Poll: To atheists:What kind are you?

[Housebroken Lunatic]

This book was written over 2000 years ago. They did some mean shit, which is why this was considered applicable way back when.

So?

You do know that according to the bible, you are expected to follow all this "mean shit". Technically you're not allowed to just pick and choose. In fact the "pickers and choosers" of today are all heretics and blasphemers. : D

 

[Molten Water]

Im totally against the kind of atheists that bash everyones religion. The only place where i think that is applicable is for when war and civil unrest takes place over a persons religion. That to me is retarded. In neighbouring Pakistan theres something called sharia law being imposed on all who live in a region of the country. It means total and faithful following of muslim law and it totally fuck up all the ladies. Retarded stuff.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Cliff_m85 was just WAITING for this thread.

Or just bored. Or waiting for pr0n to download. Or just can't sleep. The last is true, but I'll let you belief what you wish.

 

[DayDark]

I have strong opinions about religion, and I wont respect your beliefs, I'll respect you for who you are and how you treat others, Even though I have strong opinions about religion, I wont go out of my way to trash it, unless it steps in my way, does something I find morally wrong, takes credit that it doesn't deserve, etc.

 

[Cakes]

I think you were trying to quote me here? You just really messed up the quoting. Okay, I'll jump in.

Leviticus 20:13 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.

Yup. That's Leviticus alright. Pretty nasty stuff.

WHY should this EVER have been applicable?

This book was written over 2000 years ago. They did some mean shit, which is why this was considered applicable way back when.

WHAT sort of "personal interpretation" is there to this?

What? "Personal Interpretation", as in, ignore some shit if it's horrible.

It's a little specific and evil to brush it off so blithely.

I seriously don't know what the hell you are on about. Yeah, Leviticus has some evil stuff in it. Which is why, through personal interpretation, you should come to the conclusion that some of these rules perhaps do not apply.

Why should the Church even associate itself with this doctrine? Why is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" so negotiable when it comes to sinners? No, it's fine, their blood shall be upon them, not you; it's like they killed themselves when your village stones them to death!

...calm the fuck down. Are you shouting at me...? What did I do?

How convenient. To consistently believe that the Bible has any non-trivial truth to it means that you must believe that at some point in time, THIS WAS ALRIGHT.

At some point in time, this was considered perfectly acceptable. Crazily enough, the moral codes of an ancient society seem horrible and barbaric to us. That's exactly what I'm getting at here.

And you accidentally quoted me.

The question is not if it was considered perfectly acceptable. It's that these verses killed people. Innocent people. People who had not harmed anyone. Erasing them doesn't undo the damage. At one point in time god called for those laws, and eager nonskeptical people carried them out thinking they were doing what was right.

I fixed it. It was a pain in the ass.

 

[Cakes]

offensive by today's standards.

Offensive? That's what you call murdering innocent people and blaming them for it?

I'm sorry, what else would you like me to say? Please, this topic has been civil so far. Quit it with the random capitalizations (i.e. shouting at me).

 

[Cakes]

This book was written over 2000 years ago. They did some mean shit, which is why this was considered applicable way back when.

So?

You do know that according to the bible, you are expected to follow all this "mean shit". Technically you're not allowed to just pick and choose. In fact the "pickers and choosers" of today are all heretics and blasphemers. : D

And now we go full circle...
Seriously. Not absolute, infallible word of god. Some stuff is horrible. Get to ignore.
Is that really so hard to grasp?

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Lol sure you will. Is that why you're firing away at anyone with religious beliefs in this forum?

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Cliff_m85 was just WAITING for this thread.

Or just bored. Or waiting for pr0n to download. Or just can't sleep. The last is true, but I'll let you belief what you wish.

Why do people get so angry over faith? There is no solid real evidence to prove of disprove any of it.... None of us are dead so we can't yell "There is no god you just rot in the ground" or "you shall burn in hell forvever" I have never died and neither have those two people so how in the heck do they know if there is or isn't a god? My conclusion is Religion isn't bad, People are.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Lol sure you will. Is that why you're firing away at anyone with religious beliefs in this forum?

Actually it's called "responding". I'll explain. Someone talks in the form. I give my opinion and start reading another thread. I see '1 message' and click it. I read what someone responded, which in turn convinces me to respond if it's worth it. Dig?

Me stumbling on this message was because I was just checking on another response.

 

[scotth266]

The Catholic Church still presents the Shroud of Turan as evidence, so let's not play that game.

Different era doesn't matter. It would be just as evil for me to rape you today as it would've been in the ancient era with a piece of paper giving me the go ahead because your left ear is a little bigger than the right ear.

What does the Shroud have to do with anything I said?

Besides, I find it highly unlikely that it was just the religious people doing the stoning. The general views of homosexuality/women's rights during that time were not very high in the eyes of most people.

The whole idea behind those old laws was to prevent inter-community strife and family wars. I doubt that many people were happy with them back then, but they were necessary at the time.

 

[baseracer]

Religion brainwashes people. The wars in the Middle East. Why people believe in Creationism over Evolution. It causes people to do stupid and terrible things all in the name of their god or gods. It causes more hate than love, more war than peace.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Cliff_m85 was just WAITING for this thread.

Or just bored. Or waiting for pr0n to download. Or just can't sleep. The last is true, but I'll let you belief what you wish.

Why do people get so angry over faith? There is no solid real evidence to prove of disprove any of it.... None of us are dead so we can't yell "There is no god you just rot in the ground" or "you shall burn in hell forvever" I have never died and neither have those two people so how in the heck do they know if there is or isn't a god? My conclusion is Religion isn't bad, People are.

Speak for yourself. I HAVE died. I had an allergic reaction to a drug as a child and went into a deep coma. My heart stopped and my father had to revive me. It was a tramatic time and I remember every instant of it.

 

[Lavi]

I'm anti-church, which is probably what most anti-theists are anyways. The church is an institution of power used to control the masses that needs reform to remove the brainwashing unthinking qualities it spreads.

I think anyone trying to remove or argue against religion is a total retard. Want to change how someone thinks about a religion? Don't bash it then. Read it, analyse it, and THEN discuss with evidence that how they follow their own religion is a skewed interpretation invented to control the masses!

EDIT: LOL Redundancy is redundant.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Cliff_m85 was just WAITING for this thread.

Or just bored. Or waiting for pr0n to download. Or just can't sleep. The last is true, but I'll let you belief what you wish.

Why do people get so angry over faith? There is no solid real evidence to prove of disprove any of it.... None of us are dead so we can't yell "There is no god you just rot in the ground" or "you shall burn in hell forvever" I have never died and neither have those two people so how in the heck do they know if there is or isn't a god? My conclusion is Religion isn't bad, People are.

I'm not angry. I just feel that anyone who seems to care as much as cliff seems to are always ready to beat down other people who hold religious beliefs.

 

[Compatriot Block]

Cliff_m85, are you actually saying that religious people are not "supposed to" adapt to the present time? Honestly, I get the feeling that you are attempting to back them into a corner where they have to choose between "actually not a believer" and "immoral monster," and I think you are doing so intentionally. I really shouldn't have to ask, but please, unless somehow I and at least one other have misunderstood you, try being a little tolerant. I haven't seen a single person in this thread accuse you of being a "heretic damned for eternity," so please show at least a little decency towards religion.

And no, what religious people did in ancient times is absolutely not a valid excuse to show intolerance.

 

[Cliff_m85]

The Catholic Church still presents the Shroud of Turan as evidence, so let's not play that game.

Different era doesn't matter. It would be just as evil for me to rape you today as it would've been in the ancient era with a piece of paper giving me the go ahead because your left ear is a little bigger than the right ear.

What does the Shroud have to do with anything I said?

Besides, I find it highly unlikely that it was just the religious people doing the stoning. The general views of homosexuality/women's rights during that time were not very high in the eyes of most people.

The whole idea behind those old laws was to prevent inter-community strife and family wars. I doubt that many people were happy with them back then, but they were necessary at the time.

That it was scientifically debunked and *gasp* they still point towards it as evidence of Jesus Christ actually existing.

Murdering a rape victim for not screaming loud enough was necessary? I think we're done here.

 

[Seanchaidh]

As you say, until the day when the theist will have to say "Jesus was actually a symbol, he didn't actually exist". Bit by bit the literal mindset is being chipped away by science and historic facts. The church isn't slowly growing, it's clutching to rubble as it slowly slides through their fingers.

The idea that Jesus was just a symbol would be contradicted by historical records that the Catholic Church uses as evidence to support the idea that Jesus did actually exist.

We have opposing views on the way the Church is going: I see it as finding more realistic applications of the faith, and adapting to a new societal code.

Offensive? That's what you call murdering innocent people and blaming them for it?

Once again: that was a different era, one in which close-knit societies were incredibly important. A divided group of people was a weak group waiting to be conquered. I don't really see why you need to be argumentative about it now anyways, considering that the overwhelming majority of bible-following religions these days consider killing to be a sin, regardless of which sexuality of person you happen to be killing.

And this thread's been peaceful so far. Don't go starting the flames.

EDIT: I believe that the people who were killed/suffered at the hands of these now-outdated codes must be enjoying a special reward in heaven for the stuff they had to go through.

You've said quite a number of strange things. You've implied that the morals present in the Holy Book of Judaism and Christianity aren't about any kind of truth but instead what is collectively expedient-- what will make society survive and prosper in competition with others, not lead them to living a moral life. I can only accept that from an atheist, it is not at all consistent with Christian teachings. You've also said that you think people who committed what the Bible calls abomination (and calls for their death) are enjoying a special reward in Heaven. In all seriousness... Jesus Christ!

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

I'm strongly atheist, but I don't bash people for what they believe, the only time I get angry is when people try to push their religion on to me. One reason why I slam the door on Jahova's Witnesses. I realise I probably spelled that wrong. Yeah...I have a great respect for people I can discuss religion with without them having a little rant. I like religious conversation, as long as it doesn't turn into an attempt at conversion. Then the nasty me comes out.

There was a guy on YouTube who was defending his faith without being pushy or angry, calmly getting his point across. I replied by saying:

We need more Christians like you.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Cliff_m85, are you actually saying that religious people are not "supposed to" adapt to the present time? Honestly, I get the feeling that you are attempting to back them into a corner where they have to choose between "actually not a believer" and "immoral monster," and I think you are doing so intentionally. I really shouldn't have to ask, but please, unless somehow I and at least one other have misunderstood you, try being a little tolerant. I haven't seen a single person in this thread accuse you of being a "heretic damned for eternity," so please show at least a little decency towards religion.

And no, what religious people did in ancient times is absolutely not a valid excuse to show intolerance.

No sir, I see no need to show decency to the religious topics at hand. Religion in general I am against, though I tend to keep my mouth shut. As I said before, the reason I am so outspoken right now is because I feel like responding to everyone who addresses me if it could produce an interesting conversation.

No one in this thread deemed me a heretic, nor did I deem anyone in this thread immoral. I was speaking of my thoughts. I think if a person picks-and-chooses that they don't deserve as much respect as the person who believes it all. No, religious people shouldn't adapt because their book is, as said mindnumbingly over and over again, 'The Truth'. If portions of that are no longer 'The Truth', what does that suggest?