Originally Posted by Wiiman @Horrendous: For the record, Christians must try very hard to help the world while we are here, because we do not beleive "we are going to somewhere better." We all like to imagine that, but that's not ours to judge. But it is our choice, by living a good life and loving one another as we have been told, we might be allowed in the kingdom of heaven. Christians must be very motivated as to what kind of person to be so that they might pass unto heaven after the judgement. I christian must do much more than beleif and be baptized, they must conduct themselves in a christian life afterward, and follow the doctrine. Truth is, I don't know if I'm going to heaven or hell after the judgement. I would like to think heaven, but it's not for me to judge. I've committed several sins in this lifetime, and will probably commit many more. All I can do is try to learn from my lessons and attempt to perfect my life(unsuccessfully of course, but hopefully I learn from my mistakes and become one step closer to God's kingdom.) Perhaps this agrees with the 'Man is basically evil' concept, but in some ways that concept is completely true. Man is the most intelligent life form; man is concious of his decisions, yet he still sins.
When you have a flawed concept of what is wrong and right, trying to be a good person doesn't really work. There are many Christians who believe that they are doing good by trying to condemn and deny rights to people for what they consider sinful behavior, and sadly these people feel justified by hiding behind God saying "I don't hate you, I hate your sin" or "I don't hate you, God does". That has to do with the evangelist nature of mainstream and cult Christianity, got to be the watchdogs and saviors of humanity. It's also good to mention that someone who takes the Bible literally does not have any sort of 'moral compass'. They believe that God is perfect and anything he does is good, regardless of if it is immoral or not. I usually like to ask fundamentalists if God commanded them to kill their children (or someone else) would they do it? Usually they respond with "he wouldn't do that" (despite the fact that he has done so in the bible itself, as well as people who have killed their children and claimed it was Gods will. Christians will usually also condemn these people, despite the fact that they have as much evidence that God was speaking to these people as they do for God speaking to them). If you answer the hypothetical question with a "yes" then you are indeed an immoral person, for it is immoral to kill anyone without a legitimate reason (for instance, self defense), if you answer "no" then you are moral, and might as well stop calling yourself a Christian. Notice how I say, stop calling yourself a Christian and not stop believing in God. I've stated many times that I do not have an issue with people believing as they want on a personal level, the line is crossed when they start trying to enact laws, cause physical and emotional harm, spread ignorance and collect funding in the name of their deity. Getting someone to follow your religion should be based on how you act as a person, and if you paint yourself up to be a greedy, ignorant, bigoted whiner, then I don't want anything to do with it. I myself am open to the concept of a God, but it's more likely to be some other force we have no discovered yet, and more likely to be much more spectacular than the nonsensical ramblings listed in the bible.
As far as your commentary on man being evil, well, that's not exactly convincing evidence. The fact that yourself and other people have done bad things doesn't necessarily constitute everyone being evil. It also has a lot to do with what you consider evil. Personally, dishonesty, greed, willful ignorance and useless violence are the only things I can honestly consider to be bad. sex, sexual orientation, adultery, shell fish, masturbation, pornography, incest, anxiety, mental illness, birth defects, 'Bad' language and menstral periods are some of the things Christians might consider evil (depends on the Christians, feel free to pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to interpret, follow) that do not cause any real harm to anyone, and in the case of anxiety and mental illness, aren't something people have the capability of having control over without experienced/dedicated help, and in the case of incest, it's only immoral if a heterosexual couple attempts to produce a child, and in that case it's not even as bad as drinking/smoking while pregnant (we're all a little bit incestuous anyways, as we are all related in some way), there's no sense in condemning a loving relationship between two people if they are careful, and if they can tolerate their siblings in that way, more power to them.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And I don't beleive that the bible is a 100% word for word(of God.) As stated in my earlier post, I beleive many of the books to be coded, such as Genessis and Revelation. If we were to cast out certain books and go "Naw that one's fake man, it's just basic bible mumbo jumbo", we would be filled with the constant question of which ones are real and which aren't. The bible is completely intended to be coded it seems to indicate as well. "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." Matthew 18:19 Is this verse say that if I view pornography I should literally pluck out my own eye and throw it away? Of course not, it means that I should repent for my sins after I have committed them, and try to learn from my mistakes.
Hence why I mentioned you should do some research on early Christianity, there are several related books to the bible that were left out when it was assembled, and the bible itself wasn't assembled until long after the stories were written. There were many common Christian practices that have died out around that time, especially when the central church began to develop and label anyone it didn't agree with as heretics. And since no one knows the actual authors of any of the Bible, the credibility of the whole thing is pretty much shot.
You should also know that the bible doesn't mention anything about pornography. The actual sin is lust, supposedly the work around is that you can look at pornography and masturbate, so long as you aren't lusting, which is just ridiculous. Adultery is a cause for panic in Islam, and there are plenty of loopholes that are acceptable in Islam. For instance, men can purchase sex slaves to temporarily marry, so therefore they will not be committing adultery. Women are not allowed to be in the company of men who are not related or married to them, but a woman can breast feed any man she is with to technically relate herself to that man. Are these behaviors moral? It's just ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And to be honest-
"It blows my mind that religious nuts preach that this life is only a test to get to heaven, then the next second they want to run the world." I competely agree with this!(Oh geeze I must be quite the open minded fellow, perhaps I am overcoming this ignorancy they speak of ) I am against what some might call "Organized Religion" I don't support how catholism ran the world during mideval times and beyond and now tries to control all the people under the catholism sect of the religion. But at the same time do I hold anything against Catholics or treat them any different? No of course not! Man is man. I harbor no hatred or phobia to homosexual, even if I dislike the choice of lifestyle they have taken. The new testament speaks of love and forgiveness. The new testament is the law to be followed, where as the old testament still remains guide lines to our lives, but is not the law anymore. I think all men were created equal straight, gay, transvistite, different ethnicity, different relgions, aetheist, and many more. Again, the old testament is in facts ways to follow in living your life, but it is no longer the law since the coming of christ and his new testament.
Thank you for keeping an open mind. With that I would almost say why label yourself a Christian? The bible doesn't list any specific label that you carry, so long as you believe in God.
That is always what urks me the most about Christians. If God can forgive anything you do, except disbelief, then why would you consider anything to be wrong? I always though that if God was all powerful, how come there is a hell? And if there is a hell, and people go there and repent, is God powerless to save them? After all, the only thing I seek to believe in a deity is evidence or proof. For an all powerful omnipotent being, this should be the easiest thing. Except we only have a 2000 year old book with flimsy credibility, anecdotal stories from people who have even flimsier credibility, and lame examples of miracles (which ironically aren't even spectacular in the least). Obviously, being in hell would be more than enough evidence for me that God exists, does he stop loving you once you get there? Despite all that, there is nothing you can do that should be rewarded with eternal punishment. That's just bottom line insane. Anyways, that all goes back to that quote by Epicurius:
"If god is willing but not able to destroy evil, then he is not omnipotent.
If god is able but not willing to destroy evil, then he is malevolent.
If god is both able and willing to destroy evil, then why is there still evil?
If god is neither willing nor able to destroy evil, then why call him god?"
Originally Posted by Wiiman Also, that was more of a personal attack on Steve Wells the creater of Sceptics Annoted bible than on aetheism in general, though I see how it interpretted that way
I'm not one for political correctness, but it always helps to clarify your argument. If you're going to throw yourself into the argument, the opposition can only argue based on what you give them.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I understand the opposition completely. Inside every christian is a constant battle between faith and doubt. I know I in fact fight this battle every day. Many christians try to publicize their faith in several ways simply to prove to themselves they have it. Unless an aetheist was a previous christian during a time in their life when they were grown enough that they could question they ways of the world(ex. teenage years), then I do not think any of the aetheist understand the opposition, and that is what I call ignorant. Everyday I have thoughts asking me why I want to go out of my way to help someone else when I'm not 100% sure whether there will be an afterlife and God, but my faith always prevails. It is human to doubt, and it is christian to doubt. I won't sugar coat it, if I was an aetheist I would be in jail by now simply because I would have no reason to do good. What more justice do you need?
When you say things like that, I don't buy it that you actually know much about the atheism. If your entire reason for not doing things you consider immoral is because you're afraid of being punished, then you've got some mental issues, seriously. Do you find it ironic that atheists make up about 10% of America's population, yet still make up about less than 1% of the nations prison population (they're right down there with the Buddhists). Christianity is all about restricting natural human behavior to an extent that it causes damage to a persons psyche. Sex is probably the most common one. You have any idea why most marriages fail? Stress is a big one, which most of the time has do with the fact that not many humans can handle monogamy (it can also be caused just by a lack of sex, monetary issues, inexperience with dealing with children, the lack of freedom[which also has a lot to do with monogamy], etc). I find it ironic for someone to talk about taking their relationship seriously and still buy into the term "cheating". Cheating implies that your relationship is a game, so obviously if you consider your relationship a game, you aren't really taking it seriously (or maybe you take your games too serious). If you have a homosexual and force them to be straight, if they cannot adapt (which most won't) it will cause severe mental anguish if you continue to force them against themselves. Transsexuals are even worse. Nothing worse than being trapped in the wrong body. There are still some that are content with what they are, and only have loose ties to it, but for those that can't do that, they run the risk of a vast increase in their chance of committing suicide and other mental illness (also due to the fact that transitioning is extremely expensive and difficult due to ignorance on the subject). If you have a strong desire to kill/hurt someone, then you need to seek help, often times it is a mental illness causing the desire for violence, and sometimes you just need to find another avenue to release those feelings. Seriously, if you have any desire to cause someone harm (and are only being held back by a spooky father figure) please seek help, odds are if you aren't just blowing smoke out your ass trying to prove a point, that concept of religion won't hold you back for long (and might even be fuel for that fire).
Originally Posted by Wiiman In the end, your opinion is your opinion, and I respect that.
Edit:
Oh and in regards to your extremely false assumption "But that's just my struggle, I'm sure if you've talked to any other Atheists", which I'm assuming was a false assumption that I've never come across an aetheist before in my life When in fact I had this conversation and arguement with Aetheist multiple times before and was even successful in converting one Though I could not convert him to christianity, I was capable of getting him to agree that the benefits of actually beleiving in something out there is far superior to beleiving the beleif of not beleiving anything. He now very devoted into the jewish religion I'm positively happy that he decided to stand for something in his life.
Religion is the thing that keeps me going
I beleive I heard the Dalli Llama say something like this once in a video we watched World Religions Class, something similair to this, "I don't care if you're Hindu, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, just beleive in something!" Why make your beleif the beleif that you don't beleive in anything?
I never meant to imply that you've never talked to an atheist. It was a statement to demonstrate that atheists typically have different philosophies apart from one another.
If your main reason for believing something is "just in case" or because you feel that believing is the only way to have a purpose, then you obviously haven't read anything I've said.
The lack of belief isn't a belief, and it doesn't mean that I have a void in my life. I simply choose not to base my life around unreliable sources just because I'm threatened with eternal torture to do so. Instead I choose to try to get along with people and try to do my part to make the world a better place for future generations, so that they don't have to suffer and waste their lives like so many of us do nowadays. Based on what evidence we have in this world, there is no reason to consider that there is another life we're waiting to live. There's nothing worse than watching someone waste their life here just because they feel their going to have a better one later. If you ever catch me saying "I know 100% that there is no god and no afterlife" then you can say it's a belief.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And speaking toward this guy being helpful for the other aetheist out there, well basic common sense stuff like I said about the two Judas's is overlooked, so I don't consider this guys opinion to be very useful at all.
Something tells me you're either just denying everything he's written because you don't agree with it, or your skimming it over. I know I did the same thing when I was a Christian. If you go in with the conclusion that what he's writing is going to be wrong, of course you're going to ignore it. It's not healthy to do that. You don't start with a conclusion and grab your evidence based on the conclusion, you grab the evidence and you form a conclusion based on that.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Gods requirements for becoming a christian are to beleive and be baptized and follow his word. So why should I not label myself as a christian? I am one afterall, even if I do faulter from time to time. By supporting equal rights does that make me even less of a christian even though the new testament speaks of forgiveness and endorses my beleifs? Just because someone sins doesn't mean I must dislike them. Even if in Romans and Corrinthians of the New Testament spoke out against homosexuals, it in no way said we should persecute them.
Not all christians are homo, trans, metro, bi, everyone else hating people. This is a terrible misconception, similair to my previous misconception that all aetheist had no purpose whatsovever and were 100% sure something else didn't exist.
Oh and I've read up on my church history actually I'm actually much more educated then you seem to assume But this bible is all we've got to hear God's message from, so we must assume it is all creditable, for we cannot rule out one book and then consider the others 100% true; it's either beleive all or none. So I beleive all to be true, even if some are coded documents.
I'm aware that the bible didn't mention pornography actually...I did read it afterall...And I don't think pornography had quite caught on back then But that was just an example, a better one would have been David and Bethsheba. When David saw Bethsheba bathing, he was filled with lust through want his eyes saw(they offended him) and made sure her husband was killed in battle so he could marry her.
Also regarding people wasting their lives beleiving they will reach something better, I agree that is quite terrible. But as stated early, a christian should be aware that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."
Yes it is true I was drawing conclusions about Sceptics Annoted Bible before observing the evidence, simply because being a christian, it is impossible to do otherwise. Ex. If your dad tells you that your new car is gonna be green, then a random guy off the street says it'll be yellow; which one do you beleive? Obviously the one you trust the most even though you've never seen your new car before. But you disregarded what I was pointing at though, he has obviosly done his research, but he ignores commen sense facts simply to prove his point. He talks about how terrible it is that the killing of Cane and Able was in the bible, when it was good that it was included to show that what cane did was wrong.
Maybe I do live in fear, but it's not fear of punishment as much as fear of not being rewarded in heaven, and not as much that as just fear of living without a beleif; which has given me(again me, may not apply to someone else) a sense of self worth and purpose. But the bottum line is I'm happy with my life, and that's all that matters. I've never been an aetheist, so maybe I'll never understand what it is to live without a beleif, but my doubtful moments are always rejected because I cannot imagine a life without a beleif. If God is not real, I still want to live this life like he is because of the better person my faith has made me. As stated, I harbor no hatred for anyone, so I don't see how having faith would have made me a worse person. It has only provided me benefits. I'm actually quite interested in seeing your response this I must say, just keep in mind what I said earlier in regards to forgiveness towards other people.
Is the constant quest for the (supposed)truth worth the loss of: the best thing that happened to me, my set of morales, and ideology?
I say no.
(Insert William Wallace giving epic speech hear.)
Originally Posted by Wiiman Gods requirements for becoming a christian are to beleive and be baptized and follow his word. So why should I not label myself as a christian? I am one afterall, even if I do faulter from time to time. By supporting equal rights does that make me even less of a christian even though the new testament speaks of forgiveness and endorses my beleifs?
That's not what I said, you don't understand what I mean by the label of Christianity. Christianity is just a name, being baptized and believing in God does not mean you have to be a Christian. If you aren't going to adhere to Christian beliefs, then why use that name? Why not a different name? It's the strange concept that Christians, Jews and Musilims as well as all the little sects they are divided all worship the exact same God, yet they claim that if you don't have the label of the Church you are going to hell, which isn't in the bible. The bible doesn't say you have to be a Christian, it just says you need to believe in God (and in your case, you claim baptism, fine). Christianity is not the belief, it is the religion (or the institution). There is a big difference between religion and your personal beliefs.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Just because someone sins doesn't mean I must dislike them. Even if in Romans and Corrinthians of the New Testament spoke out against homosexuals, it in no way said we should persecute them. Not all christians are homo, trans, metro, bi, everyone else hating people. This is a terrible misconception, similair to my previous misconception that all aetheist had no purpose whatsovever and were 100% sure something else didn't exist.
See, this is the issue. You say you do not hate those people but you still believe it to be wrong.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Oh and I've read up on my church history actually I'm actually much more educated then you seem to assume But this bible is all we've got to hear God's message from, so we must assume it is all creditable, for we cannot rule out one book and then consider the others 100% true; it's either beleive all or none. So I beleive all to be true, even if some are coded documents.
I doubt your claim that you are educated beyond the average Christian perspective. There's a reason why those books were left out of the cannon. So is it that anything nasty that's in the bible is coded, and all the good parts are straight forward?
And just because it is all you have to go on does not make it a credible source. You can call it faith that you believe it true, but that doesn't make it credible.
You're also contradicting yourself. You just claimed in your last post that you didn't believe that the bible was the word of God, now you're saying that's the only thing you've got to go on, so it must be his word. What is it?
Originally Posted by Wiiman Yes it is true I was drawing conclusions about Sceptics Annoted Bible before observing the evidence, simply because being a christian, it is impossible to do otherwise. Ex. If your dad tells you that your new car is gonna be green, then a random guy off the street says it'll be yellow; which one do you beleive? Obviously the one you trust the most even though you've never seen your new car before. But you disregarded what I was pointing at though, he has obviosly done his research, but he ignores commen sense facts simply to prove his point. He talks about how terrible it is that the killing of Cane and Able was in the bible, when it was good that it was included to show that what cane did was wrong.
You'll have to do better than that. Give me some better examples why you feel he lacks common sense, grab a few quotes and demonstrate why you feel he is incorrect.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Maybe I do live in fear, but it's not fear of punishment as much as fear of not being rewarded in heaven, and not as much that as just fear of living without a beleif; which has given me(again me, may not apply to someone else) a sense of self worth and purpose. But the bottum line is I'm happy with my life, and that's all that matters. I've never been an aetheist, so maybe I'll never understand what it is to live without a beleif, but my doubtful moments are always rejected because I cannot imagine a life without a beleif. If God is not real, I still want to live this life like he is because of the better person my faith has made me. As stated, I harbor no hatred for anyone, so I don't see how having faith would have made me a worse person. It has only provided me benefits. I'm actually quite interested in seeing your response this I must say, just keep in mind what I said earlier in regards to forgiveness towards other people.
All I can say is don't knock it until you've tried it.
This is a fantastic source of information, they'll shed some light on what atheism is all about, try to watch it without concluding that they are wrong from the start. As a bonus, I grabbed one of their videos on the early Christian history subject.
I don't have time for a clear complete response since I have to skedaddle, I kind of haphazardly worked on those responses, so I apologize if anything came off as douchebaggish or incorrect.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Quite the interesting video I must say. Though while in this time would early jews(eventual christians) choose to be montheistic? It seems in ancient cultures such as Egypt and Crete, that the more Gods the better was going around. Even if Jehovah was the God that represented your city,like how in Greece Athena represented Athens, but why would you still just have one God? So correct me if I'm wrong, but Aetheism is the constant quest for the truth and thinking scientifically(the concept that if something cannot be proven or disproven it is not scientific)? Would that be the adequate response?
As pertaining to the title christian, off the top of my head I cannot think any verses, but I know it is said that one should say 'I am of christ' which is interpretted as calling your self a christian. Now I can definitely say though that the bible talks about the use of names throughout it for churches, though unfortunately I am unable to find the verses concerning this. I do not have a bible in immediately grasp so I can't search for the verse. I realize this totally ruins my reliability of my respones, and for that I humbly apologize But I know for sure that there is a couple verses pertaining to this, I beleive them to be in Corinthians, though perhaps it was Acts. I am almost certain it was the words of Paul that said it. Anyway, Paul spoke of how the congregations must say that they are of christ. This is saying as that say; (EX)the church that calls itself simply the 'Lutheran church' is not following this rule. These verses are to say that the congregation should be titled after christ like 'Church of Christ.' Once again I'm sorry I don't have the paticular verse, I'll try and look for it when it's not so late at night(12:37 now my time)
As to what I mean by coded books, I would suggest reading some of my earlier post. When you spoke earlie about your previous thoughts on fossils and scientist that you now consider moronic, truth is I don't beleive those beleives either. I beleive in all science has told, I beleive in evolution, I beleive in dinosaurs(ROOOAAARRRR!!!!), I'm not quite sure about what to think of Big Bang theory(I think Hallies Bible handbook actually endorsed the beleive of the Big Bang theory), and after some discussion earlier-I think I beleive Micro-Evolution(As always have previous), but I am definitely open to suggestion on that matter, I'm starting to actually have some disbeleif of that theory creep in, its so long ago its hard to tell what all happened back then. But I beleive all of these because I beleive God set them in motion.
And now back to the coded concept, no it's not that the nasty parts are coded, it's that the parts about discussed early, science are coded. Mostly the coded parts are those of early Gennissis and pretty much all of Revelation. Though there are a couple other books throughout the old testament that are coded. I don't actually beleive that God created the earth in 7 24hour days, after all, What is a day to God? "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" 2 Peter 3:8 I beleive that each 'Day' so to speak, can be coordinated with a different stage of God's creation. Once again, Halley's does a very good job of describing this down hardening of earth's crust and etc. I must find where I put it And I find the stages of creatures to very very similair to evolution, down to order in which it happened. Revelation is written Apocalyptic language. It is not meant to be taken literrally but sympollically, it is similar to the pharoahs vision of seven good fish and seven bad, it means something else, and that something will happen.
I would prefer not to argue on the topic of symbollism and coded books though because I had discussed this with Johnny Look and multiple other people previously in the thread, and we should probably keep conversation rolling instead of letting it repeat
"See, this is the issue. You say you do not hate those people but you still believe it to be wrong."
What is wrong with that? you think it is wrong I am a christian, but I am sure that you have christians friends and family members. How are you any different? I do not dislike those people for what they've done. Do you dislike people for beleiving in christ? I assume not. How are you any different?
I am posing this question to anyone in the thread:
If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?
I am not saying Christianity is this way, afterall there are some really bad interprettations of it, but if people beleive in any religion like this at all, is there any disadvantages? I really say no, and that it is essential that man kind beleives in something.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Quite the interesting video I must say. Though while in this time would early jews(eventual christians) choose to be montheistic? It seems in ancient cultures such as Egypt and Crete, that the more Gods the better was going around. Even if Jehovah was the God that represented your city,like how in Greece Athena represented Athens, but why would you still just have one God? So correct me if I'm wrong, but Aetheism is the constant quest for the truth and thinking scientifically(the concept that if something cannot be proven or disproven it is not scientific)? Would that be the adequate response?
While that's a concept most atheists try to adhere to, that's not specifically an atheist phenomenon, that's just thinking analytically, which anyone is capable of doing (however, usually when it is applied to beliefs, it tends to dismantle them). Matt, in that video, is a perfect example of that, as he was actually in seminary when he became an atheist.
Originally Posted by Wiiman As pertaining to the title christian, off the top of my head I cannot think any verses, but I know it is said that one should say 'I am of christ' which is interpretted as calling your self a christian. Now I can definitely say though that the bible talks about the use of names throughout it for churches, though unfortunately I am unable to find the verses concerning this. I do not have a bible in immediately grasp so I can't search for the verse. I realize this totally ruins my reliability of my respones, and for that I humbly apologize But I know for sure that there is a couple verses pertaining to this, I beleive them to be in Corinthians, though perhaps it was Acts. I am almost certain it was the words of Paul that said it. Anyway, Paul spoke of how the congregations must say that they are of christ. This is saying as that say; (EX)the church that calls itself simply the 'Lutheran church' is not following this rule. These verses are to say that the congregation should be titled after christ like 'Church of Christ.' Once again I'm sorry I don't have the paticular verse, I'll try and look for it when it's not so late at night(12:37 now my time)
If you can find a verse that says 'Christian' specifically, then you've got me, I don't recall seeing it. You could call yourself any word, call your self a 'Jabbers' for all I care, makes more sense than to group yourself in with a half-assed concept that's already been tainted to infinity and beyond.
Originally Posted by Wiiman As to what I mean by coded books, I would suggest reading some of my earlier post. When you spoke earlie about your previous thoughts on fossils and scientist that you now consider moronic, truth is I don't beleive those beleives either. I beleive in all science has told, I beleive in evolution, I beleive in dinosaurs(ROOOAAARRRR!!!!), I'm not quite sure about what to think of Big Bang theory(I think Hallies Bible handbook actually endorsed the beleive of the Big Bang theory), and after some discussion earlier-I think I beleive Micro-Evolution(As always have previous), but I am definitely open to suggestion on that matter, I'm starting to actually have some disbeleif of that theory creep in, its so long ago its hard to tell what all happened back then. But I beleive all of these because I beleive God set them in motion.
Careful using that word believe with evolution. That's what the vocal Christians like to throw around with scientific terms to try to catch people off guard. When it comes to theories, they are not believed, they are accepted. Unlike religion, science has no ego, and if someone presents sufficient evidence that something is incorrect, that idea is no longer accepted. It's important to remember that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of species on the the planet, nothing more (as many fundamentalists who don't actually know what they're talking about lump evolution in with origins), but you seem to grasp that concept already. Kudos.
Originally Posted by Wiiman "See, this is the issue. You say you do not hate those people but you still believe it to be wrong."
What is wrong with that? you think it is wrong I am a christian, but I am sure that you have christians friends and family members. How are you any different? I do not dislike those people for what they've done. Do you dislike people for beleiving in christ? I assume not. How are you any different?
I messed up my terms, I apologize, I meant to say 'you still believe it to be bad'. I do not think it is wrong (by which I mean 'incorrect') for someone to believe in a deity, or god, or be a Christian(despite that I feel that if you're going to stray from what they consider correct, why not call yourself something else?). I support everyone's right to do what they please, so long as they do not harm anyone else. I've stated my reasons for what parts of the religion that I do not like, and I do feel that the idea that there is specifically an Abraham god is incorrect, based on the lack of evidence for the claim.
But claiming these people are bad because of their orientation, birth defect or how they look is getting into dangerous territory. Christians like to spread nonsense that sexual orientation is a choice (if thats the case, try being gay for a while, see how well that works out. If the same sex doesn't attract you, it doesn't attract you, end of story), transsexualism is "gender confused" (which indicates that they just need a little guidance to forget they have a severely dangerous birth defect), and they forget that judging a person based on their looks is a sin. This kind of thinking can lead to horrible things, including how you decide to raise your children. What happens if one of your children had one of these problems? Would you accept them and protect them from people trying to change them, would you allow it but let them know that what their doing is wrong, or would you just flat out try to prevent them from even thinking like that?(I know some families that might even try to perform an exorcism).
There is nothing more insulting than to go up to someone and let them know they are going to suffer for an eternity because of who they are. It's one thing to say this to someone who has committed a heinous crime (although it's extremely insane to even think that there is anything that anyone could do that deserves eternal torture), but for someone who lives a good life? It's hurtful and just plain evil, and might as well be just as bad as doing physical harm to them.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I am posing this question to anyone in the thread:
If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?
I am not saying Christianity is this way, afterall there are some really bad interprettations of it, but if people beleive in any religion like this at all, is there any disadvantages? I really say no, and that it is essential that man kind beleives in something.
That would be Buddhism, which there is no disadvantage to that (also considering Buddhism teaches that you should do what you please, so long as you believe it is good, the only ones with restrictions are those that teach). It also teaches that regardless of what anyone believes, they are still Buddhist whether they accept it or not, and there is no penalties for not accepting Buddhism. Buddhism is also one of the few religions that lacks a deity, as the Buddha is not considered a God.
But once again, you're advocating believing for the sake of believing, or "just in case". To my knowledge, that would not be believing with your whole heart, and would not be any different than disbelief.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
The word christian appears 3 times in the bible actually-
1 Peter 4:16, "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."
Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the
church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
Acts 26:28, "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
It was originally coined by the people of Antioch to describe the disciples, then later became universal. It came from the greek word 'christianos' followers of christ, and when the bible was translated to hebrew, and later English by King James, the word was essentialy kept only without the 'o' on the end. I assume the disciples would have been first called christians at Antioch because a large part of the population spoke Greek(again assuming, haven't done research on the native tongue of Antioch.) In no way does it say I must call myself a Christian, but Christian means follower of christ; so therefore I will call myself that. Then again I do really like the sound of Jabber...
As for the 'you still beleive it to bad' I mixed up my terms as well, or at least need to choose one with different connotation than 'wrong.' What I meant by that, is that you don't beleive in God(even if you're not 100% certain there is none) yet you still accept christians as friends. There are certain people I don't agree with their policies, yet I still accept them as friends. You beleive that christians will be proven wrong in the end, I think that certain peoples life styles will be proved wrong in the end. And what is all of this talk of birth defects and how they look? Can you find some verses to back that up? You sound like whatever church you went to back in the day must have been really radical on their policies O_o Just keep in mind, just because one church somewhere may be against something doesn't mean that they all are. Even though the apostle Paul spoke against diversion of the church, it happened; and some of them out there don't quite follow the scriptures. Again try and find some NEW TESTAMENT verses on birth defects; I would be interested in seeing those.
As for orrientation being a choice, I am mostly unopiniated on the matter. I think if it is a choice, it was chosen by their subconsciousness. I think it should best be observed through the Psychoanalysis Perspective of psychology. I would probably say through the theories of Sigmund Freud and how the events in a child's life between 3 and 5 define their personality would probably be the best way of explaining sexual orientation. Though as someone being born say, 'genatalia mix up', er being born part man and woman, or heshe, whatever you wanna say, well that's just a confusing subject to get into.
Also, I had thought about mentioning Buddhism, but I wasn't sure if it counted as a religion or just as guide lines. I am actually really fond of concept, I think it sounds like a great religion/guidelines for someone to beleive But in no way did I indicate 'just in case' concept at all! I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this. I consider it beleiving for the sake of beleiving, not because you fear eternal damnation, but because it has given you morals and good values and way to live your life by. Yes I admit, unless you do have the fear of damnation, you may not be able to have your full heart in the matter.(Remember I'm not saying this is how I beleive, just throwing this out there) But that is not the point of that question. Is the quest for the truth really worth your loss of moral guidelines and values? Atheist will never know about the existance of God until it's too late; so why if you've got a religion that endorses love would you forsake it even though it gives you everyday values to live by? Even if you don't beleive it with your whole heart, would you forsake something that makes you a better person?
I am posing this question also, because as I discussed, my interprettation of the God's message in the bible(I still consider it his word sorry), does not call for harm to anyone, and it is all supported by the scriptures. It still endorses the acceptance and value of scientific, and it provides with a set of morals and values and life lessons to base my life on. I am so much better off being a christian than an atheist. And you know what, my whole church also has come to interpret the bible this way, we do get fuzzy on some of the scientific stuff like origins discussed genessis, but we've all generally accepted the bible's message of love; and we have become better people because of it.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And what is all of this talk of birth defects and how they look? Can you find some verses to back that up? You sound like whatever church you went to back in the day must have been really radical on their policies O_o Just keep in mind, just because one church somewhere may be against something doesn't mean that they all are. Even though the apostle Paul spoke against diversion of the church, it happened; and some of them out there don't quite follow the scriptures. Again try and find some NEW TESTAMENT verses on birth defects; I would be interested in seeing those.
Thing is, if you got an old testament verse on anything, some nutjobs are gonna use that and justify it by the new testament not speaking out directly against it.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Wiiman The word christian appears 3 times in the bible actually-
1 Peter 4:16, "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."
Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the
church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
Acts 26:28, "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
It was originally coined by the people of Antioch to describe the disciples, then later became universal. It came from the greek word 'christianos' followers of christ, and when the bible was translated to hebrew, and later English by King James, the word was essentialy kept only without the 'o' on the end. I assume the disciples would have been first called christians at Antioch because a large part of the population spoke Greek(again assuming, haven't done research on the native tongue of Antioch.) In no way does it say I must call myself a Christian, but Christian means follower of christ; so therefore I will call myself that. Then again I do really like the sound of Jabber...
Never knew that, but you're correct, it still says nothing about you having to use the term.
Originally Posted by Wiiman As for the 'you still beleive it to bad' I mixed up my terms as well, or at least need to choose one with different connotation than 'wrong.' What I meant by that, is that you don't beleive in God(even if you're not 100% certain there is none) yet you still accept christians as friends. There are certain people I don't agree with their policies, yet I still accept them as friends. You beleive that christians will be proven wrong in the end, I think that certain peoples life styles will be proved wrong in the end. And what is all of this talk of birth defects and how they look? Can you find some verses to back that up? You sound like whatever church you went to back in the day must have been really radical on their policies O_o Just keep in mind, just because one church somewhere may be against something doesn't mean that they all are. Even though the apostle Paul spoke against diversion of the church, it happened; and some of them out there don't quite follow the scriptures. Again try and find some NEW TESTAMENT verses on birth defects; I would be interested in seeing those.
That's the point, there is none, yet a majority of the mainstream vocal Christians like to think so. Part of the reasoning is just pure ignorance. For instance, it's common for people to lump Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation into one category, despite the fact that they have nothing to do with one another. The irony is that you can find more bible verses in favor of Gender Identity than you can find against it. Of course, they like to argue (again from the old testament which fundamentalists like to pick and choose from), the verse which states that it is a sin for a male to dress as a female and vise versa, as men presenting at women could get out of war and women presenting as men would upset god's delicate balance of male dominance over women. It's ridiculous, I know, and I don't have a problem with Christians who want to pick and choose their beliefs, and interpret it as such. The problem arises when these people feel they have an authority given to them by a higher power.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Also, I had thought about mentioning Buddhism, but I wasn't sure if it counted as a religion or just as guide lines. I am actually really fond of concept, I think it sounds like a great religion/guidelines for someone to beleive
Yes it is a religion, because it does contain superstitious phenomenon that relies on zero evidence and requires faith to believe, not to say that is a bad thing necessarily. In order to create a theory, you have to start somewhere with an idea, you can only advance the idea by doing tests, which when regards to death and the afterlife, we do not have the ability to do so, yet.
Originally Posted by Wiiman But in no way did I indicate 'just in case' concept at all! I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this. I consider it beleiving for the sake of beleiving, not because you fear eternal damnation, but because it has given you morals and good values and way to live your life by. Yes I admit, unless you do have the fear of damnation, you may not be able to have your full heart in the matter.(Remember I'm not saying this is how I beleive, just throwing this out there) But that is not the point of that question. Is the quest for the truth really worth your loss of moral guidelines and values? Atheist will never know about the existance of God until it's too late; so why if you've got a religion that endorses love would you forsake it even though it gives you everyday values to live by? Even if you don't beleive it with your whole heart, would you forsake something that makes you a better person?
Here's where I disagree with you. Your bible DOES NOT teach morality, it teaches obedience to authority, as whatever God does/commands is considered moral, no matter if it actually is immoral or moral. I suppose when god barbecued those two kids because they didn't start a fire correctly, that was moral right? I suppose that when God decided to hurl boulders at enemy soldiers fleeing the Israelites, that was moral too? As an Atheist, I am free to determine what is good/bad based on the reaction of the people around me. Obviously, if I go around killing people, eventually (if not right off the bat) I will be caught/killed by the humans around me. You think that if we never had religion, we wouldn't be able to stop killing each other? Please, read the bible, believers and God were the #1 cause of death in that book. Once again, your 'opinion' is 100% false on the subject, as I stated before, atheists make up around 10% of the population in America, yet they take up less than a percent of the prison population (again, right down there with the Buddhists.) Earlier in this thread I quoted Comedian Jim Jeffries when he said:
"Now, I'll tell you this last thing about you think you're a good person because you have Christian values. You wanna know what Christian values are? Christian values are a load of shit. What are Christian values? The ten commandments. What are the ten commandments? Very sensible rules to live your life by. You know what's a load of shit about them? THE FACT that you had to have them written down. The fact you couldn't figure out internally not to kill people. Don't steal *thunk* really? You should just know these, they should be internal in you. The bible is too wordy, all the stories are too wordy, the ten commandments are a load of shit, you don't need all these things. The bible should be one sheet of paper, and on that sheet of paper it should say 'Try not to be a cunt. And if you do that every day, you'll be a good person.'"
While I don't agree that the Ten Commandments are sensible rules to live your life by, or that Christians draw all their values directly from the Ten Commandments, he makes a perfect point about what morality is, and it's not as complicated as Theist like to claim. Do no harm to those around you and try to help out when you can, that's really all you need. All this nonsense about who has sex with who, who believes in what, it's all irrelevant as these are personal choices that do no harm (and yes, rape counts as harm).
A similar message can be found by George Carlin's quote about rights:
(I'll post the entire video)
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I agree that some christians feel they have an authority given to them by a higher power. But, the religion as a whole cannot be blamed for this. Especially since some of the open minded and multi-interpretation and science tolerant views are on the rise.
Now about this 10% Athiest and 1% Athiest in prison, please present a site where the study was conducted about this. And not just a person stating this but the actual study. It has come up twice now so please present some sources.
You also appear to be routinely avoiding my question 'I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this.' As I said earlier, 'If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?' I have already explained how this is not a 'just in case' sort of beleiving. I did speak of my interpretation of christianity.(but you began to speak of general christians regardless), yes, but it is more of a general religion question Please I challenge anyone to this one.
Also one last note on calling myself a christian, if the word means 'follower of christ' then by saying I'm not a christian, I'm saying I'm not a follower of christ. The word may be connotated with the standard jew hating homophobic christian, but it still applies to me as well. So I will always go by it.
Also, I have not took time watch all the George Carlin video, but the Jim Jeffries monologue I find rather pointless. How can you diss a religion for writing something down? Then again I'll give him a break because he was just trying humerous.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Now about this 10% Athiest and 1% Athiest in prison, please present a site where the study was conducted about this. And not just a person stating this but the actual study. It has come up twice now so please present some sources.
Unfortunately most of the sources apparently have been removed, ironic how that happened.
Except this one, of course.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Most of the rest are unintelligent responses from morons, including one extremely bright individual who claimed that anyone in jail, regardless of what religion they claim to be, are atheist anyways, because being in jail isn't Christ like.
Originally Posted by Wiiman You also appear to be routinely avoiding my question 'I am just challenging someone to think of disadvantages of this.' As I said earlier, 'If there is a religion that harbors no hatred to anyone at all and teaches the beleivers to do good, is there any disadvantage in people beleiving it?' I have already explained how this is not a 'just in case' sort of beleiving. I did speak of my interpretation of christianity.(but you began to speak of general christians regardless), yes, but it is more of a general religion question Please I challenge anyone to this one.
Yes. You don't need a belief system to tell you to be a good person, and any religion claiming that they are the only way to do that denies that person the opportunity to learn where morality and good deeds really come from. I find the notion of a religion claiming that morality cannot be found without it is ignorant, and believing in something that spreads ignorance is a major disadvantage.
You've obviously been brainwashed into thinking that a person cannot be moral without having a religion. You shouldn't have to do good things because you're afraid of being punished or you think it's going to get you a reward, doing good things because of that reason taints the deed you've done, and you might as well just call it work, or whoring yourself if you will. You seriously need to take some time to give it some deep thought and learn to do good things for the sake of being good.
If you still think that atheists can't possibly have a moral compass, try doing some research on atheist charities. If atheists have no morals, then they shouldn't exist. I, myself, volunteer quite often, and I do it because I know it helps, and I know these people need help. I mentioned earlier some of the church groups I've gone with, there were a few good eggs there, but most of the mastheads there were simply there because their parents told them too, they think it'll look great on a resume, or they think they're going to get 'brownie points' in heaven. And I had to teach some of these kids how to use a chainsaw, ended up doing it all myself.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Also, I have not took time watch all the George Carlin video, but the Jim Jeffries monologue I find rather pointless. How can you diss a religion for writing something down? Then again I'll give him a break because he was just trying humerous.
You should really watch it when you get a chance. George is a brilliant man, has tons of great information and he never forgets to be funny. And it figures you'd find Jeffries quote pointless because you obviously missed his point. If you can't figure out for yourself that you shouldn't kill people, you probably need to seek help.
And the bible really does not need to be as lengthy as it is. Like I stated before, an all powerful being shouldn't have to rely on stories that may or may not have been what actually happened, he could you know, just show us some of the things he can do. It's completely idiotic to believe that there is a being with limitless power that supposedly loves you and the only thing that he requires of you is that you love him back or he'll send you to burn for an eternity and the only thing that he has to show his existence is a bunch of lengthy stories that pretty much say "God can do this and do this and do this and do this, my god can beat up your god, and do this and this...". If one of 'his children' ever doubt he exists, all he'd need to do is appear before them and go "yeah I do", thus saving another child that he apparently loves. Ironic, that when people began being able to record, document and verify miraculous claims, they stopped happening.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do. Like I said earlier, those first remarks were a personal attack to the creator of that website.
I actually did some research on this subject myself, and I must say...you're supporting information is rather invalid. Not because it is untrue, but because when atheist speak of this study they are in fact manipulating the results to make them sound as though they agree with them. Notice that the unknown makes up almost 20%? People who are not aware of their religion are obviously atheist as they do not beleive in anything. By the time you add in the Atheist percentage it is only 0.059 away from 20%. I will say I am quite shocked on the high percentage of catholics, but it is a rather radical church, and an 'organized religion.' But I still am even more shocked that Atheist make up only 10% But fill 20% of the nations prisons! This is quite terrible! I wonder how much of the atheist population is currently imprisonned? I expect it to be quite high!
Observe this source, I found-
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html
"None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%"
Holy cow!
Multiple studies from multiple time periods in this article all say that Atheist dominate prisons! (The glory of this mostly being that your source supported this claim.)
A lot of sites also spoke of why we had so many chrisitians and religious people in jail. Many had an explanation similair to this=
"Prisoners may need to "prove" they will be good if released and may believe that the parole board will think better of them if they read the bible.
Or, prisoners with lots of time on their hands read the bible and find god."
Because they let you out of your cell to go to chapel and Bible study and prayer meetings. Why be an athiest in your cell when you can get some perks for having religion."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226173812AApM54e
"I worked at a women's prison and many of the 'religious' women had ulterior motives.
-looks good to the parole board
-chance to get out of their rooms for event's
to relieve boredom
to grope girlfriend(s)
substitute addiction for the drugs they can't get
to feel superior
social connection
to fit in and allow someone/something else be responsible for running their lives."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x24145
I like the fact the last one said many. I wonder how many is many? Perhaps even 10%? If that was so then 30% of people jailed from crimes were atheist at the time. I must say, this is quite reviting information. I would like to know how many people enter prison as Athiest, that would be interesting. I bet many of those people who classified themselves as athiest actually later became religious, which means an even higher percentage commiting crimes.
So like I said at the beginning of this post-"Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do." The reason I said for the main part is because after you motivated me to do some research, I must say I am in question. I still don't hold any sort of hatred for athiest like I said earlier, everyone in this world deserves respect, but don't claim that they are less likely to commit crimes
Edit:
Also, I can tell by your site that the report is a rather bias one, by the way it speaks of 'nasty christians' and all. None of the sites I used were biased(to my knowledge, but I haven't took time to check that under democrats or whatever site, yet it appears not to be a biased site). And all of the athiest responses to the overwhelming christians were something like 'Bcuz we're smarter.' Which is funny seeing as their population fills prisons But unbiased sites point toward athiest filling prisons, and turns out pro-athiest biased sites do as well
Originally Posted by Wiiman Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do. Like I said earlier, those first remarks were a personal attack to the creator of that website.
I actually did some research on this subject myself, and I must say...you're supporting information is rather invalid. Not because it is untrue, but because when atheist speak of this study they are in fact manipulating the results to make them sound as though they agree with them. Notice that the unknown makes up almost 20%? People who are not aware of their religion are obviously atheist as they do not beleive in anything. By the time you add in the Atheist percentage it is only 0.059 away from 20%. I will say I am quite shocked on the high percentage of catholics, but it is a rather radical church, and an 'organized religion.' But I still am even more shocked that Atheist make up only 10% But fill 20% of the nations prisons! This is quite terrible! I wonder how much of the atheist population is currently imprisonned? I expect it to be quite high!
Observe this source, I found-
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html
"None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%"
Holy cow!
Multiple studies from multiple time periods in this article all say that Atheist dominate prisons! (The glory of this mostly being that your source supported this claim.)
A lot of sites also spoke of why we had so many chrisitians and religious people in jail. Many had an explanation similair to this=
"Prisoners may need to "prove" they will be good if released and may believe that the parole board will think better of them if they read the bible.
Or, prisoners with lots of time on their hands read the bible and find god."
Because they let you out of your cell to go to chapel and Bible study and prayer meetings. Why be an athiest in your cell when you can get some perks for having religion."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226173812AApM54e
"I worked at a women's prison and many of the 'religious' women had ulterior motives.
-looks good to the parole board
-chance to get out of their rooms for event's
to relieve boredom
to grope girlfriend(s)
substitute addiction for the drugs they can't get
to feel superior
social connection
to fit in and allow someone/something else be responsible for running their lives."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x24145
I like the fact the last one said many. I wonder how many is many? Perhaps even 10%? If that was so then 30% of people jailed from crimes were atheist at the time. I must say, this is quite reviting information. I would like to know how many people enter prison as Athiest, that would be interesting. I bet many of those people who classified themselves as athiest actually later became religious, which means an even higher percentage commiting crimes.
So like I said at the beginning of this post-"Beleive it or not I thought Atheist actually had a moral compass, and I for the main part still do." The reason I said for the main part is because after you motivated me to do some research, I must say I am in question. I still don't hold any sort of hatred for athiest like I said earlier, everyone in this world deserves respect, but don't claim that they are less likely to commit crimes
Edit:
Also, I can tell by your site that the report is a rather bias one, by the way it speaks of 'nasty christians' and all. None of the sites I used were biased(to my knowledge, but I haven't took time to check that under democrats or whatever site, yet it appears not to be a biased site). And all of the athiest responses to the overwhelming christians were something like 'Bcuz we're smarter.' Which is funny seeing as their population fills prisons But unbiased sites point toward athiest filling prisons, and turns out pro-athiest biased sites do as well
All I have to say is that's a big fat LOL. If you fell for that blatant misrepresentation of facts that easily, then it's no wonder that you are a Christian.
Not answering the religious question, not having a religion or not knowing which religion they are DOES NOT make someone an atheist. The website that claims that IS biased and unreliable as all they did was take the same statistics of the website I posted and lumped the categories to prove a point. That is completely dishonest, and I'm appalled that you actually fell for such an obvious attempt at statistical distortion. They might as well do this
INNOCENT CHRISTIAN : ||\||| 30.3%
GODLESS ATHEIST: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0.209% !!!!! OMGZ THE BARS BIGGER
Anyways, an Atheist is someone who believes specifically that there most likely is not a God. Someone who is 'nonreligious' can mean anything, there are many systems of beliefs that do not practice a religion but still hold a belief, such as Buddhism, Agnosticism, Gnosticism, etc. There are also many people of other religions that claim to be nonreligious. More often than not, they are people who choose to not have any kind of label. Someone who doesn't answer the question does just that, doesn't answer the question, they can be of any religion, they simply don't care about the study, don't want to be a statistic, or have a fear they might be discriminated against because of their answer. If someone does not know which religion they are, that also does not make them an Atheist, because obviously being an Atheist would be an answer, once again, they could be leaning towards any religion.
There is more of a basis to combine the Abrahamic religions (which would be about 83.761% of the prison population) then there is to combine categories that don't have anything in common.
Also, if there wasn't a difference, then why the hell would they have posted the original stats with the separated categories?
As far as your claim that people simple stop being Atheists just because it looks better, that is a completely unsubstantiated claim with which you have ZERO evidence for. You can't just proclaim something like that and take it as a fact with nothing to go on. If someone 'jumps ship' once again there is no telling what they were before, most likely they fell into the no answer/nonreligious/unknown category.
Thank you for at least attempting to do the research, but remember what I told you, you can't go in with a conclusion and grab your evidence based on your conclusion, you have to grab your evidence and form a conclusion from that. ALSO you have to be able to use your critical thinking skills to deduce who is providing legitimate information, and who is trying to distort the truth.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I notice that your responses are become increasing desperate.
And you are viewing the information with your mind already made up Athiest are superior, whether you admit it or not.
Just because a site displays information as it is doesn't make it a biased site. And your link was very biased by the way. And this discussion was more toward people with religion vs people with religion, and studies show that those unopionated about a religion are just as likely if not more to commit crimes. Face the facts.
Take a look at this pertaining to the difficulty in disovering what percent is truly athiest-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
"Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they "have no religion, they are an Atheist." Still others will use terms like Humanist, Agnostic, Freethinker, religious skeptics, etc. This makes public opinion polls almost useless on this topic."
This is a very non biased site as one of the people that runs it is athiest.
You just happen to be using your definition, but different athiest use different defintions. You just happen to be using your own very srict defintion. Either way, the battle for who is more likely to commit crimes was religious vs nonreligious; and nonreligious is just as likely if not more. I think it is completely safe to assume that at least half of that 20% is nonreligious, which I think it would be much more as not 10% of the US population part of some estranged cult or something. That is still 10%. Christian fill around 75% of the world and commit around that many percent in crimes.
So the final verdict, people with a religion are not any more likely to commit crimes than those with.
Be an athiest I expect you to accept this evidence, because after all athiest beleive what they see and what is proven.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I notice that your responses are become increasing desperate.
Is it me, or is someone here not reading my posts? Just because you choose to not agree with or understand my posts does not make them desperate.
Originally Posted by Wiiman And you are viewing the information with your mind already made up Athiest are superior, whether you admit it or not.
Just because a site displays information as it is doesn't make it a biased site. And your link was very biased by the way.
Really now? You might want to look at how you phrased that sentence. I don't care if the site is biased or not HE STILL DID NOT ALTER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Take a look at this pertaining to the difficulty in disovering what percent is truly athiest-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
"Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they "have no religion, they are an Atheist." Still others will use terms like Humanist, Agnostic, Freethinker, religious skeptics, etc. This makes public opinion polls almost useless on this topic."
This is a very non biased site as one of the people that runs it is athiest.
That quote is correct to a certain point. Agnosticism does not belong in that list, as atheism is the lack of belief in any deity, and Agnosticism is to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. Besides, it does not prove your point that Atheism, Nonreligious, People who are unsure and People who refuse to answer are all Atheists.
Originally Posted by Wiiman I think it is completely safe to assume that at least half of that 20% is nonreligious, which I think it would be much more as not 10% of the US population part of some estranged cult or something.
No, it's not completely safe to assume anything, especially that. That is called a logical fallacy (if you can't explain something, then it must be something that demonstrates my point). If I have a room full of people who can't make up their mind about what they want to eat for dinner, should I assume that half of them are vegetarians?
Originally Posted by Wiiman So the final verdict, people with a religion are not any more likely to commit crimes than those with.
Yeah, when you distort the facts it isn't. If someone refuses to answer the question, you cannot accept their answer as ANYTHING, because since they don't answer it, it can be ANYTHING. If someone isn't sure what religion they belong to, that doesn't mean they don't believe in anything, that just means they have no religious affiliation. It's not rocket science. Assuming that any of them might be atheist is a HUGE stretch.
Originally Posted by Wiiman Be an athiest I expect you to accept this evidence, because after all athiest beleive what they see and what is proven.
The only proof I'm seeing on your end is that your entire argument is based on leaps and bounds to prove your ultimate point.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Advertisement
Post Reply
) I am against what some might call "Organized Religion" I don't support how catholism ran the world during mideval times and beyond and now tries to control all the people under the catholism sect of the religion. But at the same time do I hold anything against Catholics or treat them any different? No of course not! Man is man. I harbor no hatred or phobia to homosexual, even if I dislike the choice of lifestyle they have taken. The new testament speaks of love and forgiveness. The new testament is the law to be followed, where as the old testament still remains guide lines to our lives, but is not the law anymore. I think all men were created equal straight, gay, transvistite, different ethnicity, different relgions, aetheist, and many more. Again, the old testament is in facts ways to follow in living your life, but it is no longer the law since the coming of christ and his new testament.
When in fact I had this conversation and arguement with Aetheist multiple times before and was even successful in converting one 
Though I could not convert him to christianity, I was capable of getting him to agree that the benefits of actually beleiving in something out there is far superior to beleiving the beleif of not beleiving anything. He now very devoted into the jewish religion 
I'm positively happy that he decided to stand for something in his life.
I'm actually much more educated then you seem to assume
Edited by Otter