Something I think bares reading.

[Ghel]

Gerrinson, it seems there is much that we agree about. I would just like to clarify my stance on a few points.

Ghel - if you haven't read the Bible, stop complaing that it is 'unsupportable'. Seriously. If you're going to fight over it, best to know what 'it' is.

I have read large portions of the Bible, including (but not limited to) Genesis, Exodus, and the four gospels. Even a cursory reading of the Bible is enough to show that it is a collection of myths and legends. It's certainly not something on which I would want to base my life.

Besides, I didn't say the Bible was unsupportable (that's a different argument). I said that Christianity can't support itself, and further clarified by saying that "the central Christian beliefs are unsupported. No one has yet demonstrated that the Christian God exists."

I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day.

The 10C may have been good enough millenia ago, but they're not so good today. I could condense and improve on the 10C with one commandment: "Respect your fellow human being and his or her property." Done.

Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick.

The teachings attributed to Jesus are a combination of good and bad advice. The is no great wisdom of the kind you would expect from an all-knowing God. Where's "wash you hands after you go to the bathroom and before you eat"? Where's "slavery is wrong"? Where's "homosexuality is ok"? Where's "women deserve equal status with men"? I see nothing better than the status quo of the time.

But there's one reason, in particular, that Jesus tops my list of the most evil storybook characters: he introduced the concept of Hell as a real place of eternal torture, where people get sent for the "sin" of not believing in a God who has never given us any reason to think that he exists. That's the most horrible, evil concept in all of human history, and Jesus (or whoever wrote his dialogue) introduced it.

If you're a moderate Christian who disagrees with the paintbrush I used, then you need to speak up more in church.

To me, moderate or extremist doesn't matter much. If you believe that anyone deserves eternal torture for any reason, you're just as evil as the extremists. Conversely, if you are not willing to say that you would lock your child in the basement and toture him for the rest of his life just because he won't say he loves you, then you are more moral than the God of the Bible.

And lastly, my father was an ordained Methodist minister. He never shoved religion down my throat. In fact, he was the one that taught me to use scripture as a weapon of self defense when someone starts thumping me over the head with Bible quotes. Though he still believes and I do not, we get along just fine. If we can make it work, all moderates can make it work.

You're lucky. When I told my mother I was an atheist, she started crying, and screaming, and saying "where did I go wrong?" We don't talk about religion any more, but we still talk.

I'm sure Jesus was a real person, and was certainly on to some good ideas as a teacher. His *original* teachings were different then what is attributed to him these days...

Assuming for the moment Jesus actually existed, how do you know what his original teachings were? I'm not being snarky, rather I know that the Church has suppressed documents that disagreed with Church doctrine. I also know that none of the surviving accounts of Jesus' life can be dated to the time when he supposedly lived, nor do we have anything written by Jesus himself. So how can anyone know what Jesus really said?

[Gravekeeper]

<snip>
I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day. Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick. The rest of it is mostly either a geneology, a smattering of historical fact, or a crock of shit.

The "crock of shit" part is largely remixed versions of existing legends that predate the Bible. But yeah, pretty much this. If you need to get a bunch of lunatics under control without a police force, you promise them they'll burn in Hellfire for eternity *after* they die. -.-

I'm sure Jesus was a real person, and was certainly on to some good ideas as a teacher. His *original* teachings were different then what is attributed to him these days, and many of his teachings were actually rather Budda like ( to the point its a question if he actually encountered said monks ). That whole "Son of God" thing was glued on later to help Christianity compete in the market place so to speak as it was up against some stiff competition. They needed to make him more "special".

But I mean any of the more fantastical stuff in the Bible was copy pasted from other older traditions. Look at Jesus's birth. Most of the major elements of it are redundant to other "prophet birth" stories all of which predate him by hundreds of years. Hell, look at Noah's Ark. Lots of different cultures have a "Flood" myth.

Really, everyone was a bunch of plagerizing bastards back then. You didn't try to convince other religions yours was better via its actual teachings so much as made up ever more fantastic shit to make it sound more impressive. Well, either that or you started burning people on stakes and what not.

[Hyena Dandy]

I consdier myself a moderate, and I do speak up whenever I can. But I am already in your camp of being sick of extremists. I just don't think a bunch of assholes are a good reason for me to lose my faith.

I'm fine with not wanting to believe blindly, though. That's a perfectly reasonable position. My problem is when people think there is a problem with believing without evidence.

And unlike some other Christians, I have no problem with asking questions. I'd never scold someone for asking questions. I believe that everybody has a spiritual journey. Some decide to embrace Christianity. Some decide they are more fulfilled by another religion. Some find that they are most comfortable with not believing in any religion.

I feel that no matter what path you take, the most important thing is that you are happy with it. And, the second most important thing, is that you allow others to take their own.

[Gerrinson]

Well, as much as I hate to pull the conversation away from unicorns and cockatrices, here's what I have to say on it.

Everyone - I'm sick to death of freaking Wikipedia being a 'go to' source for knowledge. Either go read the background material on which the entries are based or assume that whomever wrote it could have slanted it to their worldviews especially in the case of things like religion or lack thererof which are emotionally volatile subjects at the start.

Ghel - if you haven't read the Bible, stop complaing that it is 'unsupportable'. Seriously. If you're going to fight over it, best to know what 'it' is.

I've read the KJV Bible twice. Cover to cover. The Bible is, in fact, by and large WHY I'm an atheist. I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day. Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick. The rest of it is mostly either a geneology, a smattering of historical fact, or a crock of shit. Mostly all three mixed together. Mmmm!

The rest of why I'm atheist is that science offers explanations but does not demand blind faith. If I can't understand it, I can follow the foundation work and learn the concepts until I can comprehend why, for example, an incandescent lightbulb works until you add air to the interior. Questions are welcome and answered.

Religion - specifically Christianity - hates questions and tends to browbeat the hell out of people who suggest that maybe things aren't the way they appear at first read. Then there are the smug jackasses who think going to Heaven with them is going to be so super special. If sanctimonious self aggrandizement is Heaven, I'll go stew in Hell with my compadres, thank you very much.

If you're a moderate Christian who disagrees with the paintbrush I used, then you need to speak up more in church. You'll find either the extremists beat you into submission or you'll come join me in my camp of being sick of them.

In the end, I don't care what you believe if you leave me to live my life as I see fit, so long as I do no harm to you and you do no harm to me. My lack of belief does not injure you or your life in any way. If it actually offends you, then you have just poked your nose way too deep into my business and you need to shove off because what I think is not your concern.

And lastly, my father was an ordained Methodist minister. He never shoved religion down my throat. In fact, he was the one that taught me to use scripture as a weapon of self defense when someone starts thumping me over the head with Bible quotes. Though he still believes and I do not, we get along just fine. If we can make it work, all moderates can make it work.

So let's take the extremists of all sides, transplant them to say, Antarctica, give them a crate of weapons apiece and shoot the survivors. Repeat as necessary until we all get the point that live and let live is the best way to, y'know, live with each other.

Oh, and I liked the article that started this thread, though I disagree with some of the statements and particularly his examples of extreme atheists.

/soapbox

[Ghel]

In the KJV, satyrs are mentioned in Isaiah 13:21 and in Jeremiah 8:17 there is mention of cockatrices.

Hmm... Then there should be satyrs and cockatrices on the ark in the theme park. On the other hand, the creators of the theme park may use a different translation that describes the creatures differently, and use that as an excuse for not having them. But since they talk about unicorns on the Answers in Genesis website, they don't have an excuse not to have unicorns on their ark. And that will make the theme park even more of a joke than it already is.

It just goes to show what happens to one's thinking when one accepts fundamentalist dogma.

[Ipecac Drano]

I doubt it. Unicorns, at least, are mentioned in the bible. According to the Answers in Genesis folks (those who created the "Creation Museum" and the associated Noah's Ark theme park), every creature mentioned in the Bible was on the Ark.

In the KJV, satyrs are mentioned in Isaiah 13:21 and in Jeremiah 8:17 there is mention of cockatrices.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is when you take it literally. Its not meant to be literal, you lunatics.

Especially when it's rife with local idioms that we don't have the information necessary to translate properly. We can't even manage to have a consistent translation from one modern language to another. Anyone who is a fan of foreign films has encountered this.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Oh, damn that creation museum. Its just stupid is what it is... I believe in the bible, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe that every word of it is written by god.

Technically, not a *single* word of it was written by god <nitpick> -.-

The problem is when you take it literally. Its not meant to be literal, you lunatics.

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh, damn that creation museum. Its just stupid is what it is... I believe in the bible, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe that every word of it is written by god.

[Ghel]

Maybe they'll also have cockatrices and a satyr or two?

I doubt it. Unicorns, at least, are mentioned in the bible. According to the Answers in Genesis folks (those who created the "Creation Museum" and the associated Noah's Ark theme park), every creature mentioned in the Bible was on the Ark.

[Ipecac Drano]

Yes, and they're adding a theme park with a full-size Noah's ark. With dragons and unicorns. :rofl:

Maybe they'll also have cockatrices and a satyr or two?

[Ghel]

Can we not just agree Atheists don't believe in the existence of anyone's Sky Wizard and resume whatever the original debate was? -.-

Please. Let's.

I would hardly consider myself qualified to discuss something if I wasn't willing to actually look at the other side's arguments.

First, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has told me all I need to know regarding the suggested book, which is that the other side doesn't have an argument, just bald assertions. Second, I look at the other side's arguments all the time and find them wanting.

And the reason I won't pay money for books written by religious apologists is the same reason I won't give money to religious charities: at least a portion of that money goes towards proselytizing. I have, however, bought apologists' books second-hand and had loads of fun highlighting the errors. Literally. With a highlighter.

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?

If you're referring to what I said previously, I said that Christianity is "unsupportable." What that means is that there's no good reason to think that it's true.

Yet we have a Creationism Musuem down in the states. -.-

Yes, and they're adding a theme park with a full-size Noah's ark. With dragons and unicorns. :rofl:

[Gravekeeper]

Well, up until maybe a century ago (if not less) there was no alternative (non religious) explanation to the question of "how".
Once science started answering the how, people started questioning if they needed religion to tell them the why.

Science goes back quite a bit further than that. The problem is more that the further you go back, the greater probability of stake burning when you submit your paper for peer review. >.>

Personally, I think the biggest problem most major religions currently have is a general unwillingness to adapt and evolve to the times. This problem will just get worse over time. For me, I think science is the answer to religion. But not the replacement. If that makes any sense.

You'd think if you want to understand what everything is and how we were created, you'd be chomping at the science bit to find out. Especially right now when we're discovering such incredible things about the inner workings of our universe practically every other week. If you're ever going to get a definitive answer as to whether or not your particular space wizard exists, thats where you're going to find it.

Yet we have a Creationism Musuem down in the states. -.-

[smileyeagle1021]

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?

Well, up until maybe a century ago (if not less) there was no alternative (non religious) explanation to the question of "how".
Once science started answering the how, people started questioning if they needed religion to tell them the why.

[Mytical]

This is a fascinating, but headache inducing thread to read through. Which really has flown off the rails of the original intention me thinks. This particular sub forum also has a propensity to de-evolve into debates over semantics and terms it seems. >.>

I will offer only a handful of points for consideration:

1) Extremism is bad regardless of the viewpoint or belief in question and is never excused by said viewpoint or belief.

2) Pointing out how much odour the other side's shit emits in no way perfumes your own side's.

3) Every belief or viewpoint will end up having extremists. They may be drafted by different teams but they all came from the same training camp. I look at them as their own little team onto itself regardless of what they're trying to champion.

4) Glenn Beck is a fantasy animal.

Can I just say that while GK is normally awesome anyhow, that this may be even a bit more awesome then usual? Which is a feat in itself. I only disagree with 4. I only WISH Glenn Beck was a Fantasy Animal