Atheism vs. Christianity

[Immoren]

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.

Gods are not all knowing.

[Borgovia]

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.

The people of old were as intelligent as the people of now. The only difference is that the people of now believe reading "I fucking love science" or worshiping Bill Nye makes them experts of a topic that will make them cry if they took a Chemistry or Physics class in college. Read science all you want, an admirer of the arts would never claim to be an artist because they read Art History textbooks.

[Pensalum]

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.

Gods are not all knowing.

The Abrahamic deity isn't all knowing?

[The Rich Port]

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.

Go read a fucking book, or another goddamn thread. I'm not going to list people because it's irrelevant and pointless.

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.

The people of old were as intelligent as the people of now. The only difference is that the people of now believe reading "I fucking love science" or worshiping Bill Nye makes them experts of a topic that will make them cry if they took a Chemistry or Physics class in college. Read science all you want, an admirer of the arts would never claim to be an artist because they read Art History textbooks.

What the fuck are you blathering on about?

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.

Should I also stop people from being racially prejudiced, or believing that raping virgins cures you of AIDS, or, I dunno, something innocuous that's still stupid and possibly harmful, in contrast to the former two.

[Immoren]

Gods are not all knowing.

The Abrahamic deity isn't all knowing?

They just feign it.
I've met them.
*nods*

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

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.

Of course, that's one of the main facts to support the theory of the big bang, but once again, we can't actually PROVE it right now. With technology in the future, it may be possible to look further into the universe to find out more about it.

..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.

I'm an Atheist. I'm just against militant atheism. I think it's ignorant.

..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?

No, I can't. I can't disprove it nor prove to you that it exists, but I can tell you that the theory doesn't stand well. It has no actual documentation or any standing ground, unlike whereas the bible was filled with it.

[Threlizdun]

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.

The people of old were as intelligent as the people of now. The only difference is that the people of now believe reading "I fucking love science" or worshiping Bill Nye makes them experts of a topic that will make them cry if they took a Chemistry or Physics class in college. Read science all you want, an admirer of the arts would never claim to be an artist because they read Art History textbooks.

No, people are more intelligent now then before. It's pretty well-documented. It's to be expected really. We have better nutrition, less debilitating diseases, and an arguably more stimulating environment.

[The Scouting Legion]

Than why do people follow their every word, to the point of violating human rights and dragging the united states below the rest of the western world

[The Smith Protectorate]

and I said list them, you haven't.

Go read a fucking book, or another goddamn thread. I'm not going to list people because it's irrelevant and pointless.

The people of old were as intelligent as the people of now. The only difference is that the people of now believe reading "I fucking love science" or worshiping Bill Nye makes them experts of a topic that will make them cry if they took a Chemistry or Physics class in college. Read science all you want, an admirer of the arts would never claim to be an artist because they read Art History textbooks.

What the fuck are you blathering on about?

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.

Should I also stop people from being racially prejudiced, or believing that raping virgins cures you of AIDS, or, I dunno, something innocuous that's still stupid and possibly harmful, in contrast to the former two.

Why do you think I know those scientists and that people turn to the burning of Galileo? I've read those sources, I have those sources in front of me. Irrelevant?! is that your choice? some are deemed as 'waste' to you? calling anyone irrelevant is the reason why Christianity is important to some people, everyone has their purpose, their own choices and responsibilities, some fail this or are unfortunate and end up poor, meek and helpless the point of Christianity is to aid those people through their burdens to give them the most essential human necessity, hope.

[Ripoll]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

[Pensalum]

The Abrahamic deity isn't all knowing?

They just feign it.
I've met them.
*nods*

Oh. I've heard rumors that Jove was a pathological liar, I guess it's true.

[Immoren]

Of course, that's one of the main facts to support the theory of the big bang, but once again, we can't actually PROVE it right now. With technology in the future, it may be possible to look further into the universe to find out more about it.

proof exists only in law and mathematics.

[Immoren]

Than why do people follow their every word, to the point of violating human rights and dragging the united states below the rest of the western world

Humans are strange beasts.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Of course, that's one of the main facts to support the theory of the big bang, but once again, we can't actually PROVE it right now. With technology in the future, it may be possible to look further into the universe to find out more about it.

proof exists only in law and mathematics.

There is no way to tell whether or not the big bang happened naturally, or if a god set it in motion.

[Ripoll]

Prejudice doesn't derive from religion, prejudice derives from the inability to accept change and the inability to perceive emotion. Raping virigins is not largely accepted by institutional religion.

Obstructing the freedom of self awareness and spirituality to prevent something that hardly has any potential to become the norm and instead actually perpetuates the very thing it seeks to destroy is neither helpful or possible.

[The Rich Port]

Go read a fucking book, or another goddamn thread. I'm not going to list people because it's irrelevant and pointless.



What the fuck are you blathering on about?



Should I also stop people from being racially prejudiced, or believing that raping virgins cures you of AIDS, or, I dunno, something innocuous that's still stupid and possibly harmful, in contrast to the former two.

Why do you think I know those scientists and that people turn to the burning of Galileo? I've read those sources, I have those sources in front of me. Irrelevant?! is that your choice? some are deemed as 'waste' to you? calling anyone irrelevant is the reason why Christianity is important to some people, everyone has their purpose, their own choices and responsibilities, some fail this or are unfortunate and end up poor, meek and helpless the point of Christianity is to aid those people through their burdens to give them the most essential human necessity, hope.

Uh huh. You do realize Galileo wasn't the only person victimized by religion, right? So why the fuck are we talking about this?

What are you blathering on about?

[The Cobalt Sky]

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.

What? I'm saying your wise men weren't that wise. Also, there's a chance one of them could have made a real scientific breakthrough if they weren't killed. They can be scientists too. If you try to kill a bunch of people, there's a chance at least one of them is smart, and might've done something if not for being persecuted.

[Celritannia]

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

I'm an Atheist. I'm just against militant atheism. I think it's ignorant.

Actually, a militant Atheist would say there is no God fullstop.
I was a History student, passed with a 2:1 diploma and a reader into quantum physics. I can tell you the expansion of Christianity. I can also tell you that East Asia never really believed in the Abrahamic God, nor do they plan to anytime soon.

I cannot say a supernatural power does not exist, but I can say the God in this bible does not exist due to historical inaccuracies. It was Emperor Constantine that expanded christianity. If God did create the world, how come many cultures never believed in the same God?

I cannot be sure what happens after death. For all I know, the idea of a supernatural being is in the inner workings of all forms of life in the universe and the multiverses.

Does the Abrahamic God exist? No.

Is there some form of other power? Possibly, the universe is highly expansive, and we still know only over 0% of it.

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

No, I can't. I can't disprove it nor prove to you that it exists, but I can tell you that the theory doesn't stand well. It has no actual documentation or any standing ground, unlike whereas the bible was filled with it.

Exactly, until there is sufficient evidence, you have decided to deny it.

The bible however has been mistranslated for over the centuries, and again, only came into affect across Europe due to Emperor Constantine, and the rest of the world, due to the European Empires, mainly Britain, France and Spain.

There are nearly 42,000 different sects of Christianity (who all say God is different in their view), and then a further thousand religions, past and present, from each corner of the world, do we know all of these Gods exist? Why do we place our faith in one God? Why do we debate the existence of one God and not many?
If there were no humans, would there still be a God?

Until evidence is presented, we cannot be for sure. Thus, I will not believe in anything until there is evidence. And in actual fact, there is more evidence in reincarnation and universal energy than there is there is in a personified supernatural being who created everything.

God, the term/name, might be another meaning for this supernatural energy/the universe. There is so much we yet to discover.
But in terms of Gods and religions, they all come and go eventually.

[The Smith Protectorate]

Why do you think I know those scientists and that people turn to the burning of Galileo? I've read those sources, I have those sources in front of me. Irrelevant?! is that your choice? some are deemed as 'waste' to you? calling anyone irrelevant is the reason why Christianity is important to some people, everyone has their purpose, their own choices and responsibilities, some fail this or are unfortunate and end up poor, meek and helpless the point of Christianity is to aid those people through their burdens to give them the most essential human necessity, hope.

Uh huh. You do realize Galileo wasn't the only person victimized by religion, right? So why the fuck are we talking about this?

What are you blathering on about?

Your original post which you just released onto the thread which was unreliable, I agree there were obvious victimisation but they weren't due to their scientific area of study.

[The Rich Port]

Prejudice doesn't derive from religion, prejudice derives from the inability to accept change and the inability to perceive emotion. Raping virigins is not largely accepted by institutional religion.

Obstructing the freedom of self awareness and spirituality to prevent something that hardly has any potential to become the norm and instead actually perpetuates the very thing it seeks to destroy is neither helpful or possible.

Which religion often facilitates. Whether a religion is "institutional" or not is irrelevant.

So, what the religious minded and religion have often done?

[Pensalum]

proof exists only in law and mathematics.

There is no way to tell whether or not the big bang happened naturally, or if a god set it in motion.

The problem there is that, well, just because there's a lack of evidence to the contrary does not prove a point. If something has no evidence for, or against it, then it still does not exist until evidence is found for it.

[Eastern Equestria]

proof exists only in law and mathematics.

There is no way to tell whether or not the big bang happened naturally, or if a god set it in motion.

So instead of trying to discover how it occurred in nature, let's just lazily assume it was God.

[The Rich Port]

There is no way to tell whether or not the big bang happened naturally, or if a god set it in motion.

So instead of trying to discover how it occurred in nature, let's just lazily assume it was God.

What, are you kidding?

It took humanity thousands of years of incessant, vapid blathering to come up with the idea of one god.

[The Cobalt Sky]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Sounds like deism, which is kind of nice. I can't really argue with you unless it's the fact this is Atheism vs Christianity, not Atheism vs Theism.

[Immoren]

proof exists only in law and mathematics.

There is no way to tell whether or not the big bang happened naturally, or if a god set it in motion.

I think you missed my point.