Atheism vs. Christianity

[The Smith Protectorate]

I dunno why the fuck people bring up the Bible anymore. It's morality is incoherent.

It doesn't mean God is "deep", it just means that "God" had to do a shit-ton of editing.

Although I'm an atheist, I still enjoy reading it and some of the more powerful quotes within it. You ever seen pulp fiction? Ezekiel 25:17. Aww yeah... Although I agree, it is from an older time without a lot of science, and should be treated as such.

Not a lot of science? the men of old were still as intelligent as they are today. even 'a lot' of science can still breed ignorance.

[Ceurigan]

And? That was still violent. Genesis 6:7 says not only does he plan on killing people but also he makes mistakes.

it does not say mistakes, 'repenteth' for his original, perfect creation into our own sin is not his mistake.

Yes, i feel you are right because God (otherwise known as Yahweh) gave us the choice whether or not to sin.

[Immoren]

Christians are as much yahwists as they are Jews.

That's actually a long semantical debate.

Is it really semantics to say that modern Christian church is same thing as ancient cult of Yahweh?

[The Cobalt Sky]

"Thou shalt not kill" pro-lifers say, however:

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

And more.

1. Don't quote evil bible if you want any theist to take you seriously.

2. Thou shalt not kill is better translated thou shalt not commit murder. Murder being killing outside the law.

There is no conflict.

True on the second part, but people should be a little more specific about which bits of the Bible they've decided to follow and which not.

[The Rich Port]

Although I'm an atheist, I still enjoy reading it and some of the more powerful quotes within it. You ever seen pulp fiction? Ezekiel 25:17. Aww yeah... Although I agree, it is from an older time without a lot of science, and should be treated as such.

Not a lot of science? the men of old were still as intelligent as they are today. even 'a lot' of science can still breed ignorance.

There's more to intelligence than memorizing facts or being skillful or having charisma.

Never mind there's been plenty of great minds killed due to religion...

[Immoren]

I dunno why the fuck people bring up the Bible anymore. It's morality is incoherent.

It doesn't mean God is "deep", it just means that "God" had to do a shit-ton of editing.

Probably because it had multiple authors

Also it's been altered quite degree from polytheistic account to monolatrist polytheism to monotheism.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Although I'm an atheist, I still enjoy reading it and some of the more powerful quotes within it. You ever seen pulp fiction? Ezekiel 25:17. Aww yeah... Although I agree, it is from an older time without a lot of science, and should be treated as such.

Not a correct quote. Terantino edited it to make it more badass.

I know. I still enjoy it, and its real counterpart.

[The Smith Protectorate]

Not a lot of science? the men of old were still as intelligent as they are today. even 'a lot' of science can still breed ignorance.

There's more to intelligence than memorizing facts or being skillful or having charisma.

Never mind there's been plenty of great minds killed due to religion...

name them and I know the first one you'll say, galilieo. and even his main rival was the scientific establishment of the day.

[The Rich Port]

Probably because it had multiple authors

Also it's been altered quite degree from polytheistic account to monolatrist polytheism to monotheism.

And theists are constantly jumping philosophical, logical and scientific hoops to keep it relevant, to the point that truth to some theists is almost entirely incoherent from what reality is.

Apologism is the worst...

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

There's no way of us telling what actually happened to the universe 'in the beginning'. There's really no way to prove the existence of a god, nor deny one. There's not any way to prove the happening of the big bang or disprove it.

It's not like we have a time machine in this day and age that can be used to go back to the creation of the universe to show us what really happened. Besides, a man can't kill himself and come back with actual evidence that something did or something didn't happen to him. I've seen stories on 'the news' where people have been legally dead and came back, and talked about a God in the sky above. I know a close relative that was legally dead and was revived, however, he didn't see a god or a devil. It was like a split second to him; like falling asleep, he said.

However, I will add that the Pope Francis himself did state that the big bang did actually happen.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope- ... al-n235696


Even my science teacher said that this was a good thing for both Atheism and Christianity. Like your title says, "Atheism vs. Christianity", this statement by him is kind of bridging them together and removing the versus overall.



Hopefully my ranting made enough sense.

[Celritannia]

There's more to intelligence than memorizing facts or being skillful or having charisma.

Never mind there's been plenty of great minds killed due to religion...

name them and I know the first one you'll say, galilieo. and even his main rival was the scientific establishment of the day.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473 - 1543)

[Immoren]

Also it's been altered quite degree from polytheistic account to monolatrist polytheism to monotheism.

And theists are constantly jumping philosophical, logical and scientific hoops to keep it relevant, to the point that truth to some theists is almost entirely incoherent from what reality is.

Apologism is the worst...

Why is it harmful, if it's taught as metaphor instead of literal account?
Because we've no longer need for metaphors?

[Pensalum]

Probably because it had multiple authors

Also it's been altered quite degree from polytheistic account to monolatrist polytheism to monotheism.

Not to even begin to mention the changes made with the foundation of the official church of Christianity, and the development of the canon. Also, the inadvertent alterations due to translation.

[Celritannia]

There's no way of us telling what actually happened to the universe 'in the beginning'. There's really no way to prove the existence of a god, nor deny one. There's not any way to prove the happening of the big bang or disprove it.

It's not like we have a time machine in this day and age that can be used to go back to the creation of the universe to show us what really happened. Besides, a man can't kill himself and come back with actual evidence that something did or something didn't happen to him. I've seen stories on 'the news' where people have been legally dead and came back, and talked about a God in the sky above. I know a close relative that was legally dead and was revived, however, he didn't see a god or a devil. It was like a split second to him; like falling asleep, he said.

However, I will add that the Pope Francis himself did state that the big bang did actually happen.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope- ... al-n235696


Even my science teacher said that this was a good thing for both Atheism and Christianity. Like your title says, "Atheism vs. Christianity", this statement by him is kind of bridging them together and removing the versus overall.



Hopefully my ranting made enough sense.

You can deny something until it is proven.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Although I'm an atheist, I still enjoy reading it and some of the more powerful quotes within it. You ever seen pulp fiction? Ezekiel 25:17. Aww yeah... Although I agree, it is from an older time without a lot of science, and should be treated as such.

Not a lot of science? the men of old were still as intelligent as they are today. even 'a lot' of science can still breed ignorance.

We got cars now. We got planes now. Sure, people are still stupid, but that knowledge is out there. Also, these men of old don't like gays.

[Pensalum]

And theists are constantly jumping philosophical, logical and scientific hoops to keep it relevant, to the point that truth to some theists is almost entirely incoherent from what reality is.

Apologism is the worst...

Why is it harmful, if it's taught as metaphor instead of literal account?
Because we've no longer need for metaphors?

Well, why would an almighty God need to use metaphors, why not just explain things literally? It sure caused a heck of a lot of confusion down the road.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

You can deny something until it is proven.

..and how do you expect to prove the existence or disprove the existence of a God?

[The Smith Protectorate]

Not a lot of science? the men of old were still as intelligent as they are today. even 'a lot' of science can still breed ignorance.

There's more to intelligence than memorizing facts or being skillful or having charisma.

Never mind there's been plenty of great minds killed due to religion...

- ones that worked quite well without interruption; Albertus Magnus, Robert Grossteste, Roger Bacon, John Pechham, Dun Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, Wlliam Heytesbury, Richard Swines head, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jan Buriden and Nicholas of Cusa.

and if I remember correctly Antoine lavisoir was executed during a non religious rebellion by the people.

[Immoren]

There's not any way to prove the happening of the big bang or disprove it.
.

Big bang is explanation for why all/majority the galaxies seem to accelerate away from each other.

[The Rich Port]

There's more to intelligence than memorizing facts or being skillful or having charisma.

Never mind there's been plenty of great minds killed due to religion...

- ones that worked quite well without interruption; Albertus Magnus, Robert Grossteste, Roger Bacon, John Pechham, Dun Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, Wlliam Heytesbury, Richard Swines head, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jan Buriden and Nicholas of Cusa.

and if I remember correctly Antoine lavisoir was executed during a non religious rebellion by the people.

No, really, why did you list these people?

Because I can just list the people that HAVE been killed due to religious reasons and it'd be as valid as citing people that weren't killed due to religious reasons.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

You can deny something until it is proven.

..and how do you expect to prove the existence or disprove the existence of a God?

As he said, it is not up to him to demonstrate anything. Prove your god exists or it will be rejected.

[The Smith Protectorate]

Not a lot of science? the men of old were still as intelligent as they are today. even 'a lot' of science can still breed ignorance.

We got cars now. We got planes now. Sure, people are still stupid, but that knowledge is out there. Also, these men of old don't like gays.

If I remember correctly not liking gays neither advanced nor stunted scientific discovery. though wrong yes as Romans 15:1 through 5 says. The involvement of gays here has no relevance to the original quote.

[Ripoll]

Religion builds happy and sustainable communities that interpret gospel to better their lives and give a deeper meaning ingrained in what they do. People who commit crimes in the name or religion are fundamentally bad people and what they believe led them to do what they did is almost always in contradiction of how the religious base interprets liturgy. People can take anything into extremes and make what they're representing look evil, misconstrued, or unethical.

The problem are genuinely awful people, not religious beliefs or institutional religions.

Exactly. The same thing can be said about guns.

And I'm opposed to allowing certain people from having guns for the same reason I'm opposed to spreading religion.

It's a dangerous, outdated invention of humanity that can cause harm more than it can cause benefits.

Trying to prevent the spread of religion would cause more harm than the spread of religion. Religion isn't dangerous, fundamentalist extremists are and you can't stop that from happening. You can't control philosophical beliefs or societal constructs of religion. How is it outdated? Frankly science doesn't directly contradict religion and these claims are made by ignorant narcissistic people who can't control themselves from shoving what they do or don't believe in down other people's throats and telling them what to believe or not believe. People will do what makes them happy, more productive, and more liberated. To prevent such a means to this is to directly oppose the freedom of thought this country has evolved from and capitalized on.

[Celritannia]

You can deny something until it is proven.

..and how do you expect to prove the existence or disprove the existence of a God?

Can you prove the magical pink pony flying in a parallel dimension on the 5th planet of the Zell system?

[The Smith Protectorate]

- ones that worked quite well without interruption; Albertus Magnus, Robert Grossteste, Roger Bacon, John Pechham, Dun Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, Wlliam Heytesbury, Richard Swines head, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jan Buriden and Nicholas of Cusa.

and if I remember correctly Antoine lavisoir was executed during a non religious rebellion by the people.

No, really, why did you list these people?

Because I can just list the people that HAVE been killed due to religious reasons and it'd be as valid as citing people that weren't killed due to religious reasons.

and I said list them, you haven't.