, and kindness? Although those passages exist, why the hell should you have to fundamentally follow them?

Because the person you pretend to follow told you to.

Here's one thing that annoys me- I wasn't talking about Christianity in the first place, I was just annoyed that a piece of material was cited that essentially said "ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN A RELIGION ARE FUCKWITS DURP"; and you just came along, and started citing points about Christianity.

That's because most people here know more about Christianity than any other religion, so they can more easily come up with very specific examples. However, they all have similar flaws. Almost every definition of religion comes down to faith, and faith is the belief in something despite lack of evidence, or indeed evidence to the contrary.

If you said, "I know there's no evidence that red cars go faster than blue ones, but I have faith that they do." you would be called an idiot. But if you say, "I have faith in a higher being." I have to have respect for that?

Hell no.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

And then you get to the moral lessons in the bible, like the treatment of slaves, or poisoning your wife if you think she's pregnant with another man's child, or the proper punishment for working on the sabbath.

I like how you take all this stuff from the Old Testament, and not the New One... Y'know... The one Christianity is meant to be based around? The concept of love, forgiveness, and kindness? Although those passages exist, why the hell should you have to fundamentally follow them?

If a person is a Christian, and they know their faith, they are not savage, cruel, brutes.

Deutoronomy:
4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

God himself forbids to ignore the laws and rules of the old testament.

And then there is another thing, something Christopher Hitchens has pointed out: The god of the old testament, as cruel and vicious as he might have been, leaves you alone after you died. But after "Jesus, meek and mild" he suddenly doesn't anymore, suddenly people are punished after their death.

For the people interested in listening to the whole argument from Hitchens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHuvErbpd0

 

[gunheads]

I think, religous people on youtube feed trolls way too much (look to venomfangx for a prime example)

 

[CosmicCommander]

No there's no such thing as a "liberal Christian." You either follow the teachings of Christ, as he originally intended, or you are not a Christian, at least not a religious Christian. End of story.

Then you know next to nothing about contemporary Christianity- if you think that the only choices here are between fundamentalism or renunciation of faith, then you're just thinking in black and whites. Sorry, but you've pretty much declared the rest of this moot. It'd be pointless for me to argue more, if we can't agree on the fundamentals.

But of course, you didn't know that. Or perhaps you knew that but decided not to follow the teachings of the person you pretend to follow.

Because the person you pretend to follow told you to.

I'm sorry, but I'm actually Agnostic. Read up on the earlier posts I made before you make assumptions about my character.

If you said, "I know there's no evidence that red cars go faster than blue ones, but I have faith that they do." you would be called an idiot. But if you say, "I have faith in a higher being." I have to have respect for that?

No, you don't have to have particular respect for anything. I never said that you had to. I'm just saying that I fail to see the logic in attacking something in this manner, and I'm inquiring as to the reasoning behind it.

Lemme give you a heart to heart; I once was like this. Constantly quoting Hitchens and Dawkings, and calling anyone who has any sort of belief in God an idiot. I once held that there are no compromises between Religion and Atheism. The thing is, that's wrong; I've never claimed that the Bible is a perfect text, nor that Religion hits the nail on the head- but it is a good set of teachings and ideas that can help guide people through life.

Y'know what I'd recommend? Talking to a priest, or a Vicar. Not an Evangelical or Baptist one, they tend to lean to the Fundamentalist side. Listen to what they say, debate the fundamentals of the Bible and Christianity, discuss what you believe to be the truth, and listen to what they say.

You'd be surprised, many a priest would disagree with what was said in the Bible, discuss freely what their interpretation of Christianity and the scriptures are.

A big part of maturity is coming to terms with the establishment.

Deutoronomy:
4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

God himself forbids to ignore the laws and rules of the old testament.

I never said the scripture in itself doesn't have contradictions, but people don't have to follow what is said. As I said, interpretations differ greatly.

And then there is another thing, something Christopher Hitchens has pointed out: The god of the old testament, as cruel and vicious as he might have been, leaves you alone after you died. But after "Jesus, meek and mild" he suddenly doesn't anymore, suddenly people are punished after their death.

Christopher Hitchens: Rehashing the same message for a few decades.

The advise I gave to Snowbridge is the same for you- actually TALK to a Priest, or at least an informed Christian.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

No there's no such thing as a "liberal Christian." You either follow the teachings of Christ, as he originally intended, or you are not a Christian, at least not a religious Christian. End of story.

Then you know next to nothing about contemporary Christianity

I know a lot of people who pretend to be Christian but ignore the parts of their religion that they don't like.

if you think that the only choices here are between fundamentalism or renunciation of faith

When it comes to religion, those are your only two choice.

END OF STORY.

Unless you want to argue than mankind is supposed to know more than the God(s) / Goddess(es) they pretend to follow. How can you possibly claim to follow a god, and then ignore parts of their commandments?

, then you're just thinking in black and whites. Sorry, but you've pretty much declared the rest of this moot. It'd be pointless for me to argue more, if we can't agree on the fundamentals.

Yes. It is pointless to argue with someone who think people get to choose what God meant. If Christ says you must give up all your worldly possession to follow him, and you don't give up all your worldly possessions, then you are not following him.

END OF STORY.

Saying, 'People interpret that in different ways.' is not a compelling argument. In fact, I would go so far as to call it a lie. People are not interpreting the scripture in different ways, they are actively ignoring the parts they don't like.

If you said, "I know there's no evidence that red cars go faster than blue ones, but I have faith that they do." you would be called an idiot. But if you say, "I have faith in a higher being." I have to have respect for that?

No, you don't have to have particular respect for anything. I never said that you had to. I'm just saying that I fail to see the logic in attacking something in this manner, and I'm inquiring as to the reasoning behind it.

We live in a world where stupid people are given respect for their stupidity. Hell, in the United States, it would be impossible for an atheist to be elected president.

Lemme give you a heart to heart; I once was like this. Constantly quoting Hitchens and Dawkings, and calling anyone who has any sort of belief in God an idiot. I once held that there are no compromises between Religion and Atheism. The thing is, that's wrong; I've never claimed that the Bible is a perfect text, nor that Religion hits the nail on the head- but it is a good set of teachings and ideas that can help guide people through life.

Bull. Shit.

Religion is only a good set of teachings if you ignore most of it.

And religion and atheism are polar opposites. Of course there can be no compromise between the two, just like you can't be somewhere in the middle of pregnant and not pregnant.

Y'know what I'd recommend? Talking to a priest, or a Vicar.

What for? So I can listen to some moron justify why they believe one piece of bullshit but ignore the parts they don't like.

You can't do that with religion. If your religion says kill the gays, then you have to kill the gays. If you don't believe that, then you don't follow that religion.

freely what their interpretation of Christianity and the scriptures are.

There you go with "interpretation", as if it is just a matter of opinion what the Bible says on these parts. The Bible's endorsement on slavery is not up to interpretation.

A big part of maturity is coming to terms with the establishment.

A big part of maturity is fighting against the establishment when it is wrong.

Deutoronomy:
4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

God himself forbids to ignore the laws and rules of the old testament.

I never said the scripture in itself doesn't have contradictions, but people don't have to follow what is said. As I said, interpretations differ greatly.

And then there is another thing, something Christopher Hitchens has pointed out: The god of the old testament, as cruel and vicious as he might have been, leaves you alone after you died. But after "Jesus, meek and mild" he suddenly doesn't anymore, suddenly people are punished after their death.

Christopher Hitchens: Rehashing the same message for a few decades.

That's cause no one has been able to defeat his arguments.

The advise I gave to Snowbridge is the same for you- actually TALK to a Priest, or at least an informed Christian.

Snowbridge? How do you get that wrong? You can just cut and paste the name.

Furthermore, why the hell would I listen to a priest if they tell me I can ignore Jesus? Jesus Christ. The person their religion is named after.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

It'd be pointless for me to argue more, if we can't agree on the fundamentals.

I want to emphasize this point, because you seem to be ignoring it.

Words have definitions. A square is a four-sided polygon in which all four sides have the same length and all four interior angles are 90 degrees. You can not have a three sided square, or a square with one angle 91 degrees, etc. You can be a four-sided polygon with one interior angle that is 90 degrees, which means you share a lot of characteristics with a square, but you are still not a square.

Likewise, if you are a Christian, you must follow the teachings of Christ. That's the definition of Christian. If you ignore the teachings of Christ, you are not a Christian. I'm sure 99% of humanity follows a lot of what Christ taught, but unless they follow it all, they are not Christians. If you say, "I like the part about being kind to each other, but I don't like the part about slavery, so I'm not going to follow it." then you are not a real Christian.

As soon as you change the definition of Christian, you are no longer being intellectually honest in this debate.

 

[CosmicCommander]

As soon as you change the definition of Christian, you are no longer being intellectually honest in this debate.

And you seem to be completely ignorant of the overwhelming majority of churches in the Western World today.

It's pointless debating with you. As I said, if we can't agree on the fundamentals, it's pointless arguing at all. If you can't get your head past the concept of moderation or selective reading, then I'm not the person to talk to you.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

As soon as you change the definition of Christian, you are no longer being intellectually honest in this debate.

And you seem to be completely ignorant of the overwhelming majority of churches in the Western World today.

It's pointless debating with you. As I said, if we can't agree on the fundamentals, it's pointless arguing at all. If you can't get your head past the concept of moderation or selective reading, then I'm not the person to talk to you.

And you completely ignore my point.

You are trying to change the definition of Christian from, "From follower of Christ." to, "Whatever the hell people say it is."

That's not allowed. If you don't follow Christ, then you are not a Christian. I don't care how many people break this rule, it still remains true.

If YOU can't get it, then YOU are the one at fault.

How fucking arrogant are these so-called Christians to say, 'I believe in an all powerful God, who sent down his only son to Earth to tell us the righteous path, but I get to decide what I should or should not follow. What Jesus said doesn't matter, because I know better.'

And I have no idea, outside of willful stubbornness, why you don't get that point.

Hell, you haven't even attempted to defend your argument, other than to say people do it.

So could you please attempt to explain your that point before you run away.

 

[CosmicCommander]

And you completely ignore my point.

No, I'm saying that any debate over your points isn't going to be fruitful. You have a completely different idea of how people should perceive the scriptures, and how they should be taken. It'd demean us both- because to be honest, I'm trying to stop this before it descends into mudslinging, but you're arrogantly asserting the superiority of your position, despite the fact several hundred million people believe otherwise, and have a philosophical and rational underpinning for it. I think you've just been spewing vitriol and ignorance.

The reason I haven't provided an argument for it comes down to two things; I can't be arsed, and you'd probably resume this anyway.

I'm just maintaining that selective reading and beliefs in something that is, overall, positive, encourages them to do good things, and gives them hope, surely isn't a bad thing. All I think all you're seeing is that things have to be taken literally.

You're just throwing what you've said out there, and I'm making a bet you know nothing about the people who's beliefs you are deriving. Have you ever studied Christianity? Were you brought up around it? Have you ever looked over a Religious website?

I'm not going to defend my argument, because you have access to resources that explain it far better than I do. Do a Wikipedia search, look up at some particular Churches, just go on a chatroom or something.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

And you completely ignore my point.

No, I'm saying that any debate over your points isn't going to be fruitful. You have a completely different idea of how people should perceive the scriptures, and how they should be taken. It'd demean us both- because to be honest, I'm trying to stop this before it descends into mudslinging, but you're arrogantly asserting the superiority of your position, despite the fact several hundred million people believe otherwise, and have a philosophical and rational underpinning for it. I think you've just been spewing vitriol and ignorance.

The reason I haven't provided an argument for it comes down to two things; I can't be arsed, and you'd probably resume this anyway.

I'm just maintaining that selective reading and beliefs in something that is, overall, positive, encourages them to do good things, and gives them hope, surely isn't a bad thing. All I think all you're seeing is that things have to be taken literally.

You're just throwing what you've said out there, and I'm making a bet you know nothing about the people who's beliefs you are deriving. Have you ever studied Christianity? Were you brought up around it? Have you ever looked over a Religious website?

I'm not going to defend my argument, because you have access to resources that explain it far better than I do. Do a Wikipedia search, look up at some particular Churches, just go on a chatroom or something.

This is you trying to avoid mudslinging?

It boils down to a simple premise. There are people who claim to believe in an all powerful god, yet think they know better when it comes to what this god thinks than that god itself.

If you don't see the logical inconsistency in that, you have issues.

"I'm not going to defend my argument..."

Because there's no way to defend it. You can pretend it's because you couldn't be arsed, but that the real reason. There's no way to defend claiming you follow someone, and ignoring much of what they say.

If you want to say selectively reading the bible is good, we can debate that. But if you only choose to follow parts of the bible you like, then you are not a Christian.

By the way, I was raised Christian, I studied the religion in its many forms, and I left.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...

Deutoronomy:
4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

God himself forbids to ignore the laws and rules of the old testament.

I never said the scripture in itself doesn't have contradictions, but people don't have to follow what is said. As I said, interpretations differ greatly.
..

C.S.Strowbridge has already said everything, but I still try to get you to understand why it is a black and white issue.

The bible quote is god DIRECTLY COMMANDING his followers. God DIRECTLY tells you you are NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE ANY of the laws. Ignoring the laws is equal to completely changing them. So basically god is DIRECTLY TELLING YOU YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO IGNORE THE LAWS that follow.

Most christians DO IGNORE THOSE LAWS, therefore a question immediately comes up: HOW CAN YOU CLAIM TO FOLLOW GOD IF YOU IGNORE HIS DIRECT COMMAND TO YOU?

Would you claim to follow the laws of your current homeland if you broke one of the laws? Would you say you follow speed regulations if you follow some of the regulations and break some others?
Does following the rules of law mean: Follow them but only if you agree with them and like them?
Can I murder someone and still claim to be a law-abiding resident? NO, I can't and the same goes for believers. The moment you pick-and-choose which part of the DIRECT COMMAND OF GOD you follow or ignore, you can not be a follower of that god.

Paula Kirby has a great article about that actually: Religion: the ultimate tyranny [http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/paula_kirby/2011/02/religion_the_ultimate_tyranny.html]

I quote from the article:

Is freedom a religious idea? As John McEnroe would have said, "You cannot be serious."
...
The Abrahamic god even enthusiastically endorses the vilest of all negations of freedom: slavery.
...

How can a christian not agree with god on slavery and still be a follower of that god?

I just wasted a lot of space here, repeating one point over and over. If you still don't get it you are a lost case.

 

[CosmicCommander]

It boils down to a simple premise. There are people who claim to believe in an all powerful god, yet think they know better when it comes to what this god thinks than that god itself.

If you want to say selectively reading the bible is good, we can debate that. But if you only choose to follow parts of the bible you like, then you are not a Christian.

Y'know what? I have been thinking about this, and yes. I can see the reason behind this. I've been attempting to think of ways that I can circumvent these points, but I can't.

I'm under the assumption that many people do not interpret their choice of reading what they want to to be an offense to God- more of an adaptation for modern times. Although they do not follow all of the teachings of Christ, they still follow many concepts and ideas. Hence the idea of Liberal Christianity; they recognize they are not fundamentalist, yet they do hold that they are following what they deem to be the important tenants of their faith.

By the way, I was raised Christian, I studied the religion in its many forms, and I left.

What denomination was it, may I ask? Catholic, Evangelical, Lutheran? I'm interested as to where you formed your perceptions on the faith.