Question for Xian Lurkers
4 April 2006 by Stardust
While attending various churches over the years of varying denominations, I had heard the SAME message over and over again for more than THREE DECADES. “YOU ARE SO BAD, YOU ARE SO VERY, VERY BAD..” I had always wondered what I did that was so bad that would make a guy have to be nailed up on a cross by his FATHER for me! No wonder there is so much depression, low self esteem and self-hatred AND hatred for others in the world!
So, what DID you do that was so wrong that a god would have to create a son for himself, torture that son and kill him in a slow agonizing way to “redeem” you? WTF! Can’t you see how absurd that is? GOOD people are brainwashed into believing they are BAD and that idea is simply NOT TRUE. It is called mental abuse in the world of psychology. Yet millions and millions of people subject themselves to this abuse on a weekly basis, or more often.
I love my children. I want them to always love me. But if they don’t, I am not going to torture and kill them because they don’t. I love them more than MYSELF. I will protect them at all costs. And that is ONLY ONE of the many reasons christianity is absurd to me. That a god would hate his “creations” enough to kill them just because they won’t worship and praise him is BIZARRE to say the least. That is not how things are in nature and REALITY. It is natural to nurture and care for your children, not threaten, torture and kill them simply because they are not “adoring” you or may move to another place and not “keep in touch.”
I want to ask you to think about something else. If this god exists, and is so eternally “powerful and divine”, and the message so crucial to his creations’ welfare, why does this awesome and powerful god use simple and flawed humans to go around “advertising” for him??? These are the very same creatures for whom this great god had to create a son to sacrifice in bloody and torturous death because his creations were so very flawed and bad. AND even this horrendous act doesn’t even convince many people! In fact, many find even the thought of such a thing repulsive, including myself.
In addition, none of these “messengers of god” give people the same message…it is only their “understanding” of the message that was written by other flawed humans in some ancient text.There are many, many variations of this “very important” message.
These “messengers for god” can’t even get the message straight amongst themselves! There are how many christian denominations? And there is even disagreement inside each denomination! Why doesn’t this supposed god “clarify” if the message he wants to be told is a life or death matter? If it is such an important and true message, why play games? Why give us a book of riddles that one could never figure out in a lifetime if the answer to the riddle was so damn important? BECAUSE IT IS ALL MYTHOLOGY.
It’s all so ridiculous sounding when you look at it as an outsider. There are how many religions in the world? And they all believe they are the correct religion and the others are wrong. Fighting and killing comes in when one side believes their religion is the right one and they insist on imposing their beliefs and values on the rest of the world. Everyone killing and hating each other over a supernatural, fictitious sky daddy that no one has ever, ever seen.
This religion debate is looking more and more absurd to me.
5 April 2006, on 1:06 am
GOOD people are brainwashed into believing they are BAD and that idea is simply NOT TRUE. It is called mental abuse in the world of psychology.
You hit the nail right on the head. Any good cult leader knows that in order to get people to mindlessly follow you, you have to first take away their dignity and convince them they are worthless without you.
If your parents are real assholes, does that necessarily make you a bad person by default? If you grandfather murdered someone, should you feel personally responsible and guilty for his actions? So why does God insist that we all feel sorry for the actions of Adam and Eve? Sounds pretty childish to me. Unless of course, the real reason for the guilt has nothing to do with Adam and Eve and everything to do with control.
5 April 2006, on 2:58 am
These are the questions that haunted me as a child.
It was like, ok I can see people are convinced there is a god but the (so called) evidence in front of me is not convincing for me. It’s not my fault that I can’t accept anything as fact without hard evidence supporting it. Does that mean I deserve hell only because I’m not convinced? And what about people who were not born into a Muslim family or have never heard of Islam? why didn’t god send them the massage?
The idea that he is all great and powerful so I should pray to him or else, sounded so much like the abusive men in my neighborhood.
I was always been told that he gives you all these food to eat so you should be grateful to him. But if he created us to be depended on food, it seamed to me like it’s his duty to give us food or he’s evil. That way he’s not nice, he’s just not bad. I was anorexic for years and I still have trouble with eating. I would have been happy if I didn’t have to worry about eating every day.
And oh, the idea that eating pork or having your hair uncovered is sinful was not something I could swallow in that easily. (I’m from Iran)
I gave up religion at 14.
If I’m going to hell for these, then I’m happy to have this life the way I want it.
5 April 2006, on 6:17 am
Where do you live now, Roya? I have an atheist Iranian friend who is older. He lived under the Shah and under the Ayatollah. He was a teacher in Tehran and now drives a cab in Oakland. He has been through some shit — seeing his country become a theocracy. Always fascinating to talk to, tho’.
5 April 2006, on 6:33 am
f I’m going to hell for these, then I’m happy to have this life the way I want it.
Roya, I feel the same way. If there was a hell…which I don’t believe there is…I will be in much better company than in heaven with all those sonsabitches! Give me Einstein, Sagan, Twain, over Jerry Falwell and all those creepy televangelists AND GW BUSH any day. Heaven is going to be full of assholes.
One of the things that added to us finally saying to hell with religion and this evil god idea was when my daughter wasn’t saying the confessional prayer once when she was just young girl and shen my husband asked her why she wasn’t saying it she said “because it says I am bad and I am not bad.” This was the catapult that made me leave and not go back because she verbalized everything that I had been thinking while trying to go through the motions for tradition’s sake. Some traditions are good…religion is NOT a tradition…it is MIND CONTROL.
5 April 2006, on 6:40 am
I live in Australia (Sydney). I was three when khomeini died. When I came here I thought I left theists behind me and I’ll never see another person stupid enough to believe in god/s. Gal, I was in for a biiiiiiiiiiiiig surprice!
5 April 2006, on 6:53 am
Roya,
It’s because people are afraid to die and there are things in life humans have no control over and they have always hated not having answers, and afraid of things they could not control. As long as people will not accept the cycle of life and death, there will be superstitions. Speaking of wanting to control things and superstition…it is why people carry a lucky rabbit’s foot, four-leaf-clovers, and other lucky trinkets…some have “lucky rituals” (baseball players are known for this as well as actors) and all sorts of icons, routines, etc in an attempt to control things that we cannot control. Fortune tellers, psychics, religions, habits, obsessions, etc. are all ways for people to try to gain some kind of control or explain things they do not understand. Humans have developed intelligence and the ability to realize our mortality, however most of us still don’t know what to do with that intelligence and are quite imaginative in making things up in our minds in order to cope with the knowledge of death…and to make up for what we do not have answers for yet. Sort of delusional.
Basically, it’s like living on a planet-sized lunatic asylum.
5 April 2006, on 7:03 am
“Basically, it’s like living on a planet-sized lunatic asylum. ”
And the inmates run the asylum.
5 April 2006, on 7:07 am
Stardust: “Basically, it’s like living on a planet-sized lunatic asylum.”
I’m wondering if the same problem exist in other planets with intelligent beings. If there is one without this problem, I would be the first to get asylum there.
5 April 2006, on 7:20 am
i think you guys are all confusing religion with God. religion is the reason most turn away. faith is also just as misunderstood. we all live by faith everyday. i.e. we have faith we’re gonna wake up in the morning. just because you cant see it doesnt mean it isnt there, you ever see your brain? no, it doesnt mean it’s not there.
5 April 2006, on 7:39 am
“i think you guys are all confusing religion with God. religion is the reason most turn away.”
Of course. God doesn’t exist. Therefore he can’t turn anyone away. Man made religion does.
“faith is also just as misunderstood. we all live by faith everyday. i.e. we have faith we’re gonna wake up in the morning.”
Um no, we don’t all live be faith. In the instance you desribe, you’re not talking about faith you’re talking about common sense and experience. I don’t have faith I’ll wake up in the morning. I might not. I don’t have faith that the cars coming the opposite way on the road will stay in their lane. They might not.
“just because you cant see it doesnt mean it isnt there, you ever see your brain? no, it doesnt mean it’s not there.”
Congrats. That is the absolute WORST analogy I’ve ever seen in attempt to prove god exists. If you cut open someone’s skull you can see the brain. Exactly where is any evidence for god?
5 April 2006, on 8:31 am
for someone that doesnt believe in God you seem pretty pissed at Him
5 April 2006, on 8:31 am
faith is also just as misunderstood. we all live by faith everyday. i.e. we have faith we’re gonna wake up in the morning.
Please don’t confuse faith with induction. Inductive beiefs are necessary in order to function as a person. Faith just makes you a fuck-up.
5 April 2006, on 8:56 am
“for someone that doesnt believe in God you seem pretty pissed at Him
:)”
Now you did it…
5 April 2006, on 9:38 am
i’m new at this so bear with me. on this comment space i am supposed to copy and paste something someone said that was stupid, like so:
Faith just makes you a f-up (i try not to cuss
)
and then i’m supposed to comment on it like this:
well bob-o, truth is most of the stuff you do daily you do by faith, even more so, by blind faith! take the chair you’re sitting in, i’m sure you sat down without even thinking about it collapsing, you had faith (blind) to assume that the good people that built it, built it to sustain a person of your stature, of course that is only one example but if we all thought about everything we did that might make us look a little paranoid. see, i dont think that it’s not that you guys dont believe in God, or ‘Gawd’, you guys just dont believe that it’s not you. tisk tisk. and you guys call yourselves ‘atheists’. well after this poor display of ‘atheism’ i am afraid that i am going to have to stop believing in ‘atheists’ since they are represented so poorly. but i have to get going, have fun ripping me a new one while i’m away, but we’ll schedule a play-date for later.
go tribe in ‘06
5 April 2006, on 10:05 am
“for someone that doesnt believe in God you seem pretty pissed at Him”
Ah, a xian witnessing classic- you must be very proud of yourself.
Concerning the chair- I’ve never heard of anyone commiting genocide in the name of a recliner.
5 April 2006, on 10:08 am
stupid little jimmy,
“you ever see your brain? no, it doesnt mean it’s not there”
You fundies really say the darnedest (and most idiotic) things. You ever heard of an MRI scan ? You ever heard of science ?
“take the chair you’re sitting in … yada, yada, yada”
Did you not read the linked article on inductive reasoning or simply not understand it ? That has nothing to do with mindlessly believing in an non-existent supernatural deity.
“i think you guys are all confusing religion with god”
Huh ?!? ALL religions are based upon the idiotic belief of non-existent supernatural deities. ALL religions are primitive backward-assed anti-science nonsense which were created by primitive people with little or no scientific understanding. ALL religions have conflicts with not only with other religions but reality and ALL RELIGIONS ARE WRONG.
5 April 2006, on 10:30 am
An impression I often get from fundie arguments is that they don’t really “believe” in atheists. They think you’re just trying to get out of some judgement you deserve or some such rubbish. Now I’ve heard one actually admit it. Some people just can’t grasp the concept that you really, honesty, truly don’t think that god is there, so they have to come up with all sorts of other reasons for your atheism.
5 April 2006, on 10:34 am
As a child the Jesus story really turned me off of religion. So this God is all-powerful and lives for all eternity and decides, on a whim, to create a Son and put him on Earth with the natives to teach them a thing or two. He also arranges that he be sacrificed to “cleanse us of our sins.” Ok, seems pretty fucked up already.
Immediately I’m questioning, “how the hell does that cleanse everyone, everywhere, and everyone who ever will be, of their so-called sins?” Oh, I see… This God person decided on the sins, then He also decided on the punishment for those sins, oh, and he also decided what would cleanse everyone of the sins as well. Well isn’t that convienient.
Furthermore, since this God person is omnipotent, it really wasn’t all that big of sacrifice. In fact, it’s not even an inconvienience to him and his so-called Son. They live forever, right? So spending 30 years (or whatever) of Earth-time hanging around with the unwashed masses is pretty much just an instant of time for them. Suffering on the cross? Big fucking deal, they’re omnipotent and all that. If Jesus appeared to be suffering on the cross, he was faking it. Then, to top it all off, he is risen from the dead! Comes by to say hello to a few of his buds, and then whoosh, off to heaven he goes for all eternity in paradise.
So where’s the fucking sacrifice? Jesus lives forever and of course God, being all-knowing and all-wise knows this. He knows he’s going to just resurrect Jesus and bring him into eternal happiness heaven land. So, where the hell did God do us any favors? If you believe the story on the face of it, it’s just a big fucking scam! If there is a God, he’s been playing the believers for fools.
Ok, so I’ll grant you that Jesus was supposed to be human and appearently questioned his divine role. You’d think that after the first so-called miracle, Jesus would be like, “Dude. I just fucking cured that old fuck of his blindness. This Son-of-God thing must be true. These assholes following me around might be on to something! FUCK! I’m the biggest God believer ever now, man!”
Hell, I’d be Jesus too if I walked on water. Feed a million people with one fish? Hell yeah, I’m the biggest believer ever. You fucking Romans gonna string me up on the cross? Big deal! Ohhh…Ohhh… I’m suffering terribly . I’ll be resurrected and in Heaven with my 76 virgins in no time! W00T!
Christians = Suckers
And besides, why does everyone on here always argue with the trolls on here? I mean, it’s funny and all, but none of these morons are going to be convinced of anything. But I’ll keep reading your well-thought-out responses and laughing at the believers. I just keep thinking how pointless it is to respond to them.
5 April 2006, on 10:48 am
Re: Arguing with Trolls
Sorry everyone, I forgot that the latest threads I’ve been reading have been “lion feed” threads. I believe the whole point of those threads is to argue with Christians. So, that last one with Jared was very interesting and I learned a *lot* by reading it. Thank you all, please continue arguing.
I’ll continue to be a smart ass though. I read and read and as the Christians continue to ignore, falsify and spout jibberish, I get frustrated with their lack of reason and start making obnoxious comments.
5 April 2006, on 11:36 am
“take the chair you’re sitting in, i’m sure you sat down without even thinking about it collapsing, you had faith (blind) to assume that the good people that built it, built it to sustain a person of your stature, of course that is only one example but if we all thought about everything we did that might make us look a little paranoid.”
Gold star for the crappy analogy! As a matter of fact when I bought this chair there was a safety certification sticker on it guaranteeing me that someone had tested this chair or one identical to it. There are safety checks on everything these days because, if nothing else, we don’t want to our personal safety to rely on faith alone. If we, or someone we love, were to get hurt because of shoddy workmanship or unsafe design, we want to know that the person or company responsible will have consequences in the here and now, not some unknown punishment later in some unsubstantiated location. It seems funny to me that US is such a litigious society when 80 percent* of its population are members of a religion that says that these people will get their just reward. I guess when it comes to their own personal safety, faith just isn’t enough.
*this number was obtained from the wikipedia article on the US so I cannot guarantee it’s accuracy
5 April 2006, on 11:46 am
“for someone that doesnt believe in God you seem pretty pissed at Him
:)”
How can you be pissed at something that doesn’t exist, Jimmy poo?
5 April 2006, on 11:48 am
Poor Jimmy - another idiot liar for jesus runs away when he bullshit is debunked.
He’ll come back to spout more nonsense and to continue to not read the responses.
Hmmm. sounds like most of the theists we get here.
5 April 2006, on 12:49 pm
Nice way to generate comments, star! And kudos for another well-written piece. We femi-whining femi-Nazis are really kicking ass, aren’t we?
5 April 2006, on 12:59 pm
Oh man, this thread has me laughing my ass off. “Have you ever seen your brain?” WTF?? Did this guy just graduate from Pensacola Christian College?
Great post. I really liked this one: “…it’s like living on a planet-sized lunatic asylum.”
Stop the planet and let me off.
5 April 2006, on 1:05 pm
Cassandra, did you see what happened in New York yesterday as a result of faith based sex ed?
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5372/yarnwombunleashed0jj.jpg
5 April 2006, on 1:15 pm
“Did this guy just graduate from Pensacola Christian College? ”
Cass - 1
Whackadoo - 0
THE KILLER WOMB!!!!
Marcus, that’s the best photoshop job ever.
5 April 2006, on 1:36 pm
We should have photoshop challenges for those of us that enjoy that sort of thing to entertain the rest of the group… maybe a bi-weekly or even weekly thing, like every other saturday or some such… I think that it would combine humour *and* blasphemy… and what could be better than that?
5 April 2006, on 1:44 pm
Lya,
I get a chuckle every time I look at it… it’s just so… surreal lookin’. That and INRI-PWND are my favorite personal photoshops of all time.
Zanna,
That would be kind of fun; I would be more in favor of bi-weekly- we wouldn’t want it to become trite too quickly.
5 April 2006, on 1:52 pm
Marcus, that womb is awesome!! It would go very nicely with this Crocheted Vulva (I’ll leave the photoshop job on that one to you if you are interested…)!
5 April 2006, on 2:26 pm
Eve said: “Nice way to generate comments, star! And kudos for another well-written piece. We femi-whining femi-Nazis are really kicking ass, aren’t we?”
Gosh, us femi-guys around mere must be completely femi-vaginized by now from all of the femi-whining you femi-females you!
5 April 2006, on 2:32 pm
KR,
FEMITASTIC!
5 April 2006, on 2:36 pm
Maybe I should change the old moniker to Femi-King!
5 April 2006, on 3:10 pm
i got a gold star? sweet! i guess the question to ask is how can something that doesnt exist to you be the inspiration for your beliefs? i mean if He doesnt exist, then how can you not believe in Him, maybe i could have worded it better but help me out with that (and i’m not looking for a debate, i honestly want to know how that works, you obviously believe in something)
and genocide in the name of a recliner was classic, marcus.
and to lya kahlo, of course i read the responses, some of them actually might be something intelligent. have a good day guys
go tribe
5 April 2006, on 3:31 pm
james: i guess the question to ask is how can something that doesnt exist to you be the inspiration for your beliefs?
In *my* case, it’s not.
j: i mean if He doesnt exist, then how can you not believe in Him, maybe i could have worded it better but help me out with that
I’d love too, but I’m honestly not getting what you’re trying to say.
5 April 2006, on 3:43 pm
James,
I don’t have beliefs- they require faith. I’m more partial to knowledge, so I guess my own intelligence and curiousity will have to inspire me.
5 April 2006, on 3:45 pm
# Zanna Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 1:36 pm e
We should have photoshop challenges for those of us that enjoy that sort of thing to entertain the rest of the group… maybe a bi-weekly or even weekly thing, like every other saturday or some such… I think that it would combine humour *and* blasphemy… and what could be better than that?
Our own blasphemous version of Fark.com’s “Photoshop this” series! Sure, I’d be game. I will leave it to someone like Marcus to start that series and give it a clever name. I like the idea of what Fark does — post a picture and challenge people to come up with variations on it.
5 April 2006, on 3:47 pm
I’ll get crackin’- expect some fun for next week.
5 April 2006, on 4:40 pm
i got ya marcus, i’m trying to be open minded so i guess that makes sense. thanks for the honesty.
and eve, that’s my bad, that’s that public school education shining bright! haha
thanks to the both of you.
and for anyone who’s been reading lya kahlo’s 3-part deal, i’d definitely like to hear more stories like that. i’m not gonna lose my faith or anything but it helps to understand where people who dont believe in God are coming from.
and i apologize for the negative comments earlier to all of you, i am a guest at this site and that was my bad.
5 April 2006, on 4:42 pm
James is one of my favorite theists yet.
5 April 2006, on 4:50 pm
james has been quite cool.
5 April 2006, on 5:27 pm
Right on James. Thanks for keeping a (mostly) open mind and not immediately condemning everyone.
5 April 2006, on 5:43 pm
james…you haven’t answered one question in my post. Why would a god send losers like you who can’t even get the story straight to deliver a life or death message? You say a man had to be MUTILATED because you are so bad so why the fuck did this gawd who had to mutilate himself/his son trust YOU with this all important message??? You xians all have different versions of this message and believe things the way YOU think is right. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE. YOU…not some IDEA of a supernatural sky daddy. If you could believe your fairy tales without trying to drag the world in on them, then there would be no need for blogs like this. IT IS XIANS AND OTHER EVANGELICALS we have a problem with…PEOPLE who want to push their superstitions into every aspect of our lives and who would kill for their invisible friend. You can’t even agree amongst yourselves! How dare you think you have the “correct” way to live!
5 April 2006, on 5:48 pm
james…I meant loser in general terms…I mean you say your gawd thinks we are such a loser that he had to create himself a son to mutilate to save you and then trusts you to pass along an all important message.
5 April 2006, on 6:01 pm
Stardust “THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE. YOU…not some IDEA of a supernatural sky daddy. If you could believe your fairy tales without trying to drag the world in on them, then there would be no need for blogs like this”
You said it gal!
5 April 2006, on 6:22 pm
I am really sick of these xians who think they have the answers to life and try to “inform” the world when in fact, I have been approached by some of the dumbest, most arrogant, most ignorant and uneducated people on the planet to ask ME about MY personal business! I don’t go door knocking and say “hey…I am an atheist and I think you should be too!” Maybe we should all go door knocking early Saturday morning and tell them how they have things all wrong!
5 April 2006, on 7:12 pm
Or even better, go door knocking on Sunday mornings to catch all the “sometimes” Christians. Of course, you’d probably also get all the Atheists too, who would just as soon toss you out onto the street for harrassing them, non-believer or not.
5 April 2006, on 7:41 pm
i apologize for the negative comments earlier to all of you, i am a guest at this site and that was my bad.
I am always suspicious of comments like this because when I was an xian we were told that we had to “kill them with kindess” and try to “sooth” the enemy and show them gawd’s love. One advantage to being an ex-christian is that we know all the little tricks and evangelizing tactics.
5 April 2006, on 7:59 pm
Hmmm - then let’s paint james with the red laser sight of reason, shall we? It will be up to him whether we fire rationality at him or not.
KR: Gosh, us femi-guys around mere must be completely femi-vaginized by now from all of the femi-whining you femi-females you!
It is a little publicized fact but one that causes extreme envy in fundie males that femi-vaginized femi-guys usually *get a lot more* *nudge-nudge wink-wink*.
5 April 2006, on 8:33 pm
stardust, i guess i have to say that christians have obviously put their (our) foot in their mouths by having to have an answer to everything. i really wish that people who have shared my beliefs before me wouldnt have built such a wall between christians and the rest of the world with the ‘holier than thou’ attitude. sometimes you guys, there is no logical, rational reason for some questions.
but to your question, the answer lies in the Scriptures (i know you dont believe in them. now i know that there are tons of translations, examples: King James, NIV, NLT among others), honestly though, i have to confess that the correct straight from the pages of the old hebrew (old testament) and greek (new testament) translation is the king james translation. this was the most used in worship and if there is any doubt of whether or not the translations are accurate, we have the discovery of the dead sea scrolls to tell us that the KJ version is over 98% dead on.
now why God would send losers (haha) like me, i have no idea. why He hasnt pulled the plug on the whole mission confuses the crap out of me as well.
but it starts to make sense when we come to Jesus, who we cant deny is a historical figure (thomas paine, someone who hated christianity acknowledges His existence and moral example but denies His divinity). if Jesus is indeed God personified (this is where jehovah’s witnesses/mormons differ, this is another discussion altogether)then His love for us by dying on the cross tells us our worth to him and what He thinks of us and that His great commission in matthew 28 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” says that He expects us to take that message out to the world.
unfortunately though, this example of God’s love (the crucifixion) has been overshadowed by dousche bags like pat robertson, atrocities like the crusades, the inqusitions and the salem witch trials.
i cant deny that there has been a hole dug, but we (christians) are the ones who have dug it and we are the ones who have to dig ourselves out of it.
your “THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE. YOU” comment isnt the first, ghandi said something like that, i think he said ‘i’d be a christian if it wasnt for christians’ or something like that.
look, the bottom line is that Jesus has a black eye in a fight He didnt start. the last thing He came to do was start a new religion, in fact He regularly clowned the religious leaders of His day, calling them sons of hell.
i wish i could apologize for the past of my faith, but i cant. i just thank you guys for listening for this lengthy answer that may or may not have answered the question. i guess the answer is He loves us enough to do the right thing but abuse of power (religion) is something we know far too well (aka: bush admin.)
5 April 2006, on 8:50 pm
J: “sometimes you guys, there is no logical, rational reason for some questions.”
Lol, WTF! Are you suggesting that some questions that are asked have no logical bases or that some questions have illogical answers?
5 April 2006, on 8:53 pm
james, thanks for taking the time to reply with an honest answer.
I must say though, that the violence that this religion is based on, and the violence in the scriptures I still find repulsive. Even the character Jesus is not a peaceful dude as most xians want to believe. He is even quoted as saying he did not come to bring peace, but war.
The whole xian religion starts out with violence…a war in heaven. IN the bible, this gawd was violent from the very beginning…fighting with his angels…(where did these freakin angels come from and why did gawd let satan out of the pit once he threw him in there if he is so powerful?) It seems that an loving god would set things up differently for his little creations. Instead he is no better than Zeus, Cronus and all the other gods of mythology. Because CHRISTIANITY IS MYTHOLOGY. Eventually it will go by the wayside of the Egyptian gods…but we won’t be around to know it.
I am with whoever said that IF there is a hell (which I don’t believe there is) I would rather go there than worship some bastard that has been like a supernatural Mussolini. I would rather be in hell with some really cool people than up in a heaven with an abusive sky daddy and Jerry Falwell…Jared Moore…Paul Manata…heaven is going to be one big asshole convention. (But we know there is no heaven…I am making scenerios…just for the record)
5 April 2006, on 8:54 pm
haha my bad, typo. i meant to say that sometimes there are no logical answers to some questions due to our human limitations. think about it, how did we get here? everything we have is either a guess or based on faith. we know the universe had a beginning, but what was the cause, we dont know. i say God, you guys say otherwise. that help?
5 April 2006, on 9:01 pm
think about it, how did we get here?
james - If atheists don’t know something, we say “I dunno” and maybe start doing some research to find EVIDENCE. But superstitious folks (I will say superstitious since you say you are not religious)…superstitious folks just make up answers for what they don’t know. What they don’t know or understand, they attribute to gawd.
Science has much better answers as to how humans came to be on earth…or at least believable theories…but to just say we popped out of a gawd’s magic hat is absurd. Xians fill in the gaps with gawd beliefs.
5 April 2006, on 9:09 pm
remember in back to the future 2 when marty bought that book that would give him all the scores of all the sports of the past 30 years? well with the bible, we have that (at least i believe that). we know that satan had a beginning alongside w/God (ezekiel 28), but thru free will (which He gives to all of His creations (angels and humans i mean) satan coveted the throne and there was war in heaven, but not started by God. satan got his ass tossed out alongside with the rebels who traded sides w/him. (wow now that i think about that it does seem far fetched! haha jk)
i heard it explained this way before, it doesnt matter what you believe about the myths of the creation story (adam and eve), noah’s ark, the sun standing still in Joshua 10 and etc, what matters is whether or not you believe Jesus when He says He has the way to eternal life. He did exist, i guess it comes down to whether or not you believe Him. what JC did say was He came not to bring peace, but a sword (division). Jesus wants to fight the crazy things we have in this world. He came to fight sin, and believe me, sin puts up a good fight back. but if we are to believe the book of revelation, then sin ultimately loses and so does death.
does that help at all? this is an explanation, but i also know that there arent always answers to some questions so i am sorry if that left you disappointed
5 April 2006, on 9:11 pm
J: “i meant to say that sometimes there are no logical answers to some questions due to our human limitations.”
You mean, >your
5 April 2006, on 9:13 pm
what happened my comments did not come up fully?
5 April 2006, on 9:14 pm
haha, thanks roya. sticks and stones buddy, you have to remember i’m a cleveland sports fan, i’ve been taking abuse all my life in the city that God forgot
5 April 2006, on 9:19 pm
J: “i meant to say that sometimes there are no logical answers to some questions due to our human limitations.”
You mean, >your
5 April 2006, on 9:21 pm
what the hell?
5 April 2006, on 9:22 pm
james: honestly though, i have to confess that the correct straight from the pages of the old hebrew (old testament) and greek (new testament) translation is the king james translation.
Actually, not; the KJV was a *revision* commissioned by King James of the previous Bishops’ Bible, which was the Church of England’s *revision* of the Geneva Bible, which was a Protestant translation into English of “scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament and Hebrew scriptures that comprise the Christian Old Testament” (wikipedia) mostly using the words (80 - 90 %) of a still more previous translation by William Tyndale, whom *most* histories claim translated from the Vulgate and Martin Luther, but some say directly from the original Greek and Hebrew sources (and this is just the superficial information given on wikipedia.com; there is tons more research out there) - you get the picture. Besides, today’s KJV isn’t even the original 1611 publication.
j: we have the discovery of the dead sea scrolls to tell us that the KJ version is over 98% dead on.
Since the KJV is itself *not* a direct translation of the original texts, this is an inaccurate statement, but I’ve found the 98 % reference (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible). Is this the only support for your statement, or have you consulted most of the leading experts in the field, including those who disagree with Geisler and Nix? That’s the key to *real* scholarship: studying even those who oppose your view and seeing what the evidence is on their side as well.
As for your remarks about Jesus, please remember that his existence as an actual historical figure continues to be hotly debated. Taking any side of the fence in that debate means you’re ignoring the evidence the other side has at its fingertips. Even if you overlook the question of his existence as immaterial to your belief, you’re still ignoring the points that star and others have brought up in this thread about the whole inconsistency of why he has to exist at all the way most of xianity portrays him. Did you read what # 18 Randy posted at 10:34 this morning?
5 April 2006, on 9:32 pm
hey eve, thanks.
the KJV is the translation from the copies of the copies of the original documents (i.e.: the Gospels, Paul’s epistles, etc) and these copies are from the Antiochian school, which were the most copied and the most trusted. the versions like the catholic’s NAB and the NIV, NLT, etc, all have stuff from the antiochian copies, but archeologists found copies that were set aside and these were set aside for good reason. these are the alexandrian school copies, not as trusted, not as reliable but what would you do if you found documents that matched (to an extent) the Bible? you’d tell the world that you found a translation of the Bible! the KJV, i guess i should say (thanks for correcting me) is the most accurate from the antiochian copies (in english). but i am happy to see someone who does their homework.
as far as Jesus’ existence, i’m sure you know of all of the secular sources quoted by theologians, including josephus (the one w/out the interpolations). it’s hard to ignore. but i admire your scholarship on the matter, and you’re absolutely correct, one must always seek out the refutations to their theories
5 April 2006, on 9:39 pm
hey guys, sorry to cut this short, i have to get a lesson plan together. but feel free to get my email from the web-master if you honestly want to carry on this conversation, it’s been a blast and thanks for your guys’ honesty. i hope i wasnt a typical religious zealot, thanks for listening.
go tribe
6 April 2006, on 12:53 am
Not Josephus again. What’s the difference between the “one” without the interpolations and the “one” with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus[...]
[...] As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century. It is likely that these all derive from a single exemplar written in uncial, as is the case with most other ancient Greek texts transmitted to the present in medieval copies, and have come down through the hands of the church.
[...] Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Once again, the source is not secular, and it is disingenuous to say it is. The source is Christian — passed through Christian hands for centuries. And that’s some pretty scant “history” to hang the belief of his existence on.
6 April 2006, on 12:56 am
# roya Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 9:19 pm e
J: “i meant to say that sometimes there are no logical answers to some questions due to our human limitations.”
You mean, your
roya: I saw something that looked like a closing bracket in there that may have caused your message to be cut off. Brackets are bad, since they are used in HTML. Just a hunch.
6 April 2006, on 1:19 am
“for someone that doesnt believe in God you seem pretty pissed at Him
:)”
James, I personally am not pissed at Kali, Kuan Yin, Yahweh, Athena, and rest of your deities (oh, pardon me, I forget you’re atheistic toward all of them except one). But I sure am pissed at people who make misleading statements such as:
“truth is most of the stuff you do daily you do by faith, even more so, by blind faith! take the chair you’re sitting in, i’m sure you sat down without even thinking about it collapsing, you had faith (blind) to assume that the good people that built it, built it to sustain a person of your stature, of course that is only one example but if we all thought about everything we did that might make us look a little paranoid.”
How many chairs have you sat on in your lifetime? How many of them have collapsed while sitting on them? Mindlessly pulling up a chair and sitting on it without bothering to think whether it will or will not buckle under your weight isn’t about faith. It’s about experience with chairs. It’s about the frequency of sitting on chairs without incident against the frequency of bad experiences with them. Turn the situation around: Suppose 99% of all chairs you’ve ever sat on have collapsed in one way or another. Are you going to be on guard the next time you sit on a chair or not? Will you even sit on one ever again?
6 April 2006, on 3:31 am
Edwardson Says:
April 6th, 2006 at 1:19 am e
“for someone that doesnt believe in God you seem pretty pissed at Him
:)”
James, I personally am not pissed at Kali, Kuan Yin, Yahweh, Athena, and rest of your deities (oh, pardon me, I forget you’re atheistic toward all of them except one).
Nice…
Conversation with theist:
Are you an atheist?
No.
So you worship Allah?
No.
So you worship Zeus?
No.
So your worship Vishnu?
No.
So you worship Quetzalcoatl?
No.
So you’re an atheist?
…
Um…
Check out this awesome site:
http://www.godchecker.com/
6 April 2006, on 4:57 am
I recently wrote an article where I discuss Ten Christian Lunacies.
6 April 2006, on 7:56 am
haha, you guys are silly. you know it never ceases to amaze me that as a christian i will bring a source (by the way there are other secular sources including the talmud that affirm jesus’ existence)and use it for my argument, then someone like sean will bring something he found online and you sll take it as gospel truth. i cant deny that christians do the same thing. (obviously sean and i are guilty examples here) i think we need to realize that the truth is out there, possibly somewhere in between. the truth is, josephus did write about jesus’ existence. the truth is josephus was a pharisee, traitor to the jewish people but he was also a historian. are we to take the rest of his writings about history and accept those and reject the one thing we dont like just because it contradicts our beliefs? no offense sean, you did your homework, and as i’ve been saying all night, i respect the ‘atheist’ who does their homework, but sometimes (not you)
‘aheists’ come across more transparent than usual. but…christians can be the same way to be fair. i think it really is time for a new period of scholarship, a time where we drop our weapons and actually search instead of using biased resources. agree?
6 April 2006, on 8:35 am
“ha ha you guys are silly”
This coming from the guy who thinks there’s an invisible sky pixie who answers prayers.
“you know it never ceases to amaze me that as a christian i will bring a source (by the way there are other secular sources including the talmud that affirm jesus’ existence)”
No, there’s not.
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
http://www.thegodmovie.com/clips.php
“then someone like sean will bring something he found online and you sll take it as gospel truth.”
Silly boy. We don’t take anything as “gospel” truth. That’s an oxymoron. What you’re failing to grasp here is that these links contain sources. Sources far more reliable than the fallible Bible.
“the truth is, josephus did write about jesus’ existence. the truth is josephus was a pharisee, traitor to the jewish people but he was also a historian. are we to take the rest of his writings about history and accept those and reject the one thing we dont like just because it contradicts our beliefs?”
See the links above.
” no offense sean, you did your homework, and as i’ve been saying all night, i respect the ‘atheist’ who does their homework, but sometimes (not you) ‘aheists’ come across more transparent than usual.”
No offense Sean, but atheists are “transparent”. Notice that he fails to mention a specific example. Or explain what exactly he means by transparent.
“i think it really is time for a new period of scholarship, a time where we drop our weapons and actually search instead of using biased resources. agree? ”
We already have done. It’s time for your people to catch up.
6 April 2006, on 9:30 am
oh wow, sweet links! thats it! i guess that proves it all, i am now officially an atheist…no, not really. obviously you didnt read a single thing i wrote.
lya, transparent can be defined as being able to see through, next time i promise not to use big words.
6 April 2006, on 9:43 am
“oh wow, sweet links! thats it! i guess that proves it all, i am now officially an atheist…no, not really. obviously you didnt read a single thing i wrote.”
Well, Mr. Perceptive, if you had read mine you’d know I explained the usage of links.
“lya, transparent can be defined as being able to see through, next time i promise not to use big words.”
Goodness you are moron. I didn’t ask you for a definition of transparent, asshat, I asked you to explain your using it.
Try reading before responding; it will make you look less clueless.
6 April 2006, on 9:54 am
clueless, thats the movie w/alicia silverstone, right? ok i admit it, i checked out your links, i have to in order to be considered open minded, right? mr benson (1st link) seems to really be living by faith with his hopes and prayers of “the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus” the Word says He was beaten and scarred or did you miss that part? and “the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt”. seriously in doubt?? are you kidding me? this is his logical conclusion? i seriously doubt that mr benson has a clue other than to toss up hail marys (that’s a catholic thing i’ve heard, not just a football thing
) and hope that someone reads it and says, ‘look! the christians are wrong!’ well it worked, you saw it and fell for it. i guess i have to ask, have you actually done any reading for yourself? please, i’m sure you’ve heard all the christian apologetics before, i’ve heard all the atheist apologetics as well, agendas show (which is what i meant by transparent, btw transparent=see through, just in case you missed it before), you have one, i have one. the question is can you and i have an intellectual conversation w/out you calling me a moron and me not being cocky? it doesnt appear so. psych 101 teaches us that hostility feeds hostility. if you want to have an adult conversation let me know,you know i’m game. i’ll be back from work at around 10 tonight, hopefully we can talk then
6 April 2006, on 10:17 am
” i have to in order to be considered open minded, right?”
Don’t worry about that. I doubt anyone here does consider you open minded.
“mr benson (1st link) seems to really be living by faith with his hopes and prayers of “the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus” the Word says He was beaten and scarred or did you miss that part?”
Did you miss the part where we said the bible is not a historical document? Did you miss the part where we said it’s not a reliable source? Did you miss the part where we said it’s not admissible evidence? Did you miss the parts where the bible contradicts itself?
” and “the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt”. seriously in doubt?? are you kidding me? this is his logical conclusion?”
Prove him wrong. You’re pointless statements thus far are you opinion. Which, is not remotely reliable fact.
“i seriously doubt that mr benson has a clue other than to toss up hail marys (that’s a catholic thing i’ve heard, not just a football thing ) and hope that someone reads it and says, ‘look! the christians are wrong!’ well it worked, you saw it and fell for it.”
We get it, james. You’re a brainwashed moron. You really don’t need to prove it any further.
” i guess i have to ask, have you actually done any reading for yourself?”
READ THE DECONVERSION POST YOU JUST FUCKING RESPONDED TO.
“please, i’m sure you’ve heard all the christian apologetics before, i’ve heard all the atheist apologetics as well, agendas show (which is what i meant by transparent, btw transparent=see through, just in case you missed it before), you have one, i have one.”
READ THE DECONVERSION POST YOU JUST FUCKING RESPONDED TO.
“the question is can you and i have an intellectual conversation w/out you calling me a moron and me not being cocky?”
Well, stop being a cocky moron, and we’ll see.
“if you want to have an adult conversation let me know,you know i’m game.”
This coming from the guy who started the insults. Actually, you’re not game, you’re a liar.
” i’ll be back from work at around 10 tonight, hopefully we can talk then ”
Talk about what? Your further proving you’re an idiot?
6 April 2006, on 12:15 pm
Eve said:
“KR: Gosh, us femi-guys around mere must be completely femi-vaginized by now from all of the femi-whining you femi-females you!
It is a little publicized fact but one that causes extreme envy in fundie males that femi-vaginized femi-guys usually *get a lot more* *nudge-nudge wink-wink*.”
No wonder they’re so uptight and why we’re usually in such good moods.
6 April 2006, on 3:53 pm
KR, too bad Wally doesn’t realize what “vaginizing” a man *really* means!
Would he rather be “penised,” I wonder?
6 April 2006, on 5:33 pm
Robert,
I like the cartoon on your post you linked to that shows gawd in his throne asking;
“why would I need to sacrifice Myself to Myself to allow ME to change a rule?”
6 April 2006, on 7:07 pm
james: hey eve, thanks.
You’re welcome.
the KJV is the translation from the copies of the copies of the original documents (i.e.: the Gospels, Paul’s epistles, etc) and these copies are from the Antiochian school, which were the most copied and the most trusted. the versions like the catholic’s NAB and the NIV, NLT, etc, all have stuff from the antiochian copies, but archeologists found copies that were set aside and these were set aside for good reason. these are the alexandrian school copies, not as trusted, not as reliable but what would you do if you found documents that matched (to an extent) the Bible? you’d tell the world that you found a translation of the Bible! the KJV, i guess i should say (thanks for correcting me) is the most accurate from the antiochian copies (in english). but i am happy to see someone who does their homework.
I’m no biblical scholar, but even the tiny bit of research I just did on this topic shouts at me that this is vastly over-simplifying not only the process of how the KJV came to be, but the descriptions of the various sources used in that centuries-long process. Also, the debate that rages on about whether the KJV is the right bible or some other version is smacks of the old “No True Scotsman” fallacy once again; each side claims that *their* bible is the *correct* one, and the other side will go to hell because they don’t agree with them. Personally, since I look at the bible mostly from the literary and mythological point of view, I find *all* approaches and interpretations to it and its *satellite* manuscripts equally valid.
as far as Jesus’ existence, i’m sure you know of all of the secular sources quoted by theologians, including josephus (the one w/out the interpolations). it’s hard to ignore. but i admire your scholarship on the matter, and you’re absolutely correct, one must always seek out the refutations to their theories
Thank you, but I must admit that I’m not a scholar, merely a fascinated amateur, and at least we agree on the necessity of looking at all sides of any scholarly question. My approach to the question of Jesus’ actual existence is mostly historical, archaeological, and anthropological, so I find all scientific research and study of the subject equally valid; however, for the believer, obviously this approach is immaterial, since he/she doesn’t need evidence to have faith.
6 April 2006, on 7:50 pm
“the question is can you and i have an intellectual conversation w/out you calling me a moron and me not being cocky?”
Well, stop being a cocky moron, and we’ll see.
Thanks for the laugh, Lya! I needed it.
6 April 2006, on 8:34 pm
i think lya wants me, i cant quite put my finger on it but i get that feeling, you guys out there know what i’m talking about? it must be the mojo. alright guys, i’ll talk to you monday, i’m headed to cleveland
go tribe
6 April 2006, on 8:40 pm
james: i think lya wants me
Well, now, if that isn’t a classic case of projection, I don’t know what is!
http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Projection
6 April 2006, on 8:47 pm
So that’s the real reason James keeps coming back like a dog to his own vomit.
6 April 2006, on 9:26 pm
So that’s the real reason James keeps coming back like a dog to his own vomit.
LOL!!
7 April 2006, on 6:24 am
*lol* He’s been completely defeated in debate; what did you expect him to do- admit it? No no. He’s an xian. When defeated he’s going to make up something sick stupid and infantile, hoping to get an angry reaction.
But, like I said on the other thread: thanks for the offer “James” but, I like men.
7 April 2006, on 7:08 am
james said:
(by the way there are other secular sources including the talmud that affirm jesus’ existence)
okay, anyone who thinks the Talmud is a secular source needs to go away now.
and james, thank you for your brilliant refutation of the idea of linking to sources (sources that themselves also cite sources) to verify arguments. we ignorant elitists call this scholarly inquiry. i would link you to books on my bookshelf but i am too stupid to figure out how to write one of those kinds of hyperlinks.
in the meantime, we’ll try to stop stooping to such levels and stick to citing ancient rabbinic discussions as secular, spouting oxymorons, making circular arguments, building and burning down strawmen — oh, and sticking our fingers in our ears and going LA LA LA LA LA!
8 April 2006, on 6:31 pm
The thing that was so bad was that Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It wasn’t an apple, it was knowledge that God didn’t want humanity to have. And Eve got in the most trouble because, well, God hates women. So, it’s especially bad when women have knowledge.
8 April 2006, on 11:23 pm
I stumbled on this site accidentally while doing a Google search for something totally unrelated, and was so fascinated that I had to read through the whole thing. So I hope that you don’t mind an “ask the athiest” question. This is something I have always wondered, and never had the opportunity to ask, as I’ve never met a real athiest (or at least one that would admit to it)
The thread starter says,
“GOOD people are brainwashed into believing they are BAD and that idea is simply NOT TRUE.”
And Stardust wrote several days ago:
“my daughter wasn’t saying the confessional prayer once when she was just young girl and shen my husband asked her why she wasn’t saying it she said “because it says I am bad and I am not bad.” This was the catapult that made me leave and not go back because she verbalized everything that I had been thinking while trying to go through the motions for tradition’s sake.”
So, how does one define “good” and “bad” if all of her beliefs come from empirical data? It seems to me that everyone thinks that her own desires / wishes are good. I’m sure that Hitler thought that ordering the deaths of 6 million Jews was a good thing to do. On what basis can you say that is wrong? Or to make it more personal, how do you teach your “good” daughter what to do and what not to do? Why not just let her to do whatever she naturally wants? On what basis do you judge what behavior is ok and not ok? (and there is a LOT of judging going on here for sure)
I’m sure my question will probably be ridiculed, but I honestly have wondered this. Thanks.
9 April 2006, on 1:31 am
Raen,
Why can’t you keep your religion to yourself? That’s the big problem we have. You talk about judging??? WTF do you think xians do ALL THE TIME. What do you think you are doing by merely being on an atheist blog? To tell us how “superior” you are.
My daughter is a GROWN WOMAN who is loving and kind and very giving. My sons are also. They have good morals, strong character and BRAINS. I am very proud of them. They are fine people…and they do not need a superstitious belief as a crutch to get through life. They can handle anything that comes their way because they are strong.
I am 51 years old. I raised a family. My family is good. I have seen xian families that are big messes…liars, gossips, cheaters, adulterers…so don’t give me that self-righteous xian bullcrap!
Sounds like YOU have a lot of growing up to do…and a lot of deprogramming to go through.
Now let me ask you a CHRISTIAN QUESTION….If you were told you only had 2 hours until meeting your great sky daddy you would be a basket case…begging for MORTALS to save you. You would not want to go…you would want to LIVE. I have not seen an xian yet who was anxious to meet this deity they proclaim who is so loving and this heaven that is so blissful. That is because you don’t really believe…you are just too afraid to THINK ON YOUR OWN.
9 April 2006, on 7:55 am
Raen: “So, how does one define “good” and “bad” if all of her beliefs come from empirical data?”
This is the simplest answer I could come up with.
Good acts: doing good to others, eg. charity.
Bad acts: doing harm to others, eg. killing.
Neutral ones: neither good nor bad, eg. what you wear.
“It seems to me that everyone thinks that her own desires / wishes are good.”
Not so. And I don’t remember anyone here say that.
But desires in themselves can not be bad. It is only in acting upon those desires that result in harm to others, that one can do wrong. Even thinking of murder and rape are not bad, as they do not harm others.(others may disagree with me however)
Now, sex before marriage, gay sex or marriage and the like, do not harm others, so they cannot be seen as harmful and therefore not bad.
“I’m sure that Hitler thought that ordering the deaths of 6 million Jews was a good thing to do. On what basis can you say that is wrong?”
Death of 6 million or even one person is act of inflicting harm to others, therefore it’s wrong/bad/immoral. However, he used xianity to justify his actions. So much for religion, hey?
That’s my moral code.
The biggest problem that I see religion is creation, is that you need to be told what is good and bad from someone that does not even live amoung us. Morality did not exist before humans. It is a man-made instrument designed in order to allow for co-existance of human beings in communities.
If god and religion are taken aside, there are no moral wrong doings in acts that do not involve harming others. Putting it simply, all the personal choises, such as, wearing short skirts, or being gay, can not be seen in anyway as wrong, but only as personal and private life matter, that is no ones bussiness. What religion does is to decide for you on what you can do or not, even on the most personal matters imaginable, when it does not involve anyone else.
Religion is and has always been against liberty.
9 April 2006, on 9:36 am
Morality did not exist before humans. It is a man-made instrument designed in order to allow for co-existance of human beings in communities.
Religion is and has always been against liberty.
Roya, this is very well said. In the absense of religion, society would need some set of guidelines for us all to co-exist peacefully.
Religion is a contradiction to our moral codes. Xianity is founded on violence (argument between gawd and satan, gawd throws him into a pit and then lets him out to wreak havoc, gawd wreaks havoc and kills (he especially likes to kill firstborn babies instead of going after who he has a beef with — like Pharoahs), Jesus comes and preaches that he didn’t come to bring peace, but war (Matthew 5:17 for those who want sources), this gawd allows his “son” to be mutilated and ultimately put to death in a most violent way, and in the end as written in the book of Revelation there will be a great war between heaven and earth…I could provide many more violent examples. It is a religion based on violence and this gawd kills, mutilates, tortures, teases, tests, wants animal sacrifices, wants people to sacrifice their children, he wants people to disown their families for him. Every moral code we hold dear in our society is violated by this gawd.
9 April 2006, on 9:54 am
So, how does one define “good” and “bad” if all of her beliefs come from empirical data? It seems to me that everyone thinks that her own desires / wishes are good. I’m sure that Hitler thought that ordering the deaths of 6 million Jews was a good thing to do. On what basis can you say that is wrong? [...] On what basis do you judge what behavior is ok and not ok?
Well, (aside from the obvious fallacious inference from thinking something is the case to something actually being the case) I guess we’ve all seen this morality-value-move several times — and I guess it’s worth repeating (since no xian seems to be reading this important-thinking part of the issue):
No xian that I have read on this blog has ever had any skepticism regarding the link between god commanding something and that something being moral — but the skepticism there is just as obvious (and available).
“Why is charity good?” “Well, because God (Jesus, Yahweh, Vishnu, whatever) commands it.” “But how can simply ‘commanding it’ make it moral?” “Well, because, uh, IT JUST IS.” (Ummm, good answer.)
My point in bringing all this up isn’t to provide a complete answer to the problem of value and morality. Indeed, values and morality can be incredibly complicated, and that should be made clear to everyone.
But before xians and other believers start with the whole but-what-do-you-as-atheists-have-to-go-on? line, a couple of responses should be given straight off: (1) READ AN INTRO TO ETHICS TEXT (since it’ll have all the popular stuff about Aristotle, Mill, Kant, Hume, and more contemporary thinkers concerning this problem — yes, others have been doing work on this for some time now), and (2) you, as xians with god’s commands, are attacking and undermining your own view of morality given this type of skepticism, so watch your scope before you shoot off your mouth.
9 April 2006, on 12:44 pm
Thanks Roya for actually attempting to answer my question. I will ask a little deeper, since the answer was just the standard ethics textbook hypothetical imperative answer that doing “good”(however you want to define it) to others is good, doing harm is bad. If it doesn’t hurt anyone its not wrong.
However, my interest is in the phenomenology of religion (or lack thereof in your case) and what I am looking for is an answer to how you approach the basic human experience in real life. This is something that I haven’t found in reading, and the Kantian categorical imperative doesn’t approach. I’m not trying to argue with your philosophy, but I merely want to understand the psychology of it.
I believe that most people would say that humanity is distinguished from other life by our capacity for emotion and reason. We seem to have an innate desire for morals, justice, meaning and beauty. Perhaps this goes beyond socialization — even people in the middle of the jungle apart from other humans form social order, morals, orderliness. I know that within myself I want my life to have meaning, and a consciousness of right and wrong apart from just self-preservation.
My question is where do you believe that this comes from. How do you decide emotional ethics? What makes it wrong to lie to someone who trusts you, or to cheat on your spouse, or to say something hateful to someone — especially when you receive a benefit yourself. These don’t “hurt” anyone because they only affect ones emotions, which are just a bunch of chemicals. Do you experience the same “conscience” effect that most people experience, and if so how is this explained?
I will ignore all of the (expected) ridicule and arrogant assumptions about what I believe and don’t believe, because I’m really hoping that someone will want to honestly answer this question. Thanks.
9 April 2006, on 1:54 pm
My question is where do you believe that this comes from.
This question was answered and you need to read carefully in order to get all of what someone writes. Roya has explained this very well.
Roya writes :It is a man-made instrument designed in order to allow for co-existance of human beings in communities.
I wrote a whole post answering your questions a href=”http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/04/09/xianity-is-a-contradiction-to-our-moral-codes/”>HERE
9 April 2006, on 1:56 pm
Raen,
Sorry about the first link, I left out a bracket.
I wrote a whole post answering your questions HERE
9 April 2006, on 2:01 pm
Raen — What I wrote in my post and in comment #89 above does answer your question…
In the absense of religion, society would still need some set of guidelines for us all to co-exist peacefully. Governments and the people of a society construct laws using COMMON SENSE and take into consideration what will be best for the peaceful function of that particular society which will ensure the health, happiness and liberty overall for each individual as well as the society as a whole.
Most religions are a contradiction to our society’s moral codes.
Xianity is a religion based on violence and often used to justify violence. This god was violent BEFORE humans were supposedly created. This god of Xian mythology kills, mutilates, destroys, tortures, teases, tests, wants animal sacrifices, wants people to sacrifice their children, wants people to disown their families for him. Every moral code we hold dear in our society is violated by this god.
9 April 2006, on 2:47 pm
Stardust, I read your post. I understand that you think that societies need a system of morality to function at a societal level. Perhaps you missed the spirit of my question, which was more personal, here.
How do you decide emotional ethics? What makes it wrong to lie to someone who trusts you, or to cheat on your spouse, or to say something hateful to someone — especially when you receive a benefit yourself. These don’t “hurt” anyone because they only affect ones emotions, which are just a bunch of chemicals. Do you experience the same “conscience” effect that most people experience, and if so how is this explained?
You said:
Governments and the people of a society construct laws using COMMON SENSE and take into consideration what will be best for the peaceful function of that particular society which will ensure the health, happiness and liberty overall for each individual as well as the society as a whole.
What is COMMON SENSE to you, and why are health, happiness and liberty inherently of value? To me, each of these is a very personal and subjective value judgement, and what may promote one’s perceived happiness may be to another’s perceived detriment. Again, if you believe that morality is a “man-made instrument designed in order to allow for co-existance of human beings in communities” how do you decide “every moral code we hold dear in our society”. It seems obvious that some people hold some moral codes dear and other people hold others dear. Just look at any religious or political discussion. This for me is the sticky wicket.
BTW, I don’t really care about what religions you hate, or why you hate them. You have a right to freedom of your conscience (whether you believe in a conscience or not), and I’m not interested in changing your beliefs. I am just interested in the PHENOMENOLOGY of your athiestic experience.
9 April 2006, on 3:37 pm
raen and any other christian wackadoo lurking about,
Stop asking about morals and ethics until you get some yourselves. Your professed “morals” are phony crap based upon fantasies of getting some “afterlife” reward and avoiding “afterlife” punishment. Since none of this is real, neither are your professed “morals”. Also christianity for all of its professed righteousness is one of the most evil vile organizations ever conceived, it’s responsible for all manner of evil, immoral and unethical crap - holy wars, conquests, inquisitions, witch trials, sexism, racism, child molestations, modern day wars, world unrest, just to name what comes to mind. Stupid christianity wouldn’t be a dominant religion if not for conquests, wars and constant proselytizing. Also christians are amongst the biggest liars and hypocrites on the planet, saying how righteous and moral they are and doing the exact opposite and then “confessing their sins”, if you were so righteous and moral then you wouldn’t need to confess in the first place. So SHUT IT !! Take your babble bible and your stupid backward-assed anti-science nonsense and shove them up your ass. Stop coming to an atheist forum to preach and proselytize, you’ll NEVER wins us over so keep you stupid brain-dead fairy tale crap to yourselves, got it dumbasses ??
9 April 2006, on 4:05 pm
EoR,
These people are something else! They do not know how to read, research for themselves or to explore other possibilities! I think they keep coming back because they have doubts and what they find here is oh, so appealing because they doubt. They are curious! Most proselytize because they think that will keep them from being zapped with a lightning bolt for looking around here!! They never will win us over because I would rather burn in hell (which I don’t believe exists) than be part of the big asshole convention in heaven!
Raen,
You have to uncloud your brain and comprehend what I am saying to you. YOUR GAWD AND RELIGION ARE AGAINST MORALS OF OUR SOCIETY.
Xianity is a religion based on violence and often used to justify violence. This god was violent BEFORE humans were supposedly created. This god of Xian mythology kills, mutilates, destroys, tortures, teases, tests, wants animal sacrifices, wants people to sacrifice their children, wants people to disown their families for him. Every moral code we hold dear in our society is violated by this god.
MORALS ARE HUMAN CONSTRUCTS TO AID IN COOPERATION AND SAFETY OF ALL PEOPLE OF THAT SOCIETY. PERSONAL MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE FROM PERSON TO PERSON.
Try reading this…if you can, and then get to therapy for deprogramming and FREE YOURSELF.
Resistance is NOT Futile
9 April 2006, on 8:09 pm
What is COMMON SENSE to you, and why are health, happiness and liberty inherently of value? To me, each of these is a very personal and subjective value judgement, and what may promote one’s perceived happiness may be to another’s perceived detriment.
“To you,” “to me.” Ugh. Really? So, my happiness is giving to charity, and another’s is raping and killing people — and we’re both on the same plane? There’s nothing else to be said for any of these actions aside and apart from our personal subjective experiences, and everyone is as right as anyone else? Please.
Notice how this line sounds rather stupid anywhere else that matters: “Well, to me, football is a game played with a wooden bat and a small white ball that gets thrown to it.” Hey, wait, that’s not football. “Well, to you, that might not be football — but, to me, that’s what football is.” Can’t someone be just wrong, no matter how strongly they feel about something? Why is that such a unfamiliar concept here? And why is feeling strongly about something worth that much? Cartesianism’s dead, dude. Grow up, and move on.
And the pressure for further reasons is also fun: “Why does liberty have value?” Well, for self-directed and happy lives (given certain assumptions), of course. “Yes, but why is that valuable?” Please. I have to give reasons and explanations indefinitely, or are they going to stop somewhere? Maybe a good answer to you here would be, “What would even count as a good reason for this?” Maybe that’s why it’s inherently valuable.
Again, if you believe that morality is a “man-made instrument designed in order to allow for co-existance of human beings in communities” how do you decide “every moral code we hold dear in our society”.
I’m not sure why the answer to these questions is all that mysterious. That is, how do we decide anything at all? How do we decide what laws to make, or what policies to hold, or what calls to make in different contexts? Sometimes it comes down to one person, sometimes it comes down to a small group, sometimes is comes down to large-scale voting — and, in every one of these situations, there are clearly reasons given (with certain assumptions), and openings for revisions every step of the way. Still mysterious?
It seems obvious that some people hold some moral codes dear and other people hold others dear. Just look at any religious or political discussion.
Yeah, and it’s obvious that some people think they have a good sense of humor, when in fact they’re boring and stuffy as shit. It’s obvious that some people think they’re really good at sports, when in fact they really suck. It’s obvious that some people think they’re going to strike it rich with the next bet, when in fact they’re going to lose their house.
Simply saying there are a variety of viewpoints doesn’t really add much to the discussion here. It’s not the fact of these various viewpoints that should surprise anyone — it’s the reasons given for those viewpoints. If you can’t give good reasons, then go home — or, be barely tolerated with specific constraints.
This for me is the sticky wicket.
I still don’t understand why it’s “sticky.” I guess I just don’t get it. It’s only “sticky” when you are holding out for reasons that will satisfy all and every aspect of your skeptical inquiries — and that ain’t gonna happen. At least not here.
And the punch line is: it doesn’t even have to happen at all to answer the basic questions about meaning, value, and morality — any more than I need to embrace complete and utter certainty to claim that I know my name, or that I know my parents are my biological parents, or that I know Fucked-Up-Xian-Dubya is president.
I’m also intrigued by your other “phenomenological” inquiries about her “atheistic experiences” — but I’ll save that for another time.
9 April 2006, on 10:56 pm
When I grow up, I wanna be like Bob.
Seriously, I’m gonna go back to school and sign up for your class, Bob!
10 April 2006, on 12:16 pm
When I grow up, I wanna be like Bob.
Thong’s in the mail, Chief…