Poll: To atheists:What kind are you?

[Skeleon]

I respect their beliefs, but I'll definitely argue my point of view when there's a debate.
And, as I posted on another thread, one of my best buddies is a devout Christian.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

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.

What he said. And I don't have it out for atheists either, my girlfriend is an atheist due to some traumatic circumstances in her childhood. I'm not a hardcore follower or anything but I've never challenged her beliefs. People should be able to believe in what they want without fear of being criticized and beaten down by people who disagree, as long as no real harm comes to someone else.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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?

It's not hard to grasp at all. But you sir (or milady) are either a heretic or blasphemer if you pick and choose passages from the bible to follow. You are expectd to follow ALL of it. Even the stuff that seems to be completely contradictorial. Otherwise, you're not a real christian. That's just how it is.

And don't give me any bullshit about "Well christians only really follow the New Testament", there are several passages in the New Testaments that pretty much blatantly say that as a christian you're supposed to honor and respect the Old Testament as well.

So, are you a Christian? Or are you a heretic/blasphemer?

I'd choose the latter over the first. Being a real christian just sounds so.. Well "evil". It's not very nice to advocate the killing of gay people, selling your daughter as a sex slave, rape, murder, genocide etc. etc. (the list goes on)

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

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?

What's wrong with a person using a religion as a basis for their morals and beliefs? Just because I don't take every word in the bible as truth means that I should not believe at all?

 

[Seanchaidh]

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.

He's using the Socratic elenchus, a common and perfectly reasonable and logical form of argumentation. It's by far the best at exposing inconsistency in beliefs. There certainly isn't anything sinister about it...

 

[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.

What he said. And I don't have it out for atheists either, my girlfriend is an atheist due to some traumatic circumstances in her childhood. I'm not a hardcore follower or anything but I've never challenged her beliefs. People should be able to believe in what they want without fear of being criticized and beaten down by people who disagree, as long as no real harm comes to someone else.

Criticism is somehow ok when discussing politics but not religion. Why? Same with being beaten down. The very fact that I'm conversing with people shows that I care enough about them that I want to share my thoughts with them. If I had stayed silent it would be the ultimate apathetic move. It would be me saying "I don't care enough about you to tell you the truth", just as if you hadn't written to me it would be like you saying "I don't care enough about you.....truth".

 

[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?

What's wrong with a person using a religion as a basis for their morals and beliefs? Just because I don't take every word in the bible as truth means that I should not believe at all?

Because you'd pick and choose. The greatness of "turn the other cheek" also has the evil of "an eye for an eye". The greatness of "love thy neighbor" also has "unless they are having gay sex". You may choose the complete greatness portions, but you must admit that it's quite telling that the evil portions are in there as well. Then you must also question if anyone has or does follow those portions.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

What's wrong with a person using a religion as a basis for their morals and beliefs? Just because I don't take every word in the bible as truth means that I should not believe at all?

Well, to tell you the truth. I find it a bit weak. I mean, why do you have to believe that there's some ultimate reward, or that you're following "the rules" of some super natural being just by being nice and tolerant towards others?

Why do all the religious people need that "excuse" to behave in a nice manner? Im an irreligious sceptic, yet I still behave in a pretty decent manner. I help my family and friends, I don't just step over some old man who have fallen to the ground and can't get up, i help him. I don't need to believe in a God that will give me some sort of reward for doing this, I don't even care if what im doing is objectively right or wrong. I do it anyway.

So why do religious people need the "excuse" for being nice to other people? Can't you muster the strength to do it if there's no reward for it at the end?

 

[Seanchaidh]

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?

What's wrong with a person using a religion as a basis for their morals and beliefs? Just because I don't take every word in the bible as truth means that I should not believe at all?

If you pick and choose from it, the Bible isn't performing its intended purpose of being a basis for your thought and action. Instead, it functions as a list of things that you can agree or disagree with. If it's only that, why use it at all when you clearly have some better standard with which to make the proper judgments? Is it really believing in the Bible to say that some of it is true and other parts false?

 

[similar.squirrel]

Temporarily Agnostic In Principle.
I'm a staunch secularist, however.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

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.

What he said. And I don't have it out for atheists either, my girlfriend is an atheist due to some traumatic circumstances in her childhood. I'm not a hardcore follower or anything but I've never challenged her beliefs. People should be able to believe in what they want without fear of being criticized and beaten down by people who disagree, as long as no real harm comes to someone else.

Criticism is somehow ok when discussing politics but not religion. Why? Same with being beaten down. The very fact that I'm conversing with people shows that I care enough about them that I want to share my thoughts with them. If I had stayed silent it would be the ultimate apathetic move. It would be me saying "I don't care enough about you to tell you the truth", just as if you hadn't written to me it would be like you saying "I don't care enough about you.....truth".

Well for one I never said that what I BELIEVE is the infallible truth. I simply disagreed with you. And I find it offensive that you are insisting that you are telling me the truth. At no time will 100% of people agree on 1 religion. Ever. And when it comes to criticism religion is something much more personal than political views. Discussing where one goes after dieing is a little deeper and closer to heart than healthcare.

 

[GermanQR]

This is my fist post ever! Hi there ppl!

I am an Atheist, but I don't let other people's religion interfere with my personal relationships. Most of my friends are agnostics or atheists too, but others are christians, or jewish, or whatever, I don't care. My spouse is jewish, and I see no problem with that.

Values are more important than beliefs, and every single decent person has them. That's all I care about

 

[baseracer]

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?

What's wrong with a person using a religion as a basis for their morals and beliefs? Just because I don't take every word in the bible as truth means that I should not believe at all?

Because Morals shouldn't come from Religion. You can teach right from wrong without religion.

 

[y1fella]

i personally don't understand atheism as a christian i find it damn depressing and evolution is simply put quacked. evolution would require a genetic starting point and the shear amount of information in DNA renders that impossible right from go. also in the history of science no genetic information has been gained and evolution needs genetic information to be gained. nut hey I'm a christian myself so my opinion could be biased

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

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?

What's wrong with a person using a religion as a basis for their morals and beliefs? Just because I don't take every word in the bible as truth means that I should not believe at all?

If you pick and choose from it, the Bible isn't performing its intended purpose of being a basis for your thought and action. Instead, it functions as a list of things that you can agree or disagree with. If it's only that, why use it at all when you clearly have some better standard with which to make the proper judgments? Is it really believing in the Bible to say that some of it is true and other parts false?

Well can't someone be a republican be have some views that are more typical of democrats? Religion and politics are not the same but this example works. Why can't I read the Bible, choose to believe in Christ, and lead my life by a positive moral code, but not be against homosexuality? If faith gives someone a way to live their life to the fullest and it works for them then why not?

 

[scotth266]

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!

Read it a few more times.

I doubt you'll get it though, considering that you seem determined to not understand anything. Persecute first, persecute often.

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.

Errr, ok? What about the records of historians during that time period? As far as people believing in the Shroud goes, I don't really care, because there are more reliable records than a scrap of cloth with a man's face embedded in it.

Never heard of the passage you've referenced. Odds are you've taken it out of context, or it's from some odd version of the Bible.

I'm not going to respond any more though. This has quickly turned from a reasonable conversation into an flamey one. Which is a pity, because I actually liked how this thread was going.

 

[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.

What he said. And I don't have it out for atheists either, my girlfriend is an atheist due to some traumatic circumstances in her childhood. I'm not a hardcore follower or anything but I've never challenged her beliefs. People should be able to believe in what they want without fear of being criticized and beaten down by people who disagree, as long as no real harm comes to someone else.

Criticism is somehow ok when discussing politics but not religion. Why? Same with being beaten down. The very fact that I'm conversing with people shows that I care enough about them that I want to share my thoughts with them. If I had stayed silent it would be the ultimate apathetic move. It would be me saying "I don't care enough about you to tell you the truth", just as if you hadn't written to me it would be like you saying "I don't care enough about you.....truth".

Well for one I never said that what I BELIEVE is the infallible truth. I simply disagreed with you. And I find it offensive that you are insisting that you are telling me the truth. At no time will 100% of people agree on 1 religion. Ever. And when it comes to criticism religion is something much more personal than political views. Discussing where one goes after dieing is a little deeper and closer to heart than healthcare.

No, you didn't. Thank you for disagreeing with me, by the way. I mean that sincerely. I think you misconstru my point of 'truth'. Let's agree that we both believe we are speaking the truth. Thusfore, I am telling you the truth (my truth) and you are telling me yours (your truth). Mind that one must be wrong, but that's not the point.

Why is belief in a man that an individual never met different from a belief that a politician they never met is any less personal? Discussing something that has no evidence is much less deep than a discussion of something that can be factually argued with evidence. Difference of opinion, I care enough about you to share my differences with you.

 

[Cliff_m85]

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!

Read it a few more times.

I doubt you'll get it though, considering that you seem determined to not understand anything. Persecute first, persecute often.

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.

Errr, ok? What about the records of historians during that time period? As far as people believing in the Shroud goes, I don't really care, because there are more reliable records than a scrap of cloth with a man's face embedded in it.

Never heard of the passage you've referenced. Odds are you've taken it out of context, or it's from some odd version of the Bible.

I'm not going to respond any more though. This has quickly turned from a reasonable conversation into an flamey one. Which is a pity, because I actually liked how this thread was going.

Deuteronomy 22: 22-29. Pick up whatever Bible you use. It's in there. I promise. Completely in context as well. Atleast respect me enough to crack the book to the page and check it out.

 

[Skeleon]

nut hey I'm a christian myself so my opinion could be biased

Yeah, most scientists would agree with you on that. Evolution is considered scientific fact, except for a few dissenters with an agenda.
Not to be offensive, but if you don't understand evolution then read up on it instead of just dismissing it as "too complex to work".
Its basic principles are very simple and logical.

 

[y1fella]

people often misinterpret the bible. when the bible says "if your left hand causes you to sin cut it off. if your right eye causes you to sin pluck it out" that doesn't mean a christian should practice self mutilation. it means that people should not "hang" around with people that make them sin. i say this because people who here the bible often take it literally at the wrong places. and i think you have done this also how much of the bible do you actually know about have you even read it?