I’ve often wondered about the actual religious beliefs of some of our preacher friends like Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn. I think they are all Atheists — and scam artists. I’d love to hook them up to a lie detector and ask if they believe in god.But I wonder now about the general population of believers. How many of them only THINK they believe (or wish it to be true), but if you pin them down they really don’t.So this one is for those believers on the blog, and then for us all to trounce on them.Theists:1) Do you really believe in Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the woman from man’s rib stuff? Really?2) Do you really believe an all-knowing God put the tree of knowledge in the G/E, then got so pissed off that Eve ate the apple that god put in front of her (knowing she would eat it, since God is omnicient)that he doomed all humanity with original sin, creating Hell for his beloved children? Really?3) Do you really believe that all-knowing and all-loving God then murdered the entire planet in the flood except Noah and his family (including the daughters who raped him), who had 1.5 billion animals on this hand-made boat for 40 days? Really? How did the penguins get there? how did they get back? Really?4) One last question — Is there anything in the Bible you DON’T believe?
adamjhearn:
You said: I believe because I have never been given a reason not to and I for sure have been shown solid evidence that I myself could never reject. So I have given my life because of it.
Exactly what “solid evidence” would that be, if you please?
Personally, I think that comparison is insulting to somebody who happens to believe in a god. They’re not mental patients. There are reasons why they believe what they believe, if only because they were raised to believe. And telling them that they’re idiots isn’t going to persuade them to change their thinking on the matter.
Calling a theist “immature” simply because of what they believe — instead of on the basis of their actions — is plain arrogant. If your end goal is to prove your own superiority and supposed “intellect” then that kind of attitude will win you a gold medal. Unfortunately, it will change nothing. People can’t be shamed into changing their beliefs — they need to be convinced. And they’re not going to be convinced by somebody who condescends or clearly despises them.
If you can’t help but think of a theist as “immature”, then consider how you would treat a child who didn’t believe the same things you did. Would you berate them? Would you call them an idiot? Or would you talk to them using words and ideas that are familiar to them, and try to make them understand?
Just being an atheist doesn’t automatically make somebody a rocket scientist. In my world, part of being a “sophisticated intellect” is practicing not only logic, but also tolerance and patience. A truly enlightened and intelligent person knows how to teach by example, thereby inspiring others to emulate them. Attempting to convert the masses away from theism through ridicule will only serve to perpetuate Atheism’s status as a minority belief system.
A reminder of American Atheist’s mission statement:
Seems to me if we’re going to expect tolerance and understanding from theists, we should be willing to offer the same — at least to those theists who don’t judge us or mean us any harm.
It’s essential Christians realize there really are no positive morals in the Bible. Hucksters who stand to gain financially perpetuate that fallacy in the bad book. For example there are Christians who are willing to kill abortion doctors to prevent abortions. Problem is no where in the bad book does their god denounce abortion. In fact, when you consider there are more still births than there are abortions you have to conclude the Biblical god is the #1 abortion artist on the planet. Taken a step further you have to ask how many pregnant women died in the “great flood”, how many innocent children? How many pregnant women and babes died when god destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. When god instructed the Israelites to wipe out the Midianites (Numbers 31)and keep all the virgin girls for themselves how many pregnant women had to die with their babies inside? And consider the Israelites kept 32 thousand virgin girls! If 32 thousand virgin girls were kept how many people were butchered? The Midianites were only one group of people slaughtered by the Israelites so it should be apparent the Jews preceded and set the pattern for what the Christian Nazis were to do to them over a couple millenia down the road. There is no morality in the Bible.
Consider also the old and new testaments consistantly denegrate half of humanity, WOMEN. All women are second class citizens at best in the bad book.
Then in Genesis 9:21-27 you will see the berserk story of old man Noah getting drunk on wine and having one of his three sons, Ham, accidentally walk into the tent while Noah was naked! Well what the hell? Ham goes out and informs his two brothers, Shem and Ja-peth, that the old man was drunk and naked so they stretch a blanket between them and walk backwards into the tent to cover their shy naturalist wino dad! Well, Noah is pissed, probably embarrased, and mad at Ham for catching him in the act of, well what ever. Noah, in a rage condems all of Hams decendants to slavery for the rest of forever! The catch here is the three sons repopulated the Earth after the “great flood” so obviously one third of humanity at that moment were condemmed to servitude. There is no morality in the bad book.
In Hosea 9:14-16 god directly performs abortions galore.
Then in Luke 19-27 Jesus orders that those who won’t bow down directly to him should be executed in front of him. Where is this morality I keep hearing about?
Stand up, take responsibility for your actions, reject the ancient malarky that is passed off as wisdom by people like Jimmy Swaggert, Peter Popoff, and Robert Tillton. Yes the Pope has to go in the same kettle. These guys are scum of the earth selling a guilt trip. Too bad about the god of the new testament losing his only son. Maybe if he would have had a bunch of daughters the world wouldn’t be in the shape it is today.
God isn’t going to float down to end war so paradise could blossom here and now. God has laid it all out in the bad book there will always be war, rumors of war and mock war. There is no god, just a figment of imagination from hate filled ignorant misogynist men who were afraid of the dark. The petty love for a fictional friend in the bad book is outweighed by all the hatred. No thanx.
Gagglefrak,
I disagree and agree with you.
Over the internet, I find no problem with embarrassing and shaming ‘believers’ into seeing how crazy and unpremised their belief system is. When folks read and read and read and can’t find ANYONE with a SHRED of evidence in favor of their views, they have a better tendency to abondon those views and keep looking. This is good.
On the other hand, when it comes to personal discourse and debates with close associates/family/friends, I think a degree of tact and care is important for gently reaching a mutual understanding. I do, after all, have to work/live with them.
If I didn’t think I was right, I wouldn’t be spreading the word. I’m proud of my views and honestly pity victims of broken thought systems.
One other thing, I’m 100% on board with Alexatheist not respecting people for having the ‘courage’ to believe in anything that is not supported by evidence. I respect Spander’s honesty and his RIGHT to believe, but I simply cannot respect WHAT he believes.
3E8, I guess I don’t quite understand why you’d proselytize atheism one way online and another in person. Or why it’s necessary to character a theist as having a “crazy” belief system. Starting from that stance, and saying that you can’t respect what somebody believes, immediately puts you behind the eight ball in the battle to “convert” them to atheism. Even in a conventional war, the best soldiers are those who are smart enough to respect the soldiers on the other side of the line.
Don’t get me wrong — I think organized religion is crazy and mostly destructive. But that’s not the same thing as somebody believing in God for their own personal reasons. Churches as a unit have been responsible for most of the crimes of Christianity, not individuals. It’s a fine distinction, but a crucial one. Because of that kind of distinction, if a group of Atheists decided to blow up a church tomorrow, I could in good conscience detach myself from them. Because my beliefs and their actions are not the same thing.
My reason for going on this tangent in the first place is because I felt Spanders gave a very honest and respectable answer to Dave’s questions about the Bible … and he was pretty much shit on for being “wishy washy”. And that kind of attitude gets the cause nowhere — it just alienates Spanders, makes atheists look like inflexible bullies, and almost dares Spanders to keep believing in God. He met us halfway, and we patted him on the head, then spit in his face. Bad form.
I think all the veterans on this blog treat Spanders with respect irrespective of his beliefs. Theist or not, he’s a good dude that I’d have a beer with anyday.
A good portion of my dearest friends are theists. I do love them so.
Here’s a link to a news story that goes to the subject of this thread. It appears some do actually believe what they say they do – even if it means their child will die for it.
I hope the parents of this child are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
http://wapurl.co.uk/?5FFE9JF
DVan,
This is another example of xtian brainwashing. IMO, the parents (and their religion) are responsible for having indoctrinated their kids with false information in regards to the benefits of modern science (medicine in this case) however, Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment.
Respecting a religious person for who they are is in no way the same as giving their beliefs any respect. I like Spanders very much as a person but I could never extend this same respect to his beliefs.
Alexatheist, when you put it that way, I have no problem agreeing with you. But it contradicts what you said before. And I quote …
“I disagree with you totally. I do judge harshly those who are religious as having immature and unsophisticated intellects.”
“Would you honestly respect an adult who believed in Santa Claus or faeries at the bottom of their garden? I think not and so it is the same with religious faith.”
Neither of those statements makes it sound like you’re respecting a religious person for “who they are”. Both make it pretty clear that you consider people like Spanders to be intellectually unsophisticated, with naive and childish beliefs.
A person IS their beliefs. Their beliefs are what define them, and you can’t separate the two just to pay somebody a compliment. To say that you like Spanders as a person, but disrespect his beliefs seems disingenuous. You can disagree with his beliefs, and you can even disrespect the institutions that sow those beliefs … but if you disrespect somebody’s beliefs, then you disrespect them. That’s just the way it works.
JustinW:
This article by Hugh Ross adequately represents my opinion:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml
alatham:
Assuming you?re referring to sin, who said anything about ignoring it now?
I disagree. The law (and its prescribed punishments) given to Moses in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy was part of the covenant that was explicitly between God and the Israelites. Last I checked, we?re not party to that covenant?but outside of the sacrificial rites that were meant only for the Jews (in the Mosaic law), that in no way diminishes or negates what otherwise constitutes sin today. Sin, regardless of how it is punished, will always have a consequence, ergo morality is absolute.
alexatheist:
I didn?t say that. My original response was referring to the punishment for adultery outside of the context of God?s covenant with the Israelites. As I alluded to alatham above, adultery is still every bit as much a sin today, but we?re not bound under the same covenant with God as the Israelites were as to how it is to be punished.
No. Homosexuality is still a sin. Leviticus 18:22 is quite clear on that. Maybe Jesus was silent on the matter because he thought Moses had done an adequate job relaying that point from God to the Israelites and didn?t feel the need to repeat it.
jcc,
You did: “That was the law given specifically to the Israelites for a specific time.”
Ergo, since the context has now changed, the Bible is unclear whether or not we should still follow that particular directive.
So, who’s determining which directives still apply to present-day societies?
There’s one problem though: Punishment also falls under the umbrella of morality because punishment is an action and it can either be moral or immoral.
In order for a punishment to be just, the morality of the punishment must balance with the immorality of the sin.
Since the magnitude of the punishment has apparently changed, that means that either the magnitude of the sin has changed, OR the scale of justice balances differently than it used to.
And if the magnitude of sin is changing, then we again run into the problem of determining how to interpret the Bible in the present.
jcc,
Let me clear up the first part of my last post. I am referring to the punishment that is proscribed in the case of the sin, not sin directly. I’m not asking who determines what constitutes sin, I’m asking who determines what the punishment should be today for sins?
JCC,
Do you see the contradiction in the two statements you posted earlier:
Ah, cherry picking. I spent years cherry picking verses from the Bible. The whole Old Covenant-New Covenant thing. I really feel for those who work so hard at making the Bible “work.” Glad I’m out of that game. Anybody know what I’m talking about?
alatham:
Hmmm. The only context that has changed is that there?s no longer a need for the sacrificial rituals for the atonement of sins. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. As Paul pointed out, Christ?s coming freed us from that system?the sacrifice has been made?and the vast majority of Mosaic Law in the OT had to do with the how, when, where and why of the sacrifices.
I disagree. Ultimately, there is no degree of sin in God?s eyes?it?s all behavior that falls short of the mark. The heart of the matter here is whether or not we acknowledge sin for what it is, not the degrees to which we go to punish it. Yes, punishment must have a moral component, but that is only a problem for societies who choose to acknowledge what is objectively immoral behaviors.
Again, that?s the prerogative of a free society which has acknowledged what is and isn?t objectively moral. The solution to that problem comes in a particular order, and the order matters.
RunDogRun,
I know EXACTLY what you’re talking about. It’s amazing the level of denial that these apologists undergo to make it all ‘make sense’ in their heads. No wonder so many of them go nuts trying!