Jump to content

Constructing reality in your head


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

The previous post was (probably-someone else might be posting right now) me. Oops.

Richard Dawkins compared trying to organize atheists to trying to herd cats. It won't work and annoys all parties involved. The point being that atheists don't really have organizations.

True. And still, the fact that one atheist has helped more needy people than any 'theist organization' has got to count for something, no? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To me, that's not the point. The point is that eternal torment in hell does not give hope, but does exactly the opposite. It plants irrational fear. I told you, my beef isn't with religion, but with particular aspects of some religions.

I know, just addressing the "religion is good because it gives people comfort" argument, which of course says nothing about its validity, so I pointed that out. Besides, I'd rather see people taking comfort in each other in hard times, rather than in fantasies. Even that by itself promotes divisiveness in a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We live, eat, sleep and breathe religion", "I have found a religion that is true". So apparently your "true" religion allows you to sneak a tape recorder into a classroom and tape record someone without their knowledge or consent ?

When they are abusing their position of authority and you need to prove it. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I seem to detect a shift in your argument.  I admit, I haven't gone back through all the posts to research this, please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember your problem being with "theists" originally and now its specifically "fundamentalists."

Theism poses one set of problems, most especially that it conditions people to accept things as true not on the basis of fact but on the basis of a wish. This leads to irresponsibility and diminishes the quality of thought.

As an element within theism, fundamentalism suffers from that and all the other problems of theism, but also adds quite a few of its own. These include an absolute and rigid adherence to a collection of ancient writings for no good reason at all; an absolute insistence on the literal truth of the Bible, including many passages that are destructive to the social fabric and individual spiritual development; and because this world view is so thoroughly at odds with human experience, it also leads to a nasty and dismissive treatment of everyone outside the fold. Many fundamentalists manage to work past these problems and treat others decently, but many do not, and as fundamentalism becomes more and more rigid, it also becomes more and more nasty and divisive.

I have a suggestion: Why don’t we discuss Paul Tillich’s book The Dynamics of Faith. Let me know if you’re interested. We could open a topic on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certainly fundamentalists that do that Paul.  They are still subject to the sin nature the Bible talks about.  However, they are in the minority.  Also, you keep claiming biblical contradictions, yet each supposed contradiction you produced has been refuted.  In fact, fundamentalists follow rules of interpretation.

As a starting point, with regard to interpretation of Scripture, the fundamentalist is concerned primarily with the biblical author's intended meaning of the passage.  The process is called "exogesis" extracting the meaning from the text, not "eisogesis" or imposing one's meaning on the text.  This flies in the face of your value system Paul so I can understand your problem with fundamentalism.  You derive truth subjectively through your own experience, therefore it would be your nature to impose your meaning on the text.  Fundamentalists approach the text more scientifically.  They have a method for interpretation (at least those that are formally trained do).

It looks something like this:

1. Text - Confirm the limits of the passage.

2. Historical Analysis - Research the historical background etc. to put the passage in its full context.

3.  Literary Analysis - Examine the literary function and placement of the passage in relation to the whole body of Scripture. (for example, is it among the poetical books?).

4.  Identify Literary Genre - This has a bearing on interpretation.  For example, historical prose is to be interpreted as such, literally.

5.  Grammatical Analysis - Analyze significant grammar issues.

6.  Lexical Analysis - Concentrate on the meanings of key words in their time period and context.

7.  Application - Establish the author's intended application of the passage.

A favorite verse among fundamentalists is:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  2 Timothy 2:15  KJV

You see Paul, true fundamentalist are interested in:

1. Study

2. Objective truth

3. Exogesis of the text (not imposing their meaning on the text)

4. Correct application of the text (the author's intended application)  This, by the way, is because the author was under the inspiration of God, not the person interpreting the passage.

Whether rock-hard fundamentalists are in the majority or the minority of all fundamentalists, they are doing a lot of damage. Polling data on things like belief in evolution, belief in hell, belief in biblical inerrancy, etc., paint a chilling picture of our culture. And then we see polling data on Saddam and WMDs, Saddam and the WTC attacks, etc., and we see that the groups who believe the political nonsense are the same groups that believe what I would call the other nonsense. Then fast forward to Kearny High in the late summer of 2006, where my son is treated to a series of nonsensical and anti-scientific ramblings by a history teacher who is later described by a noted astrophysicist as “ignorant and scientifically illiterate” (an apt description in my view), and surprise, surprise, the teacher is a rock-hard, right-wing Christian fundamentalist. So to me the connection is clear, and so is the process.

I acknowledge that you think the Bible’s contradictions are explained. I disagree. I do not find the explanations persuasive, and I’ve heard plenty of them over many years. You are starting from a presumption that the Bible is true, and I am starting from a presumption that it was probably written pretty much the way all such things were written, by primitive and superstitious men who were looking for answers they didn’t have. So if you want to call that a prejudice on my part (which I surely will say about your beliefs), then so be it, but I think the evidence overwhelmingly supports that view. If you shared my view of history, perhaps you would be less willing to overlook apparent contradictions, and then your conclusions would be different.

You seem like a very nice person, but if we are to continue having a dialogue, please do me a personal favor. Maybe the words “you see” are just your style, but they rub me the wrong way. As a personal favor to me, please refrain from using that term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Red-Letter Edition
No, and that's the point. Fundamentalism does not allow for divergent views. So while the great scientists you named may have been religious, each to his own degree and in his own way, they were products of their cultures, which made it all but impossible not to embrace Christian belief. Yet they did not allow this intense pressure to beat down their science.

Paul, perhaps it was their Judeo-Christian worldview which advanced their science.  Some fundamental beliefs in the Judeo-Christian worldview which would advance Science include:

1.  Man is Created in God's image.  Part of what this means is that just as God is intellectual, rational, creative etc., so is man.

2.  There is order in nature.  Remember Kepler's famous quote, "I am just thinking God's thoughts after him."  Men like Kepler marvelled at nature, saw order in it and sought to ascertain the principles by which God's universe was governed.

3.  There is an emphasis on study.  See for example:

"The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of the fool feeds on folly."  Proverbs 15:14

Human beings are walking masses of contradictions. Science managed to advance despite fundamentalism, not because of it. If in fact the Muslims started it, as you claim regarding the Crusades, that doesn't change the fact that the argument and the social division was over conceptions of a god that no one knows to exist.

Sorry again Paul, it seems to me that Science advanced not despite Fundamentalism, but because of it.  Those Medieval Universities were founded by monks my friend.  By the way, ancient knowledge was preserved by those same monks who valued knowledge and preserved it by the tedious work of copying it to preserve it for future generations.

Hey, as a side note, what to Harvard, Yale, Brown, Brown and Princeton all have in common?  Give up?  They were all founded by fundamentalists!  :lol:

Equally or more important, it's a new time now. Most scientists today do not accept the Bible as being literally true. They have been freed to a significant degree by modernity, which is what has the fundamentalists up in arms. Remember, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists share a common distaste for a great many things, including modernization of the world.

This paragraph makes little sense for two reasons.  First, modernity is a vacuous concept.  How is one freed by modernity?  It sounds impressive but it means nothing.  In addition, every generation considered himself to be living in a "modern" age.  Second, Islamic and Christian Fundamentalists are world's apart in what they believe.  You are correct in asserting that Islamic fundamentalists are against modernization, but not Christian fudamentalists.  Islamic fudamentalists for example are against national boundaries and desire a world divided into 6th century caliphates under islamic law.  Christian fundamentalists are all for progress that is beneficial to uplifting mankind.  That's why they donate millions of dollars to missions in under-developed regions of the world.  They want to provide such things as medical equipment, wells for clean drinking water, schools and electricity. 

With seven billion people on Earth (and counting rapidly) and all our technology, we are all over each other. If the old religions held together cultures that were separated geographically, they are now dividing cultures that are inevitably intertwined with each other. It was always an explosive situation, with conflicts popping up all over the world from time to time. Today it is an untenable situation. Many Christians believe that their duty is to convert the world. If you begin to accomplish that by forcing Christianity on people, you'll create a nightmare that will make World War II look like a picnic by comparison.

You're right Paul, committed Christians do feel its their duty to convert the world, in fact they are commanded to by Christ in Mathew 28:19-20:

"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...."

However Paul, this is not done by the sword. It is done through reasoning and evangelism and the motivations are obedience to Christ and love for lost souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/color]

(1) Paul, perhaps it was their Judeo-Christian worldview which advanced their science.  Some fundamental beliefs in the Judeo-Christian worldview which would advance Science include:

1.  Man is Created in God's image.  Part of what this means is that just as God is intellectual, rational, creative etc., so is man.

2.  There is order in nature.  Remember Kepler's famous quote, "I am just thinking God's thoughts after him."  Men like Kepler marvelled at nature, saw order in it and sought to ascertain the principles by which God's universe was governed.

3.  There is an emphasis on study.  See for example:

"The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of the fool feeds on folly."  Proverbs 15:14

(2) Sorry again Paul, it seems to me that Science advanced not despite Fundamentalism, but because of it.  Those Medieval Universities were founded by monks my friend.  By the way, ancient knowledge was preserved by those same monks who valued knowledge and preserved it by the tedious work of copying it to preserve it for future generations.

Hey, as a side note, what to Harvard, Yale, Brown, Brown and Princeton all have in common?  Give up?  They were all founded by fundamentalists! 

(3) This paragraph makes little sense for two reasons.  First, modernity is a vacuous concept.  How is one freed by modernity?  It sounds impressive but it means nothing.  In addition, every generation considered himself to be living in a "modern" age.  Second, Islamic and Christian Fundamentalists are world's apart in what they believe.  You are correct in asserting that Islamic fundamentalists are against modernization, but not Christian fudamentalists.  Islamic fudamentalists for example are against national boundaries and desire a world divided into 6th century caliphates under islamic law.  Christian fundamentalists are all for progress that is beneficial to uplifting mankind.  That's why they donate millions of dollars to missions in under-developed regions of the world.  They want to provide such things as medical equipment, wells for clean drinking water, schools and electricity. 

(4) You're right Paul, committed Christians do feel its their duty to convert the world, in fact they are commanded to by Christ in Mathew 28:19-20:

"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...."

However Paul, this is not done by the sword. It is done through reasoning and evangelism and the motivations are obedience to Christ and love for lost souls.

However Paul, this is not done by the sword.  It is done through reasoning and evangelism and the motivations are obedience to Christ and love for lost souls.

(1) You don’t need a fable to value knowledge. If you really understand it, you value it on its own terms. In every particular, the concept of God is an unnecessary mediator between a human being and values. In some cases, it is a barrier.

(2) In a culture that was 99% Christian, of course the Christians found the universities. I don’t know whether the founders of these great universities were “fundamentalists,” but I would not be surprised to learn that they were Christians. Was the distinction “fundamentalism” even in use at that time? I doubt it. That distinction has grown up around the advances in modern life, especially in the 20th century. And while I don’t know whether any of those great universities ever included Christian theology in their required curricula, they certainly don’t now.

(3) We are moving forward in science at a far more rapid pace than ever before in the world’s history. The very technology we are using to communicate is just one example of it. And while I appreciate the distinction between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, I cannot ignore the Christian fundamentalists’ rejection of evolutionary theory, which is the intellectual foundation for modern biology. Also the big bang, and no doubt others.

(4) You’re not doing it through reason. That is precisely my point. You’re doing it by blindly accepting things that are obviously not true, framing your arguments around what you wish to believe, and ignoring whatever doesn’t fit.

You’ll notice that I’ve responded to all your points. I recently opened a topic called “What the extremist-fundamentalists ignore.” Will you respond specifically to the points and questions raised there? You haven’t yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Red-Letter Edition
You seem like a very nice person, but if we are to continue having a dialogue, please do me a personal favor. Maybe the words “you see” are just your style, but they rub me the wrong way. As a personal favor to me, please refrain from using that term.

Fair enough Paul, I'll do my best. I feel the same about such phrases as "read, reflect, think."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Red-Letter Edition
(1) You don’t need a fable to value knowledge. If you really understand it, you value it on its own terms. In every particular, the concept of God is an unnecessary mediator between a human being and values. In some cases, it is a barrier.

(2) In a culture that was 99% Christian, of course the Christians found the universities. I don’t know whether the founders of these great universities were “fundamentalists,” but I would not be surprised to learn that they were Christians. Was the distinction “fundamentalism” even in use at that time? I doubt it. That distinction has grown up around the advances in modern life, especially in the 20th century. And while I don’t know whether any of those great universities ever included Christian theology in their required curricula, they certainly don’t now. 

(3) We are moving forward in science at a far more rapid pace than ever before in the world’s history. The very technology we are using to communicate is just one example of it. And while I appreciate the distinction between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, I cannot ignore the Christian fundamentalists’ rejection of evolutionary theory, which is the intellectual foundation for modern biology. Also the big bang, and no doubt others.

(4) You’re not doing it through reason. That is precisely my point. You’re doing it by blindly accepting things that are obviously not true, framing your arguments around what you wish to believe, and ignoring whatever doesn’t fit.

You’ll notice that I’ve responded to all your points. I recently opened a topic called “What the extremist-fundamentalists ignore.” Will you respond specifically to the points and questions raised there? You haven’t yet.

1. I agree that you do not need a fable to value knowledge. I was pointing out the fact that the Bible promotes seeking and accumulating knowledge and I provided one of the many verses that prove my point. As a result, medieval Christendom valued knowledge and preserved it. By the way, you keep referring to the Bible as fable. There are many genres and literary devices used in Scripture, however, fable is not one of them. Fables follow specific literary conventions. If you are going to call the Bible fable, you are obligated to provide an example from its text of that literary style.

2. The term "fundamentalist" was not used then. It is an early 20th century term which has its roots in the work by R.A. Torrey "The Fundamentals." This book listed the fudamentals of the Christian Faith which could not be compromised. The idea being, if any of them were untrue, Christianity would fall apart as a coherent system. The work defended each of the fundamental doctrines and was distributed as a help to Pastors and Christian lay leaders etc. These doctrines included such things as: the innerancy of Scripture, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, Christ's substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection

and His second coming. Since the 1920s, patriotism has become an earmark of fundamentalism as well. Fundamentalists, as literalists, take verses like Psalm 33:12a very seriously. It reads: "Blessed is the nation who's God is the Lord..." They believe if America is going to continue to experience God's blessing, America cannot turn from God. However, it seems to me that you have been using the term in a looser sense, I believe you use it to mean Chrstian believers in general.

In that sense, the sense I assume you have been using, all the founders of those Medieval Universities were fundamentalists.

3. About those great early US Universities, they were all seminaries committed to the fundamentals originally and theology was part of the curriculum as well as the Sciences. In fact, the early American pastor who is credited with preaching the sermon which started "The Great Awakening" became the president of Princeton. He was Jonathan Edwards and the sermon was entitled, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." He was not just famous for sparking revival here in America but was regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of his day by the cultural elite of Europe.

Regarding Evolution, fundamentalists don't reject evolution entirely. They reject macro evolution, the idea that species change over time to become different species. In addition, they reject spontaneous generation of life. However, fundamentalists have no problem with micro evolution or variation within a species.

Dogs for example can breed to procuce new breeds of dogs but they will always be dogs not another species.

4. I believe that your assertion that I do not operate with reason is not a fair assessment. I have given you many well-thought out systematic rebutals. For example, you implied that fundamentalists see what they want to see in the Bible, I responded with the systematic method of Hermeneutics the trained fundamentalist uses in acertaining the author's inteded meaning of the text. Another example was your assertion that fundamentalists are against Science. I gave you a list of the most influential scientists from History as well as their fundamental beliefs. Again, with regard to the biblical text, the foundation of my faith in it rests on the same evidence that satisfied Isaac Newton, fulfilled Bible prophecy. My faith is not blind, it rests on evidence.

With regard to your challenge, if I review the list and find I have not already responded, I will. However, I notice a pattern of responding only to have you retort by saying I haven't responded. :rolleyes:

Anyway, despite our lively disagreements, I want you to know I've enjoyed the challenge. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Guest DingoDave

Guest wrote:

It's interesting to me that the many organizations that have soup kitchens to provide for the needy are in fact christian ones. It might help your cause to list the atheist groups that help the community

What an incredibly ignorant and bigoted statement.

There are lots of secular charities.

For example;

-Doctors Without Borders

-the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Humane Society)

-the World Wildlife Fund

-UNESCO

-The Fred Hollows Foundation - http://www.hollows.org/

(This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people :P Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago. Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.)

-The public welfare system,

-Local hospitals

-National medical research centres

-Oxfam International

-UNICEF

-The National Cancer Council

-The Cancer research foundation

-The Red Cross

-Amnesty International

-Mama's Kitchen - http://www.mamaskitchen.org/

-United Way

-United Nations Children's Fund

-The Nature Conservancy

-MercyCorps

-America’s Second Harvest–(The Nation’s Food Bank Network feeds America's hungry through a nationwide network of member food banks and engages our country in the fight to end hunger.)

-Good Gifts - www.goodgifts.org

-The annual 'Blue Peter Appeal'

-CanTeen (the Australian organisation for children living with cancer)

-Make a Wish Foundation (Make-A-Wish Australia, is bringing joy to the lives of young people living with a life-threatening illness. )

-Barnardos Australia (caring for Australia's children)

-Scope (caring for those with disabilities)

This is just a sample of some non-religious charity groups. There are many more.

With the immense wealth that many churches possess, and the fact that their wealth is NOT TAXED, it is not surprising that religious organisations can afford to throw the poor and destitute a few scraps from their tables. Imagine how much more could be achieved if they had to pay taxes which could then be used to run far more impressive charitable programs than most of them currently run.

I was reading some statistics somewhere, which reported that the average church donates only a tiny portion of their income to charitable works.

According to some estimates, annual giving to U.S. protestant churches is $93 billion.

Holy cash cow! $93,000,000,000.00!

Unfortunately most of this money gets spent on administration costs and church building projects. How much of this money is spent on charitable works? Only a tiny fraction it seems.

So in the US, instead of building mega churches for a couple of years perhaps you could spend that money on stopping poverty, making sure that everyone in the world has enough food to eat. Perhaps you could do some real good around the world; maybe you could even try and be a bit more like Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Red-Letter Edition wrote:

However Paul, this is not done by the sword. It is done through reasoning and evangelism and the motivations are obedience to Christ and love for lost souls.

If you really did have a genuine 'love for lost souls', then you would be protesting in the strongest possible terms to your god that the doctrine of Hellfire is sick, and barbarous, and intrinsically evil, instead of 'Devil dodging', and implying that the rest of us deserve this hideous fate, because we at least had the moral fortitude to stand up and denounce it.

What do you do instead? You S**K up to this infernal monster in the hope that he'll send someone else there, and spare you your sorry arse.

Your attitude reminds me of the kind of person who would say something like;

"For your own good, please join us and become a member of the Nazi Party, so that they won't send you to some concentration camp on the Russian front. To Hell with the rest of those who don't want to join, let them suffer! Save yourself!"

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the message I'm getting from the die hard Christians on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wrote:

What an incredibly ignorant and bigoted statement.

There are lots of secular charities.

For example;

-Doctors Without Borders

-the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Humane Society)

-the World Wildlife Fund

-UNESCO

-The Fred Hollows Foundation - http://www.hollows.org/

(This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people :) Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago. Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.)

-The public welfare system,

-Local hospitals

-National medical research centres

-Oxfam International

-UNICEF

-The National Cancer Council

-The Cancer research foundation

-The Red Cross 

-Amnesty International

-Mama's Kitchen  -  http://www.mamaskitchen.org/ 

-United Way

-United Nations Children's Fund

-The Nature Conservancy

-MercyCorps

-America’s Second Harvest–(The Nation’s Food Bank Network feeds America's hungry through a nationwide network of member food banks and engages our country in the fight to end hunger.)

-Good Gifts -  www.goodgifts.org

-The annual 'Blue Peter Appeal'

-CanTeen (the Australian organisation for children living with cancer)

-Make a Wish Foundation (Make-A-Wish Australia, is bringing joy to the lives of young people living with a life-threatening illness. )

-Barnardos Australia (caring for Australia's children)

-Scope (caring for those with disabilities)

This is just a sample of some non-religious charity groups. There are many more.

With the immense wealth that many churches possess, and the fact that their wealth is NOT TAXED, it is not surprising that religious organisations can afford to throw the poor and destitute a few scraps from their tables. Imagine how much more could be achieved if they had to pay taxes which could then be used to run far more impressive charitable programs than most of them currently run.

I was reading some statistics somewhere, which reported that the average church donates only a tiny portion of their income to charitable works.

According to some estimates, annual giving to U.S. protestant churches is $93 billion.

Holy cash cow! $93,000,000,000.00!

Unfortunately most of this money gets spent on administration costs and church building projects. How much of this money is spent on charitable works? Only a tiny fraction it seems.

So in the US, instead of building mega churches for a couple of years perhaps you could spend that money on stopping poverty, making sure that everyone in the world has enough food to eat. Perhaps you could do some real good around the world; maybe you could even try and be a bit more like Jesus.

Amen, Brother. You have managed to point out one of my biggest problems with organized religion. Hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red-Letter Edition wrote:

If you really did have a genuine 'love for lost souls', then you would be protesting in the strongest possible terms to your god that the doctrine of Hellfire is sick, and barbarous, and intrinsically evil, instead of 'Devil dodging', and implying that the rest of us deserve this hideous fate, because we at least had the moral fortitude to stand up and denounce it.

What do you do instead? You S**K up to this infernal monster in the hope that he'll send someone else there, and spare you your sorry arse.

Your attitude reminds me of the kind of person who would say something like;

"For your own good, please join us and become a member of the Nazi Party, so that they won't send you to some concentration camp on the Russian front. To Hell with the rest of those who don't want to join, let them suffer! Save yourself!"

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the message I'm getting from the die hard Christians on this board.

Unfortunately, that is what religion comes down to for some people. I hasten to add, for some, not for all.

Many people, including a substantial percentage of Christians, do not believe in hell. They cannot conceive of their God allowing such drastic suffering to occur. (One wonders what they think Jesus came to save us from, but that's a discussion for another day.) Good for them.

Many other people, however, have no problem with someone suffering in hell for eternity. To me, there's something profoundly sick about that.

Still other people seem to need to have someone burning in hell, or they can't be happy. That's worse, though I wonder by how much. I wonder what hurt these people so badly that they need to have someone suffering forever to right their universe for them.

Maybe one day enough people can empty their cups, as the Buddhists say, and really look at what these theologies are saying and where they lead us. Until then, we're probably going to continue muddling through trying to use violent ideas to create peace in the world. I'm sorry, but for me "Let There Be Peace On Earth" (which I like very much) can't co-exist with a religion that promotes eternal torment as a part of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Red-Letter Edition wrote:

About respecting religion, I believe you have demonstrated by your posts that you respect secular Humanism, but your remarks about Christianity have been disparaging.

To which Strife responded:

Cry me a river--I've seen what people like you have to say about atheists.

It’s not just what Christians have to say about us atheists that alarms me strife, just take a look at what their holy book has to say about us.

As far as I’m aware, this is the only passage in the Bible that mentions atheists.

Ps.14

[1] The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,

there is none that does good.

Now isn’t that nice? Why isn’t this verse condemned by Christians and Jews as constituting hate speech, directed at literally millions of decent law abiding people. It’s no wonder that religious types generally have a very poor attitude towards atheists with slurs like this being directed at us.

But the funniest thing is, that every time I have seen a Christian quote this verse in response to an atheist, I have never yet seen any of them quote the whole thing. They invariably only quote the first bit about us being fools. Why do you think that is?

Could it be that they don’t really believe it either, or are they simply too embarrassed to quote the whole verse? I'll wager that it's both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still other people seem to need to have someone burning in hell, or they can't be happy.

Considering how boring Heaven actually sounds in the Bible (it's basically just praising/serving God for eternity--doesn't he already want us to spend most of our time doing that on Earth?), I can almost understand the reasoning behind "without hell there is no heaven." Of course, unless that same person believes in a version of hell a LOT more watered down than the typical fundie interpretation, that's still very sick and twisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...