Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,851-10,900 of 12,463

[Ken]

All scripture, as the Christians refer to it, is the inspired word of god.

[Maria]

Side note: I have always found it interesting that Christianity is the only religion (that I am aware of) that refers to it's god as "God", as opposed to any actual name.

A Muslim will say, I worship my god, "Allah". Buddhists will say, I worhship my god, "Buddha".
Hindus will say, I worship my god, "Vishnu".

You get the idea.

But Christians say, I worship my god, "God". Except when they call him Jesus. When they are referring to the God part of the Trinity (which is a NON Biblical doctrine - another discussion), why not call their god by a name? Is it Yahweh, Jehovah, what is it, Christians? "God" is a title, not a name, like Emperor, President, or Queen.

Funny story: I had a man tell me one time that god's name is Howard. As in "howard" be thy name (Lord's prayer...) :)

[Maria]

Ken wrote: "All scripture, as the Christians refer to it, is the inspired word of god."

As edited by Constantine and the Catholic church.

[Mary]

Ken wrote: "All scripture, as the Christians refer to it, is the inspired word of god."

Ahh...inspired...Not the same thing as actual though. Kinda like when you see a movie that was "inspired by a true story" and they've changed everything about the story except a few essential facts.
So convenient that there's no proof. No way to know for sure. Kind of like Joseph Smith finding those golden tablets in the forest in NY in 1823...but then, when he had proof of god's word in his hands, he conveniently gave them back to the angel Moroni and no one else can now see them...Why is the Book of Mormon then not considered the true word of god by all Christian faiths? How is Joseph Smith story, or L. Ron Hubbard's or Mohammad's story any less believeable than a virgin birth, a whale who swallows a man, an ark with thousands of animals etc?..How do we know Smith is a fraud, but Moses
wasn't?
Those are the kind of questions I think about. Too many world religions claiming to have the true answer. How do they know god wouldn't talk to other people, especially if he really did create them all in his image. Why would he only talk to some and not others. Human nature has not really changed much since the days the bible was written. Emotions like jealsousy, greed, love, lust, hate, need for power were all around then, and still today. Those emotions exist in all of us, but somehow, these men who wrote the bible were free of any of these filters and bias? Sorry, that just makes no sense.

[Joyce]

Each are helpful, each deadly. In a world where both can go very wrong, it would be hard to choose. However, if I had to make a choice, my choice would be to exclude religion.

[cerebus]

Ken wrote: "All scripture, as the Christians refer to it, is the inspired word of god."
Even the bits about it being ok to own slaves, and stoning disobedient children?

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "....but that is what I said previously, we agree."
Thank you cHriS, I appreciate your answers (really, I do :))....and I understand what you are saying. For me it isn't enough to make me believe, but that is not the point (neither yours nor mine)...I have no desire to 'convert' you (unconvert?), just to try and understand where you are coming from, and I think you've explained that.

And believe it or not ("What have you done with the real cerebus!??") I think that's me out of questions for you :) Btw, if you have any for me, I am more than happy to answer.....

[cerebus]

Maria wrote: "Side note: I have always found it interesting that Christianity is the only religion (that I am aware of) that refers to it's god as "God", as opposed to any actual name.

A Muslim will say, I w..."
The muslim Allah is actually the same, according to Wikipedia, meaning "the god" in Arabic.....

[cerebus]

This might be of interest to some, it's a free online course called "Introduction to Philosophy: God, Knowledge and Consciousness", part of the push by many of the major universities to make parts of their courses available to many more people....

[Shanna]

cerebus wrote: "This might be of interest to some, it's a free online course called "Introduction to Philosophy: God, Knowledge and Consciousness", part of the push by many of the major universities to make parts ..."

Thanks cerebus

[Joanne]

I'll take world without religion anyday.

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "Haha...thanks for the good laugh today. Are we really arguing over whether the bible is one source or not. Well, in scholarly circles, when citing the bible, both MLA and APA styles consider the bi..."

Yeah, I had noticed that chris had made a pretty noble effort to discredit the one source he'd presented.

[Travis]

Ken wrote: "All scripture, as the Christians refer to it, is the inspired word of god."

The heavily edited word of god.

[Rachel]

We do understand that the times which the bible was written, it was socially acceptable to own slaves and women were property. It was written last year!
For those of us who choose to worship god, we owe no explanations as to why we believe and we definitely don't deserve to be made fun for it. Some of you should read how they came up with the bible and the criteria that each book had to meet in order to be considered, please remember most of the New Testament was Paul's letters to the churches(practical advice) and not someone smoking weed and sitting on a couch.

[cerebus]

It's not about making fun, but if the bible says it is ok to own slaves, and you say "but that was then, this is now", then you are putting an interpretation on the bible.....and if the bible is the word of god, that seems presumptuous. Why is the bit that says owning slaves now something you can put to one side, but not the bits that say Jesus is the son of god? The bits that say homosexuality is a sin, and is used by many as their justification for denying same sex marriage, is that open to interpretation? How do you choose?
Btw, as has been discussed many times here, religion is not exempt from discussion, or debate, or questioning.

[[deleted user]]

The American Atheist website, before it was cleansed, actually said it was about making fun. They talked of religious folk who are so intellectually challenged that they'd never understand. In fact, they said the overwhelming majority weren't intelligent enough to be bothered with. However, they noted some believers are intelligent and put out a clarion call to make as much fun and be as disrespectful as possible. The reason? To splash water in the faces of intelligent believers in order to wake them from their stupor. So, for some, it's about inconstancies and about making fun in order to "save" intelligent believers from the "evils" of religion. I'm fairly certain that is also mentioned by people like Harris.

Though, I'm sure many [non-]believers focus on this due to the inconsistencies ... instead of being disrespectful in order to "convert" believers.

Edited....

[cerebus]

And some believers think the entire bible is the inerrant word of god, even those whacky slave owning bits, and the earth being 6000 years old. Do I get to classify all believers based on that? The American Atheist whoever do not represent all atheists, they do not represent me, or any other atheist I know. Some atheists make fun of believers, some believers make fun of atheists. When the former arrive, you have at 'em, I'll take the latter. But no not tar everyone with the same brush unless you want the favour returned.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "I will leave it at that and in the spirit of fairness will not refer to this in my responses to others. "

This implies I classified all non-believers based on the views of the American Atheist group.

Did I actually do that?

Or, did I point that out and follow up with saying I was sure many believers ... mistake on my part ... focus on inconsistencies ... instead of being disrespectful in order to "convert" believers?

[cerebus]

No, not playing that game anymore.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "No, not playing that game anymore."

It's not a game on my part.

I truly believe, for many non-believers, it's about logic and about inconsistencies. That's what my posts have always said. That's what my above post says. That's what I hold in my heart.

The fact remains, in addition to that, the American Atheist organization, which has influence in this country and is currently driving the conversation and legal challenges here, posted that clarion call. Despite cleansing their site and requiring people to become members to see more now, there is a record of that. Here, on this very thread. What the site said.... Different points discussed, with direct quotes, etc....

For many, it's about inconstancies. For many, it's also about making fun in order to "convert" and save from the evils of religion, with inconsistencies, etc... at the root.

It is what it is ....

[cerebus]

For some, not many. For some believers it is the same. I will say it again, when an atheist comes here making fun, you can take them on. Until then put the tar brush away.

[Mary]

Only you know what you meant to say Shannon. I took it to mean you think all atheists follow the guidelines on said website. I've never been to that site, know nothing of it. But you certainly can't negate the whole issue of the validity of the bible by using the " atheists are big meanies" argument.
That's what I took your comment to mean.

[Shanna]

And it's special pleading, this criticism of atheist mocking. Why do religious beliefs automatically get respect?

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: " I took it to mean you think all atheists follow the guidelines on said website."

I could honestly see why you'd think that, Mary, if my next sentence didn't state, ....

"Though, I'm sure many [non-]believers focus on this due to the inconsistencies ... instead of being disrespectful in order to "convert" believers."

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Until then put the tar brush away. "


I know we're allowed to discuss religious ideology here.

Are we not allowed to discuss Atheist ideology, at least that of some of the biggest groups and names, here?

Are we not allowed to say many non-believers follow the calls of organizations like American Atheists and people like Harris and many don't?

Are we to afford special curtesy and respect to some Atheist ideology, not questioning it?

If so, will that some curtesy and respect be offered to religious ideology?

Or, are both open to question and debate?

[Shanna]

What atheist ideology?
Atheism is the answer to one question "do you believe in god/s?" everything else is up to the individual.

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Until then put the tar brush away. "


I know we're allowed to discuss religious ideology here.

Are we not allowed to discuss Atheist ideology, at least that of some of the biggest..."

Shanna beat me to it. But that was my answer exactly.
What atheist ideology?
I question the validity of a man in the clouds ruling our world. That's it.
No secret handshake, no secret agenda.

[cerebus]

We are discussing. I dispute your use of many.

[Joanne]

The Bible, all Bibles, are works of fiction.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "What atheist ideology?
Atheism is the answer to one question "do you believe in god/s?" everything else is up to the individual."

I'll have to think on this....

I read the American Atheist site at length. I've started to read some of the biggest names, Harris, etc....

I can't help but notice many of the exact words and phrases, used by these people and this organization, are repeated often by many non-believers.

That lead me to believe there was an Atheist ideology, for some, at least. That and the fact that some employ the tactics put forth therein.

I tend to think that people who follow others to the point of adopting their words and tactics, verbatim, are following an ideology. Whether a religious adherent, a Republican, etc....

But, perhaps, I should consider this further.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "We are discussing. I dispute your use of many."

Okay.

Instead of my saying many poke fun in order to splash water and many, on the other hand, only take issue with the logic and inconsistency, you'd like me to insert "some" for both?

I can insert "some" for both.

[Shanna]

What tactics? The mocking? You really think people need to be told to do that?

I also think that words and phrases existed long before the association did.

[cerebus]

I have only read part of one Harris book, and after he made negative comments about religion, as in christianity and islam etc., he then made comments which read to me as being more accepting of eastern religions or philosophies, in a way that I felt was inconsistent, so I stopped. Harris speaks for Harris, he does not speak for atheists, he does not speak for me. There are no replacement gods in atheism, or to be clear in my atheism. And that also is part of the problem in discussing this....those who believe in a particular religion tend to assume that atheists are similarly organised, or have similar commonality. We don't. In the same way that all the non-believers in santa or faeries are not organised, nor necessarily have anything else in common, it is the same for atheists. Organisations like the american atheists are a recent phenomenon, mostly as an attempt to counteract organised attempts to impose religion in civil situations, but even as diverse as believers in a religion like christianity are, they have more in common than atheists.

[cerebus]

Yes, insert "some" for "many", and then wait for one of those "some" to show up here to engage them on the fun making issue. In the same way I will wait for a biblical literalist to show up rather than trying to argue biblical literalism with you.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Harris speaks for Harris, he does not speak for atheists, he does not speak for me. "


I agree ... unless and until some people use his words, adopt his points, etc....

[Shanna]

The American Atheist Association has approximately 2200 members. The estimation of atheists in the Us 4% was the lowest and 16% the highest though the surveys were from some years ago, and the US population 315,968,000, with only 2200 the Association is tiny hardly a representative group and I know Harris is one man..

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograp...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American...

[cerebus]

When someone shows up here and uses his words, adopts his points, engage with them.

[Shanna]

Shannon Wrote;"I agree ... unless and until some people use his words, adopt his points, etc...."

So let me get this straight, say you find some good points in Buddhism and adopt some of their meditations, this makes you a buddhist...

[Rachel]

cerebus wrote: "I have only read part of one Harris book, and after he made negative comments about religion, as in christianity and islam etc., he then made comments which read to me as being more accepting of ea..."

Everybody believes in something, and if you say you don't you are just fooling yourself

[Rachel]

cerebus wrote: "It's not about making fun, but if the bible says it is ok to own slaves, and you say "but that was then, this is now", then you are putting an interpretation on the bible.....and if the bible is th..."


In the time the bible was written there culturally things that were of that time...so what it says about owning slave or men having a beard or a woman wearing a hat does that mean it can't be the word of God?

Please read the bible before judgeing it

[cerebus]

I believe Pink Floyd are the greatest band ever, but I don't expect others to agree, nor do I expect to have that belief inform civil or legal issues. If you are attempting to suggest that atheism is in itself a belief, then you are wrong.

[Rachel]

Also, what ever happened to religious tolerance? We have it for every other belief except Christianity? Why can't we accept each other and love each other based on the fact that we are human and deserving of it instead of labels?

[cerebus]

So are you saying the word of god changes? That when he said that it was ok to own slaves that was then, but now he says it is not ok? If so, where does he say this?

[Shanna]

Rachel wrote: "Also, what ever happened to religious tolerance? We have it for every other belief except Christianity? Why can't we accept each other and love each other based on the fact that we are human and d..."

Ah the christian victim trope, when your churches offer tolerance perhaps they'll get it...

[cerebus]

I have it for no religious beliefs, including christianity.
Religious tolerance does not mean not questioning religion, not does it mean sitting quietly by when it is used (by some, no idea what your position is) to promote teaching religious ideology as science, or as an excuse to deny people equal rights. You are welcome to your religion, I have no desire nor intent to persuade you to relinquish your belief, but it is still a subject that is open to discussion and questioning, and if religion is used in at attempt to inform civil or legal decisions, I will argue vigorously against it.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Yeah, I had noticed that chris had made a pretty noble effort to discredit the one source he'd presented.."

I really must take issue with your comment.

Noble effort? Had I wanted to discredit the bible I would have, and in a way that would merit a much better comment than just a 'noble effort'.

Noble effort sounds like a 5 out of 10 score, I would have gone for at least a 9.

[cerebus]

As for reading the bible, studies have shown atheists tend to be more informed about the bile and its contents than the religious. People generally become atheists because they know what the bible says, not despite.

[Rachel]

Shanna wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Also, what ever happened to religious tolerance? We have it for every other belief except Christianity? Why can't we accept each other and love each other based on the fact that we ..."


Why do I get labeled as someone who does give tolerance? Just because I go to church?

Weren't you the one quoting from the american atheist website
and saying you shouldn't be judged on what it says?

I am upset that you would Imply that I am complaining

[Rachel]

cerebus wrote: "So are you saying the word of god changes? That when he said that it was ok to own slaves that was then, but now he says it is not ok? If so, where does he say this?"


ok I am confused? are we talking about the old or the new testament?

[cerebus]

The world has gone mad, I actually wanted a "like" button for the "noble" post from cHriS :) reminds me of the interview with Angus Young from AC/DC after the release of their last album, where the interviewer scornfully asked "Haven't you just recorded the same album 14 times?", and Young indignantly responded "18 times!"