The worst people in history were atheist...

Sent in by Jake O

i am extremely disapointed in this web site. indeed athiesm is a belief and should be repected, indeed religion has flaws and can be challenged, but at no time should you ever critisize others and put them down, and to insult them because you dont agree. you think you are so sophisticated and intelligent over those who believe in a higher being. you think that religion is the source of all of what is bad in the world when really the worst people in history were athiest. ex. adolf hitler, napolean, stalin. not to mention how many people has religion given hope, comfort, and healing to?

To monitor comments posted to this topic, use .

89 comments:

Plato said...

May I recommend that you read GOD IS NOT GREAT by Christopher Hitchens?

Anonymous said...

Despite what your pastor may have told you, Adolf Hitler, for one, claimed to be a christian and was supported by other christians. Not trying to hurt your feelings or insult you, but I suggest that you might want to actually do a little research before you post easily refutable falsehoods.

BlueGiant said...

Dude, capital letters. You are not e.e. cummings. You may be intelligent, but your writing does not belie this fact

Anonymous said...

No, I'm going to insult you and put you down beacuse:
A. You can't spell. It's Napoleon, not "napolean".
B. You're here regurgitating the same old tired, false myths about the world's worst Despots. Hitler was Catholic, indeed,he never renounced his faith. Napoleon, while not a "professing" member of any church, felt Religion was important for a country to survive. OK, I'll grant you Stalin. And raise you a Torquemada and his Inquisition.
And:
C. You don't think for yourself, coming here like some wind-up Homunculus, spout off what you heard while you were handling rattlesnakes this morning.

Stupid stays stupid, Pills won't help...

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely nothing beneficial that religion gives us that cannot be had in some other way. You do not need religion for hope, comfort, or healing. Families, loved ones, friends, scientists, researchers, professionals and doctors supply that.

On the other hand religion has been the source of misery, poverty, murder, bigotry, intolerance, wars, suicide, slavery, child molestation, racial hatred, and much more.

Jake, you are woefully ignorant. You know what you were told to know. But there is hope. Many of us here were in the same boat. Hopefully you too will be honest enough with yourself to check into the real answers and accept what you find.

If you choose to believe simply because you like to believe ... well that's not truth is it?

SpaceMonk said...

You're disappointed in this website?
You had some preconcieved ideas about it and it hasn't met those?

For my part insults and put downs are usually for the religion itself, not specifically for people.
I ridicule christianity.
I try to wake christians up by showing them how ridiculous their religion is.

It's christianity that is the insult to human intelligence and human dignity.
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on giving hope, comfort, healing, etc.

Those are human traits.

Religion just gives pat answers to issues that otherwise seem unanswerable. That doesn't make those answers right, just comforting to uninquisitive minds - yes, those not so sophisticated or intelligent (or at least those not even trying to be...).

Those uninquisitive people who have had all their issues resolved by the pat answers of religion can become overly protective of those answers, those comforts.
That kind having power is what leads to, "all what is bad in the world"...

Anonymous said...

Hey, jakeo, I'm making it easy for you. At the bottom of this comment, you'll find a link to a great website where you can learn about Hitler's christianity.

It includes several quotes from his speeches and papers wherein he professed to worship Jesus. It also includes a picture of the belt buckle worn by Nazi soldiers with the slogan "Gott Mitt Uns" ("God with us") - doesn't sound atheistic to me.

Not saying Hitler acted like a "good christian" is supposed to act, but the same can be said for a lot of folks who proclaim that they're more moral than atheists, agnostics, and ex-christians - not that I'm naming names, jakeo.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

YME said...

Even though you don't have all your facts straight, so what if they were Atheists? You've mentioned three people out of millions. Most of the murders and rapists in jails today are Christian. Prison has employed Christianity to reform their prisoners who are and were alredy Christian when they entered. They somehow, "lost faith" or "lost Jesus." Exactly how many times can you lose these things? Isn't there a limit? Why is it you can confess your love to god and get off scott-free with murder?

What about all these parents who continue to refuse medical treatment and are protected under the law because of their belief in your god? Wouldn't they be under the same catagory as Hitler?

What about all these priests who continue to rape little boys and girls, or simply beat the shit out of them? The bible states very clearly that children are fair game. Shouldn't they be under the same catagory?

What's my point? That no matter how many Atheists you can come up with that have murdered people or done some kind of immoral act, there will still be millions more Christians who have done far worse.

Besides this, what is wrong with expressing one's opinions on religious beliefs? Why is this so wrong? The religious express their opinions on lack of religious beliefs by calling people who hold not belief, "immoral." Because a good portion of them actually think that without religious belief, one cannot be moral. Which is already self evident that this notion is wrong.

Lets get a grip on reality.

Anad said...

You are extremely disappointed in this web site? I'm extremely disappointed in all the pedophile Pastors and Priests who not only rob people of their money by selling a illusion, but then many of them rape children.

Ted Haggard the Crystal Meth smoking gay hooker fucker? Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, these are just the big names. For every one of these guys there are a thousand David Bairds (Youth Pastor recently busted on raping young boys).

Anonymous said...

ROTFLMAO,
Get an education or do a little research before making a fool of yourself. Only Stalin claimed to be an Atheist.

TheJaytheist said...

Religion only gives false hope, Jake. False claims of eternal bliss after you die.

It also gives a false claim of eternal life in hell to billions of people not lucky enough to have lived after jesus(supposedly) lived, or not lucky enough to actually get to hear of "salvation" , or not irrational enough to believe in a flying god-man or whatever.

The worst people in history were all men. The worst people in history were heterosexual. The worst people in history ate meat. My point here is to show you how easy it is to lump people together using whatever criteria is required to get you to believe that there is a correlation. When in fact there isn't one.

And when someone is being a moron I have a responsibility to the human race to correct them if I can.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Well, Jake, as it is obvious that no one has made you privvy to the fact that Santa Claus is not real, I feel it is up to me, to enlighten you on a few other facts as well. You might want to sit down for this. I'll give you a moment...

Okay, here goes:

1. Jesus isn't real
2. Jehovah isn't real
3. The Holy Ghost isn't real
4. The Tooth Fairy isn't real
5. Magical Unicorns are not real
6. We are not going to an eternal oven in the middle of the Earth for our sin of not believing in the above five and...
7. You aren't going to an eternal day spa in the sky just because you do.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Sorry every one, but I had to be the one to Jake what his mommy is neglecting to. Was I too insensitive?

AMT said...

I think most of your comments are too harsh. It does not portray atheists in good light. There are polite ways to participate in a debate, without resorting to insults.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to make an observation. Just because someone says they are Christian, Hindu, or even atheist, does not mean they are meaning the same things that an adherent of that faith or nonfaith might believe. People will use different monikers to advance their peculiar agenda. Just because Hilary Clinton claims she believes in God doesn't mean that she does. Hitler, in no way, was a Christian. He claimed to be so in order to advance his agenda amongst the elite who were unwilling to give up their faith, shallow as it might have been. Please be careful when you believe what somebody says. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Nvrgoingbk said...

Amt said, "I think most of your comments are too harsh. It does not portray atheists in good light. There are polite ways to participate in a debate, without resorting to insults."

What, exactly was insulting about my informing Jake that his beliefs are false? Was it insulting when you found out that a bearded man in a red suit hadn't really been the one bringing you presents at Christmas? Was it insulting for you to find out that the Tooth fairy hadn't really been the one slipping money under your pillow?

If telling the truth is insulting, then I am guilty as charged.

Anonymous said...

Jake-o,

I've been copying and pasting the headlines of all the articles posted by the WM concerning arrests and crimes committed by christians into a Word document. These go back to about July 2005. The document thus far is 21 pages long. These are just the headlines, not the articles. Whenever someone tells me that I cannot possible be moral because I'm an atheist, I pull up the document and begin reading off the headlines. One night I read the entire thing to myself. So much sexual abuse, especially with children. And no, these are not just Catholics! I was nauseated when I was done.

I personally know of two cases of sexual abuse by christians. In one case, I knew the perpetrator, and in the other, I knew the 3 (all under age 5) victims. Neither of these were posted on the website. How many other cases are there?

Like you, I was taught as a christian that morality comes from the christian god, and that all atheists are automatically horrible people. But, after witnessing more than enough crap and seeing that jesus doesn't change a damn thing, I finally learned that morality/ethics are, as Spacemonk said, human traits.

Your bible says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Instead of judging atheists to be the worst people, get to know a few of us. Your eyes might be brutally opened.

Cheers,
chris

Anonymous said...

Actually Jake, I do agree with your perception of people here being rude and promoting hatemongering. It actually dissapoints me to see xtians, like myself, playing the same game of "your not in my group, thus your fair game for insults and ridicule" - The Christians already play that one quite well enough on their own ... There tends to be a "I'm so smart and you're not" attitude from many who claim to be athiests - it really makes others look bad.

As far as comfort and hope goes, Jake you can rest assured that my post-Christian "spiritual" life is doing much better than the emotionalism I used to run off of. There is much comfort knowing that your free too ..

Anonymous said...

Hey
I did not really want you to deconverted,but please be a little more tranquilled
Althought I am not atheist,I am once like you too.When a christian who founds out that all his faith is not real(this point pls,just assume it)He felts so bad that he post about his feelings to the net.Well,I was just like you,tell him the contents like yours and tell him to pray to god.i simply did not understand him.But after several weekslater,i confront a simillar problem as him.On that day,I really understand his feelings.the fact is,you will never understand until you experience it,so you rejected it.
Okok,let's make it easier.if you keep thinking some facts is real,but one day u realised that all things are contradictory from your beliefs!think about it.maybe you'lll simply reject this.
I knew you will never understand why(therefore you'll reject it)but unless you experience it( it is a good and bad thing if you really do).maybe you should simply stop coming to this website...you cant stop people talking,and so they cant stop you neither.

Anonymous said...

Dee tells us:
"Hitler, in no way, was a Christian. He claimed to be so in order to advance his agenda amongst the elite who were unwilling to give up their faith, shallow as it might have been. Please be careful when you believe what somebody says. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."..."

Really, now. May I have the name of the document that you've seen that gives evidence of Hitler faking his Christianity (like Bob Tilton and Peter Popoff)in order to push his agenda?

And please, if it's the so-called "Table Talk" transcripts, SPARE us. "Table Talk" is in such disrepute that there's doubt if it was even written while Hitler was alive.

But you're dead-right on about Barnum. There *IS* one born every minute. Especially on Sundays, when they give the "Altar Call" in churches all over the world.

John of Indiana

Telmi said...

NVR,

I can't find anything insulting in your message. I think it is precise writing and good advice.

AMT is of course entitled to his/her opinion, but to me seems like someone who is unable to see the forest for the trees.

For Jake, further reading is strongly advocated. He appears to be behind the times.

Anonymous said...

If bible god really existed, it would have been the worst person in history. A supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being that deliberately set up his first creations so he'd have an excuse to torment billions of their descents and that fails to make good on his promises as he ignores the prayers of the thousands of children in the world who starve to death every day would be nothing more than an evil monster.

Anonymous said...

One word: "Waaaa"

Anonymous said...

Highlights of evil done by Xians and other religionists:

"Popes maimed & were maimed, killed & were killed... Without question, these pontiffs constitute the most despicable body of leaders, clerical or lay, in history. They were, frankly, barbarians. Ancient Rome had nothing to rival them in rottenness."
– Peter de Rosa (Vicars of Christ, p48)

1095 - Pope Urban II calls upon the Franks to invade the more civilized Muslim world. Begins five centuries of warfare in the form of the Crusades.

"Warrior Monks" - Muslim heads catapulted into the besieged city of Antioch by Christian Knights (Illumination from Les Histoires d'Outremer by William of Tyre 12th century, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris).

1204 Christian crusaders sack & ruin greatest Christian city, Constantinople.

1209 Pope Innocent III launches Albigensian Crusade against Christian Cathars of southern France. 7000 massacred in La Madeleine Church alone.

1478: Pope Sixtus IV, in alliance with King Ferdinand of Spain, establishes the Spanish Inquisition. Jews, Moors and heretics will be imprisoned, tortured and murdered for centuries.
The bisexual Sixtus, though suffering from syphilis, fathers children from his elder sister.

1600 After a seven year trail before the Inquisition, Giordano Bruno, who had the audacity to suggest that space was boundless and that the sun and its planets were not unique, is condemned and burned at the stake.

1633 Galileo is brought before the Inquisition. Under threat of torture and death, he is forced from his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories. He is sentenced to life imprisonment. He dies in 1642 and the charges against him stand for another 350 years.

1793: Last 'witch' burning at Poznen in Germany

1814: Society of Jesus, suppressed since 1773, is restored. The Inquisition continues until 1834, Church-sanctioned torture until 1917.

Hitler, a Roman Catholic, is never excommunicated for causing the death of millions; whereas Martin Luther was excommunicated for translating the Bible into German!

On March 12, 2000 Pope John Paul II attempted to purify the soul of the Catholic Church by apologizing for 2000 years of "sins" committed by the church – quite some compensation for twenty centuries of terrorism, extortion and murder!

September 11, 2001: Devout Muslims fly three different jet airliners and their passengers into crowded buildings in New York and Washington D.C.; proclaiming "God is Great!' before impact. Death toll was around 3,000

Pastor Jerry Falwell states, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

More at: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
1000years.htm


Chucky Jesus

Anonymous said...

Hi John of Indiana
I actually took a course in college, albeit 3o years ago, which was called, The Psychology of History. We read a book that was similar in name. We studied Hitler, Diraeli, and Stalin. Hitler was not raised in a typical Catholic home. In fact, his mom was most likely insane. She used to take him for walks and then she would defecate on neighbors' lawns. I don't mean to be crude but I wanted to drive home the fact that his upbringing was bizarre. It is interesting that he despised the Jews and pushed the Aryan race. There is evidence that he might have been hiding the fact that he was born Jewish. His selfloathing caused him to view only Aryans as perfect.
So, I reiterate my point. He was not a practicing Catholic in any sense of the word.
Frankly, all of us are screwed up, one way or the other.Moral atheists,Christian missionaries, and Buddhist monks all have to battle selfcenterdness. Or, am I wrong? I am finding this discussion most interesting.
Dee

Anonymous said...

Hello Anonymous

Thanks for the highlights about the inquisition. Christians need to be reminded that their religion is not any better than Islam. They often point the finger at atheists, muslims, etc. They need the finger pointed right back at them. Such Hypocrites they are!

Anonymous said...

Hey all inquisitive minds,
I know I'm diverging (from Jake's post, that is), but I find Dee's comment; "We're all screwed up...all have to battle selfcenteredness" really interesting. I myself have left the Christian faith, (quick history - I was church pianist for 12 years, Sunday School head for 8, head of mission work, volunteered at an anti-abotion clinic (insert shame), and the list goes on to scary lengths...). After which, I can't help but look to myself for answers, or rather - questions, that enable me to continue on this journey called "life". To "battle" selfcenteredness, does that imply that one has to look to some other "self" as a means to understand existence and its purpose? And if so, is that what you believe to be the underlying flaw in organized religion? Is selfcenteredness freedom from moral conditioning? And if it is, when we reach the age where we even have the capacity to assess what is "real" or "true", who can say how much of our "selves" actually remains? Where is the purest form of truth?

Anonymous said...

Dee:

Ultimately, whether Hitler was a Christian or an atheist, or anything else for that matter, does NOT MATTER. The man was clearly a psychotic ruin. No amount of morality in any way of thinking could have fixed him. As you pointed out, his upbringing was very bizarre. That kind of thing, to put it bluntly, can fuck a person up.

So if anything, Hitler is a case study in why mental health is so important. A (supposed) belief in God does NOT make mental health any better. IT gives one purpose, sure, but requires that one lies to oneself. Had Hitler been an atheist, at least he would have been honest with himself about the world around him. And that might have opened the door to being honest with himself about the shape he was in. But of course, Hitler was neither Christian NOR atheist. He was merely screwed up.

On a final note: yeah, we all have to fight selfishness. But selfishness is an instinct that has helped us to survive. Being too selfish can result in destruction. So we need to find balance. Religion is not about balance, but imbalance.

Astreja said...

Anonymous (June 11) said, "To "battle" selfcenteredness, does that imply that one has to look to some other "self" as a means to understand existence and its purpose?"

You know, that's an excellent question. I'm going to answer in the negative. One cannot mitigate selfcenteredness by attaching to another "self", regardless of the characteristics of that other self. It's still attachment, and all it really does is put a larger barrier between oneself and reality.

Anonymous said...

Dee, you don't seem to recognize that your judgments of others in regards to whether they qualify as Christians are simply wrong. All theists qualify as believers. While they may sit in judgment of each other as you are doing, they all believe in something. A Christian is a Christian if they say they are. Each believer creates their own god from the materials they want to use. Some use the bible, some use personal experiences, some use upbringing, but in the end, there are as many gods as there are people. No two gods are the same.

Atheists are different from all theists. They simply have no belief in god. That doesn't make them moral or immoral. Everyone starts life as an atheist. Many (OK practically everybody) are indoctrinated into some religion of some sort,and some free themselves from religion eventually. (Perhaps we should call ourselves reborn atheists.)

One thing that atheists and theists both do is to try to ascribe a moral system to atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. Some atheists go further and say that you can prove that any god that has characteristics can be dis proven, but it remains that atheism is not a system of morality nor is it a belief. An atheist's morality and ethics come from some additional morality.

Perhaps the most immoral atheists living today are those who populate the pulpit. I would be willing to bet that greater than 80% of those in the pulpit realize that there is no god yet continue to mislead others. The need for power and attention is ubiquitous. Who would give that up?

Anonymous said...

Haven't you heard? Jesus IS IN PRISON!!! At least all those rapists and murderers say thats where they found him.

Anonymous said...

Godboy and trancelation
I am rather new at this sort of discussion and I apologize if I don't express what I am thinking as clearly as I would like to. I used the term moral atheist because, as I think through these issues on this site and Richard Dawkins site, I have found many folks who stress that they are moral atheists. I use that term out of respect. I understand that atheists are characterized as having no belief in a god but they do have beliefs in what is good and, perhaps ,other things like what is beautiful, what is awesome,what is stupid, hypocritical, etc.
I truly do not feel that I am sitting in judgment as you claim. For example godboy claims that about 80% of pastors are atheists. Is that a judgment or a fact?
I think we could all agree that when one states that he/she believes in something but acts contrary to that belief in all aspects of their life then their beliefs might be open to question.
I couldn't agree more with the statement that everyone puts god into a context that they believe in. However, I may say that I am French, learn to speak French, enjoy French cooking but, if I am born in China to Chinese parents, I am not a native Frenchman no matter how much I wish to be.
So, is there any standard that can be agreed upon in society that would allow us to say He is Hindu or He is atheist? Must I always take what they say as, forgive the term, gospel truth? Is it polite to ask one what he/she means by this terminology?
Also, could you all help me to understand something. I agree that the world is filled with religious hypocrites of all stripes. Many folks on this site have stated that they do not believe that religion is ever beneficial. However, how do we deal with a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Mother Theresa? Both claimed to be following Jesus and they did many good things. They believed their faith gave them strength. Were they mistaken? I kind of admire both of them. Am I wrong to do so?
Have a good night.
Dee

Anonymous said...

Dee said : Many folks on this site have stated that they do not believe that religion is ever beneficial. However, how do we deal with a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Mother Theresa?

You should see the Penn and Teller episode on Mother Theresa, it was interesting ... I'd sure hate to get care and mercy under her hand!

But in regards to your question - There is simply nothing good that comes from religion that can not be found without it. There is also the propensity of religion to allow people to corrupt and twist those that follow it into doing terrible acts in the name of god.

So the only thing that makes religion acceptable is god, not all the other dogma of it. So the real question is "Is the god religion describes real?". And this is where we stand. Most of us here have determined that god, as described by Christians (or any other religion IMO) is not real.

You have religion which *can* offer some good qualities, but more often than not is used, abused, and twisted to control people. Why continue to accept such a system when any *good* that can come of it can be had without it? God, as described by that religion, is not real. If there is some creator it is nothing like the petty thing that religion describes it as. Why accept the corruption that religion brings?

In my mind its a moot point. Religion is more trouble than its worth. The very core of religion demands people stop thinking and just believe and that is just too tempting for hustlers and cheats to pass up.

If you cannot show me real proof that your god exists then all your doing is standing firm to an idea of a god that you like. But that doesn't make it true.

Arguments of free will and hidden gods are ridiculous and easily shown to be irrational. There simply is no good reason that religion should be acceptable.

Anonymous said...

Dee,

You seem sincere...

I said I was "willing to bet" that 80% of the pastors were atheists (i.e. they have no belief in the existence of a god) - not that it was a fact. I may be off on the numbers, but it is my opinion and I stand by it.

When you say, "Just because someone says they are Christian, Hindu, or even atheist, does not mean they are meaning the same things that an adherent of that faith or nonfaith might believe." AND "Just because Hilary Clinton claims she believes in God doesn't mean that she does." AND "Hitler, in no way, was a Christian. He claimed to be so in order to advance his agenda amongst the elite who were unwilling to give up their faith" you are making judgments about who is and isn't a Christian.

For example, you say Hitler was in no way a Christian. I beg to differ. He contributed to the Catholic Church, professed his Christianity, and sought to eliminate Jews just like the Catholic Church had done centuries earlier. During his reign the Catholic Church was silent about his treatments of the Jews. Some decades later, Mel Gibson sweeps the nation with a Christian S&M flick that again vilifies the Jews and captures the heart of many a Christian. Is he a Christian? In my book he is...

Just because you and others see a figure in history as a monster, doesn't mean that they aren't Christian. As I said before, every Christian (and Jew, and Muslim etc...) defines his or her own god. They make that god as an alter ego. As an atheist looking at the truly baffling array of gods I must accept it when someone tells me they are a _____.

Your analogy that a person born Chinese will always be Chinese regardless of what they call themselves doesn't hold water because no one is born as a Christian or anything else. They are all born atheists. Until they are indoctrinated into some religion, they are atheists. Remember, the only thing necessary to be an atheist is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.

You are judging each time you disqualify a person who claims to belong to a group that you are a member of (ie Christian.)while welcoming a well thought of person into your "fold" like Martin Luther King, or Mother Teresa.

You said, "I couldn't agree more with the statement that everyone puts god into a context that they believe in."

That is not at all what I said.
I said, "Each believer creates their own god from the materials they want to use." That means that there are literally billions of gods. No two gods match up as there are as many different twists as there are people.

The bible is such a fun book BECAUSE it contradicts itself and presents thousands of vague, context insensitive passages. If it were written clearly and decisively it would have faded only a few years after its creation. As it is, it offers a cornucopia of tidbits, all neatly numbered for quoting just before passing the plate.

Lance said...

On the selfishness issue:

There is big difference between selfishness and acting in one's best self interest. Lots of people don't seem to get that and confuse the two.

Most times I do not find selfishness and self interest to be the same thing, and many times they are in direct conflict. For example, I find it is in my best self interest to have friends. If I act in a standard selfish manner and simply take what I want for my short term needs, I don't end up with many friends. This is not rocket science.

People seem to be programmed to behave in ways that help their own best self interest. Which is a good thing, as self interest motivates people to behave morally because it is simply better to live in a society where most other people behave morally.

My personal belief from watching selfish people is that they don't really understand what their own best long term self interest is, and thus behave in self destructive ways.

Bottom line is that self interest works just fine with evolution to give us a moral society, without the need for some bronze age god to foist his confused morals on us.

We do better without him.

webmdave said...

Dee,

Were Mother T and MLK only driven by their religion? Are you saying that without their religion Mother T and MLK would have done nothing good in the world?

If that's what you think, then there is absolutely no reason to think highly of either of those people. All we can do is applaud their religion, because without it, they would have accomplished nothing.

Are people only good or bad because of religion? Or are some people good and some people bad regardless of religion?

That, Dee, is what you should be asking.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Dee,

I have read both sides of the "Hitler was a Christian" argument, and I have concluded that he was not, but it hardly matters.

The fact that some professing Christians do not act in a "Christ-like" manner and do not display "Christ-like" virtues does not nullify their claim that they are Christians. Yahweh himself demanded blood sacrifice and commanded atrocious things to be done in his name. Yahweh's character can hardly be defined as "Christ-like" either.

Christians now believe slavery and the oppression of women to be anti-Christian, and yet Paul adovocated both, especially the subjugation of women. One would hardly claim that Paul was not really a Christian based on this fact.

Paul and James adamantly disagreed on what salvation requires, but both were devout followers of Jesus. How can this be?

The fact that the scriptures contradict themselves continually regarding what exactly Christian character requires and what precedes salvation is the precise reason we see so many types of Christians, so many sects, so many denominations, and so many despicable human beings claiming a belief in Christ.

It is not the fault of said Christians that their actions do not line up with Biblical scripture regarding Christian character. It is the BIBLE'S fault, as it does not make plain what is actually expected of a Christian in the first place and leads many to believe that a profession of faith is all that is required.

Unfortunately, the world can not determine one's sincerity of faith based on their actions, because Pauline Christianity does not require works, but only faith. Christians get to play their "faith card" whenever their actions do not line up with what the world would consider to be required of someone claiming Christian character.

Anonymous said...

Second, you leave us no doubt about your ignorance and intolerance by your inability to give a valid and coherent argument with which we can respond! You see, that is the fundamental problem with religion. It is based on lies and the church has always discouraged it's members from reading anything other than fairy tales. So the average Christian goes through life ignorant and ill-informed about all facets of life.

The best advice I can give a Christian, (not that they will take it), is to READ something other than fairy tales! Start with a biology book and work your way up from there. Keep in mind that things are NEVER as they SEEM! One of the biggest surprises I got when I crawled out of my cocoon of ignorance was this: We are being lied to by the Church, the Government, the Schools and the Media! If you want to discover the truth you need to read a LOT! The more you read, the more discerning you become, hence, you can make an intelligent argument when you feel the need. Until then, you should probably stay out of the big league forums because we will pummel you senseless with our knowledge of the facts!

Anonymous said...

SORRY! The FIRST part of my post got cut off! Here is the entire post:

I wonder why a Christian or any other religiously brainwashed person would waste their time posting on this site! Do you people also go to porn sites and fetish sites and express your disappointment with them? Do you fundies also express your disappointment with the Catholics and the Jews, and anyone else who do not agree with you?

Your post expressed, exactly, why I left the faith! Christians and Christianity are based on ignorance and lies.

First, your facts are wrong and you could use a little help in the use of the English language. Second, you leave us no doubt about your ignorance and intolerance by your inability to give a valid and coherent argument with which we can respond! You see, that is the fundamental problem with religion. It is based on lies and the church has always discouraged it's members from reading anything other than fairy tales. So the average Christian goes through life ignorant and ill-informed about all facets of life.

The best advice I can give a Christian, (not that they will take it), is to READ something other than fairy tales! Start with a biology book and work your way up from there. Keep in mind that things are NEVER as they SEEM! One of the biggest surprises I got when I crawled out of my cocoon of ignorance was this: We are being lied to by the Church, the Government, the Schools and the Media! If you want to discover the truth you need to read a LOT! The more you read, the more discerning you become, hence, you can make an intelligent argument when you feel the need. Until then, you should probably stay out of the big league forums because we will pummel you senseless with our knowledge of the facts!

Anonymous said...

Wow. Thank you for all of your thoughts. At this point I perfer to call myself a truthseeker, not an ex anything. If Eris was addressing me, I want to say something about assumptions. Not only have I read many biology books but I have extensively read Richard Dawkins and have heard him speak on a number of occasions. My husband is a medical scientist and has won many scientific awards. I don't say this to brag but to assure Eris that the level of conversation in our home is at least on a level that is acceptable.
Not only have I read science books, for my profession, but I have read books given to me by Hindus, Jews, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, Buddhists and agnostics. I may not be as well read as Eris but I am certainly more read than the average Joe. I take nothing on face value but try to understand it from the folks that believe it. Please do not put me into a box as I ask questions. Isn't that what all of you have done to get to the point you now are at?
So, here a few more of my questions. I hope that my English meets with approval. I wish this dang thing had spell check!
1. Hidden gods can easily be shown to be irrational. Then why does someone like Frances Collins, head of the Human Genome project and on track to win the Nobel Prize believe in God? He is smarter than most of us and one cannot fault him for not being well read in the sciences.
2.I agree that I appear to be disqualifying some awful people from being Christians. I still believe that Hitler was not a Catholic in the true sense. But I do believe that Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, and Oral Roberts are Christians and I dislike them intensely.Also, I adore Mark Twain and he wasn't a traditional Christian. I shall try to be an equal opportunity basher!
3. Could you give me some good examples of contradictions in the Bible?
4. Could you explain why Paul and James contradict each other?
5. I also agree that religion has caused some to do horrible acts-the Inquistion being one. I also think the Catholic Pope during WWII was a weenie.
6. Religion has caused some people to do good as well as bad. But, there are many people who do good that are not believers in a god. But, does this in itself disqualify a belief in God?
Look forward to the responses.
Dee

Anonymous said...

Dee asked: "how do we deal with a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Mother Theresa?"

Probably the same way Christians deal with Gandhi...

Spoomonkey

Anonymous said...

Dee - "Also, I adore Mark Twain and he wasn't a traditional Christian."

You got that right - he was an ATHEIST.

Anonymous said...

Contradictions in the bible:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Anonymous said...

I have actually read the contradictions on the infidels web site. I am more interested in what contradictions specifically bother you most.
I am trying to conceive of a universe without a god(s). So...help me. I have talked to some evolutionary physiologists at Duke and they couldn't give me a good answer to the question: "Where did all of the stuff come from." Is the universe eternal-eternaly contracting and expanding? Did it have a start? I understand the concept of many parallel universes but that still does not get me to the point I want to be. You all seem so well versed in your beliefs (or no beliefs if your prefer). How do you concieve of this?

boomSLANG said...

Dee: 1. Hidden gods can easily be shown to be irrational.

What on earth do you mean by "hidden gods"? Do you mean, as in "invisible"?...due to lack of empirical evidence for their existance? Nonetheless, it seems to me that the term "hidden gods" is redundant. That's like saying "hidden spooks" are irrational. I mean, are there any "UNhidden gods" somewhere? If so, whERE? If, by "irrational", you mean gods such as Zeus, Poseiden, Odin, etc....then "yes", to have a belief in such deities is "irrational", yet, what makes a belief in "Yahweh", or "El", any less "irrational"? After all, the evidence is the same..i.e."none".

Dee: Then why does someone like Frances Collins, head of the Human Genome project and on track to win the Nobel Prize believe in God? He is smarter than most of us and one cannot fault him for not being well read in the sciences.

He very well may be intellectually "smarter" than most, however, as person familiar with the scientific method, he knows he cannot test/falsify "God" in his laboratory, therefore, "Faith" takes over at the point where science leaves off. I'm sure there are "smart" Muslim scientists and "smart" Buddhist scientists, as well. Do you see the problem, now? Believing an intangible self-existing "Supreme Intelligence" sparked the singularity is one thing. Narrowing it down to a specific "Man-god" is quite another.

And speaking of "Noble Prizes", I'm sure there's one available to anyone--scientist, or otherwise-- who can "prove" the existance of ANY "supernatural" being.

Dee: 3. Could you give me some good examples of contradictions in the Bible?

Sure. Do talking snakes, shrubs, and vegetation contradict reality? I say "yes", but feel free to second guess me; feel free to ask any scientist what they think.

Also, an "ALL-loving" being who created and/or allows to exist a specific place to torture people---with fire, no less---seems, well, it seems contradictory. Can you rationalize such a thing? Listening.

Dee: "Where did all of the stuff come from."

Correct me if I'm wrong---you can't concieve of the universe being self-caused or self-existant... yet, you posit a "being" who is either self-caused or self-existant as responsible?

With all due respect, you've answered n-o-t-h-i-n-g with "God". You have an infinite regress to deal with.

webmdave said...

"I wish this dang thing had spell check!"

Use the FireFox browser. It includes spell check. Or, write your comment in some word processing program and copy and paste it here.

” Could you give me some good examples of contradictions in the Bible?”

CLICK HERE and HERE

” Could you explain why Paul and James contradict each other?”

Because they were in competition. James was the true leader of Christianity after his brother Jesus died. Paul was intent on becoming the leader of the movement, and he won.

Now, if your question was “Could you explain why you say the theology of Paul and James contradict each other?” then that’s a different question.

”Religion has caused some people to do good as well as bad. But, there are many people who do good that are not believers in a god. But, does this in itself disqualify a belief in God.”

No. And the fact that many good and bad people believe weird things doesn’t disqualify belief in Big Foot, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, or Santa Claus either. The lack of evidence that these things exist is what disqualifies belief in them.

Anonymous said...

Dee said "Could you give me some good examples of contradictions in the Bible?"

There are many conflicting biblical passages such as Jesus saying the old laws are passed and then later saying the old laws must be upheld or the differing descriptions of his crucification. Most believers shrug these off as simple misinterpretations or points of view. As a non believer I find these gaffs unacceptable when believers attempt to show their religion as true and undeniable. However the really glaring contradictions are the ones that involve the core of religion.

One contradiction of the bible that I find revealing is the story of Adam and Eve. They are in god's garden and are completely innocent. God gives them the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge and of course they do exactly that when eve is tempted by Satan in the guise of a serpent. When god discovers this he is angry curses humanity to mortality (and women to painful birth) and they get tossed out of the garden.

I see multiple problems with this story. The first being that god must discover and ask Adam and Eve why they have become ashamed of their nakedness. Why does god not already know this? Why did he not burst upon the scene as it occured - or better yet, know it was going to happen? These are considerations that simply did not occur to the original story tellers - inconsistencies that one would find in primitive myths.

Another problem is the concept of innocence and sin. The story suggests that A&E are not aware of what sin is or the difference of right or wrong. A parallel would be placing a gun in a children's playroom and telling the children not to play with it. There have actually been studies on this and the results are that curious kids will play with the gun regardless of what they are told. Who is at fault for that then? The parents! So it makes no sense that all of humanity is punished for something that was ultimately the cause of god.

The next contradiction is god knowing his newly formed children are innocent still allows Satan to be in the garden with him. Again, there is the contradiction of blaming A&E for god's incompetence.

Some will argue that god did it because he wanted to test A&E's free will. But I must ask again, how can god be both all-knowing and unknowing? It's contradictory. An all knowing god would know the exact outcome therefor his allowing the tree, satan, and A&E all being together contradicts the idea of free will.

The entire story of Christ is contradictory. God sent himself to save us from himself by sacrificing himself in order to appease himself or the curse that he himself placed on us.

Not only are many scriptures contradictory, but the message that they try and teach are contradictory as well. "Thou shall not kill" yet god commands the destruction of entire races? "Thou shall not steal" yet god demands the destruction of entire societies and orders that his people take the animals, food, and virgins of that society?

Thou shall not bear false witness, yet we have the inquisitions where people where tortured until they readily admitted to things that they were told to admit to, and then promptly killed.

"Love they neighbor" and then told to hate the homosexual or anyone that does not believe the same. The bible even supports the idea of slavery and people today still try and justify that with inane comments like "slavery was different back then". You simply cannot justify it.

Anyway, these are only a few contradictions that popped off the top of my head. But honestly, do you really need more?

Spirula said...

I have talked to some evolutionary physiologists at Duke and they couldn't give me a good answer to the question: "Where did all of the stuff come from.'

As a zoologist, I'm curious why you thought an evolutionary physiologist would or could answer this question? Astronomist or physicist I could see, but the Theory of Evolution and evolutionary biology have nothing to do with this question.

If I were asked that same question, I would have directed you to the Astronomy Dept., even though I am aware of the evidence for the Big Bang (microwave background), but certainly could not demostrate the mathematical basis of these predictions.

Anyway, your implication "if you can't explain then god" is a classic creationist logical fallacy. And, as boomSLANG pointed out, you've just created an infinitely more complex series of questions that can't be answered.

Anonymous said...

Hi Boomslang
I used the terms "hidden god" in response to another person who used that term to explain something to me. Again, I am trying to look at this through the eyes of those who respond to me. Perhaps in the future I should say which person I am quoting from. I am a relatively new blogger.
Dee

Nvrgoingbk said...

Quite alot of questions to answer Dee, but I'll attempt to anyway.

First of all, if you've read the many contradicting scriptures you say you have, what more are you looking for? An infallible and inerrant "Word of God" would not contain such glaring inconsistencies.

From the beginning to the end, the Bible contradicts itself. God wants us to choose him for ourselves but uses threats of torture to insure our worship. 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 is called the "love chapter". It claims that love is not jealous. The Bible elsewhere claims that God is love, yet God himself is recorded as calling himself a jealous God.

One of the commandments demands we do not commit adultery, but he continually makes allowance for polygamy throughout the Old Testament and approves of cconcubines. The only reason David is punished at all is because Bathsheba was another man's wife (property). David was already married to Abigail and God never takes issue with this.

The Bible reports that God stopped the sun in the sky so that the Israelites would succeed in battle, but we know now that the sun does not move. If the Bible were inerrant, surely God would have "inspired", as he is so often claimed to do, the Old Testament writers, and He would have cleared up this embarrassing little mistake long before the appearance of the printing press.

There are MANY contradicting accounts in the life of Jesus told by the gospel writers whether it be the last words of Jesus, his geneology, who was present at his tomb and who exactly found it empty, etc.

There are two different accounts of what exactly happened to Judas after he betrayed Jesus and just how he died.

There are two different accounts as to whether or not the men present with Paul saw or heard what he did.

Paul claims that salvation comes through faith and NOT WORKS lest any man should boast, but James claims that faith without works is DEAD. The book of John claims that anyone born of God DOES NOT SIN, but Paul continually complains about his sin nature and his inability to carry out the commandments of God.

Jesus tells different people that different things are required of them to inherit the "Kingdom of Heaven".

In the OT, Yahweh commands David to take a census, but then punishes him for doing just that.

One of the commandments is "Thou shall not kill", but the Hebrew God is continually reported to DEMAND the Israelites to do just that.

There are two different Creation accounts.

Jehovah is claimed to HATE human sacrifice but allows Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter without punishment.

God tells Adam and Eve that the punishment for their sin would be DEATH, NOT Hell. We do not see the concept of Hell introduced until, I believe, the Chapter of Isaiah. The early Hebrews DID NOT believe or preach the concept of eternal life. They believed and hoped in the resurrection of the dead, but there was no such belief in eternal punishment. The Hebrews were greatly influenced by the Summerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Zoarastrian beliefs who perpetuated such myths. If you read through the OT, especially Ecclesiastes and Psalms, you will find that David and Solomon both believed that when we die, we die. The believed that the dead were aware of NOTHING.

I have given you quite a few to chew on, but I'm sure you have already been introduced to many of these contradictions. Is there anything else I can do for you?

I'm quite confused with just where you stand on the Jesus/God/Christianity issue. AT times you seem sympathetic and at times you seem disgusted with it. Perhaps I have missed something.

Jim Arvo said...

Dee said "You all seem so well versed in your beliefs (or no beliefs if your prefer). How do you concieve of this?"

I'm not going to address any of the specific questions you've asked, because I think there is something much more fundamental that should be addressed first. It seems to me that you are asking questions of the form "How do you explain X if there is no god?", with the implication (I presume) that we must have either answered all such questions (at least to our own satisfaction), or that it should bother us if we have not. Is that a fair statement?

If that is so, then please allow me to correct you on that point before we move on. I, for one, feel no need to answer everything. There are millions of question that science cannot fully answer at present, and there are many that may never be answered. That in itself does not lend any credibility whatsoever to the existence of an invisible conscious entity that is behind it all. To not know the answer is to simply NOT KNOW; this does not translate into some other kind of "knowledge"--e.g. knowledge of the supernatural.

To those who believe that myriad unanswered questions somehow imply a supernatural creator, I say you have it quite backwards. One should not adopt a belief out of ignorance (e.g. "I can't think of any other explanation!") but based on reason and evidence ("my beliefs match the available data and are falsifiable"). Moreover, whether or not an explanation is intuitively satisfying to you is not a good criterion for accepting it or not. Much in science is rather dramatically counterintuitive (specifically in quantum theory). Nature is far stranger than our naive intuition tells us, as our innate reasoning has been shaped by eons of interaction at the "middle" scales of size, speed, temperature, velocity, gravitation, pressure, etc. At extremes, science has demonstrated that nature behaves quite differently.

I won't ramble on about this at the moment. Suffice it to say that 1) I am quite content tot say "I don't know" when that is the case, and 2) saying "God did it" is not an explanation at all, as it provides nothing that one would expect from a legitimate explanation, such as the ability to better understand or predict the world around us.

Anonymous said...

Dee: "So...help me."

Are we helping "you", or do you believe you are "helping" us?

Dee: "I have talked to some evolutionary physiologists at Duke and they couldn't give me a good answer to the question: "Where did all of the stuff come from."

Dee, your question shows a lack of education. Evolutionary physiology is particular to the study of the organic change over time. You question a biologist on cosmology? Do you know the difference between cosmology and evolutionary physiology?

Do you know the difference between cosmology and cosmography? Do you know the relationship between biology and cosmography? Can you provide a calculus to make a working relationship?

Dee, like so many others that have come here, you don't come with an education equal to the task of proffering a cogent question; ironically though, you come with a "patent" answer to all unknown questions. You have no credibility, and have not qualified yourself as someone who is educated enough to engage in the very topics you suggest you have interest in.

Would you ask an infant to proffer an answer to a calculus question Dee, I wouldn't, it's a waste of time, and they don't have the capacity to engage the topic.

Dee: "Is the universe eternal-eternaly contracting and expanding?"

Let's start with your explanation, how many years have you been studying cosmography? If in hours, you can break that down for us.

Dee: "Did it have a start?"

Define "start". Uh, before you attempt this, you will need to understand what "time" is, by all means, discuss.

Dee: "I understand the concept of many parallel universes but that still does not get me to the point I want to be."

Where do you want to be?

Dee: "You all seem so well versed in your beliefs (or no beliefs if your prefer). How do you concieve of this?

I conceive as I please, it is "you" that appears to have a need to reach some point, in order to understand something.

Dee, how do you validate information given to you by others? I mean, if we are going to talk about questions, that you can't properly form, how is it that you would ever know if an answer were right or wrong?

Moreover, why would anyone invest their time in you, if you haven't invested time in yourself? It's no one's responsibility on this site, to "educate" you; that is your responsibility. Why don't you just present what you believe, and see if it holds water, or is that asking too much? If you can't forumlate any belief at all, then obviously, you have no foundation by which to judge anyone elses' information.

Anonymous said...

Dee:

You asked how one can conceieve of the universe in their non-belief. In other words, I have to assume that you're asking what kind of answers we have for the big questions like, "Where did the universe come from?" Well, here's my answer: I don't know. I don't think anypne really does. We have mounds of evidence for natural beginnings. One of the arguments Christians make about God in relation to the First Cause philosophy is that God just is. In other words, Christians argue that all things must have a cause (no painting without a painter), EXCEPT for God. God just is. Why, then, can the universe not JUST BE? Why is "knowing" (and I use that term loosely) the answer to some of these questions SO important? Christians claim that the mystery of their religion is part of the reason it is so wonderful. Well, the natural universe is full of mystery, too. Atheists, unlike Christians, do not fill the void with lies in order to make themselves feel better about not knowing. We admit we don't know, and then we seek out the answers.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Dee, Jim Arvo is right.

I'd like to add, that since it seems obvious that you are trying to make a plea for the existence of God based on the fact that "all this stuff" exists, it is a moot point. Moot, because even if "all this stuff" points to a creator, it doesn't point to Yahweh as being that creator.

Asking "Where did all this stuff come from" is a great starting point, but how does one end up at "God did it"? And even if they end up there by default, how do they then compound their lunacy with "I guess the god that did it is the Hebrew war god and his half-dead son, Jesus?" Where in the hell (no pun intended) is the correlation, and how does one derive at such a conclusion, simply because they do not have the answers?

It seems to me that Creationists use the "God did it" card only because they do not have the answers they seek.

Why are so many afraid to just admit that they don't know? Is it fear or is it to suffice their ego with the haughty opinion that they have found the answers. It is so much easier to assign it all to a make believe entity than to bear with patience the tedious labor of scientists. When scientists do finally supply us with valid explanations, the religious folk balk at their professional opinions, because to accept them would mean a redefining of their long-cherished belief that they had the answer to begin with, which was that God did it. If a creationist finds a gap, they fill it with God, instead of saying, "well, this is just one more thing we don't know yet."

In my opinion, Creationists' obsession with filling in the gaps with God does not derive from some sincere desire to know the answers. They are not concerned with sin or right and wrong. They are not concerned with any of the issues they think they are. It all boils down to their fear of death, and to accept evolution is to accept that maybe, just maybe, their life will end at death, and THAT is unacceptable to their ego. They just are not able to fathom the idea that they will not go on in some form or another. Death is the greatest unknown of all to the human psyche. Death fills us with fear, because what happens after we die is the one thing we have absolutely no control of. Christians and other religious folk, however, believe that they do. They think they have found the precise formula, i.e. the sinners prayer, a trip to Mecca, a suicide bombing, etc. that will insure a blissful eternity for their "souls". They would rather fear Hell with the hope of Heaven, than to live in complete ignorance of what will happen to them after they die. They will take all of the unpleasantries of religion, the fear, the dogma, the ridiculous fairy tales...They will overlook the contradictions of their faith, the atrocities of thier religion's followers, the despicable commands made by their god...They will sacrifice their own happiness and their own good judgment all in order to satisfy their fear of the unknown.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

The definition of light is "the radiance or illumination from a particular source" (Dictionary.com) while dark is "having very little or no light" (Dictionary.com). Now if we go to the definition of Religion, we get "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" (Dictionary.com) while Atheist is "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" (Dictionary.com). Atheism is the LACK of religion like dark is the LACK of light.

Anonymous said...

Dee, to respond to a few of your questions:

I don't know why Francis Collins became religious, we do know that his conversion was not the result of scientific investigation (he says he had a vision.) Humans are complex and don't always behave rationally. In any event he is only one man, if prominent scientists were converting every week then we could assume that something was going on.

As far as Hitler not being a true Catholic or true Christian, if you have a way to test whether someone is a "true Catholic" or "true Christian" then I'd be interested to hear it. Typically all one has to do is proclaim their belief and they are in the club. As I understand it the Catholic church did not speak out against him at the time nor was he ever excommunicated.

For a Bible contradiction, is salvation by faith alone, or faith and works? There are verses to support either view.

Anonymous said...

ALANH Said:

"As far as Hitler not being a true Catholic or true Christian, if you have a way to test whether someone is a "true Catholic" or "true Christian" then I'd be interested to hear it."

I have always been amused when Christians claim that Hitler (or anyone) could not have been a "true" Christian because he (or they) behaved in such and such a manner. I call this the "Dissociative Argument", whereby they attempt to distance themselves from negativity by claimng that they worship the "true way". Of course they all make this claim and all can furnish "proof" for their position by cherry picking the bible. They usually start off this argument by saying something like "You can't judge all Christians because of a few bad ones!" These, of course, are the same people that lump us (atheists) into an immoral group of uncaring, unethical, overly prideful and humility lacking savages. (Why do they consider humility to be a desirable trait, anyway?)

Given that the Catholic church had official doctrine, into the 20th century, concerning the negative desired treatment and disposition of the Jewish people, and that Hitler grew up during that time and would have been exposed to this church doctrine and attitude during his formulative years, it is not really a stretch to theorize that he beleived it. People today beleive it, firmly. A lot of people in the Arab nations feel that Hilter was a hero who just did not go far enough. Other historical figures, including those of the Christian faith, have committed atrocities on a grand scale and were probobly not mentally unbalanced. Wholesale slaughter of innocent people does not by definition take a sick mind, just a firm conviction that what you are doing is correct or "righteous".

I would also point out that while there is mountains of historical instances where people are put to death, by the thousands, in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islamic, Quetzacotal and many others, there is not one recorded instance of a person being killed in the name of atheism.

Anonymous said...

ALANH Said: (Not picking on you Alan, just quoting you for use as a springboard.)

"As far as Hitler not being a true Catholic or true Christian, if you have a way to test whether someone is a "true Catholic" or "true Christian" then I'd be interested to hear it."

I have always been amused when Christians claim that Hitler (or anyone) could not have been a "true" Christian because he (or they) behaved in such and such a manner. I call this the "Disassociative Argument", whereby they attempt to distance themselves from negativity by claimng that they worship the "true way". Of course they all make this claim and all can furnish "proof" for their position by cherry picking the bible. They usually start off this argument by saying something like "You can't judge all Christians because of a few bad ones!" These, of course, are the same people that lump us (atheists) into an immoral group of uncaring, unethical, overly prideful and humility lacking savages. (Why do they consider humility to be a desirable trait, anyway?)

Given that the Catholic church had official doctrine, into the 20th century, concerning the negative desired treatment and disposition of the Jewish people, and that Hitler grew up during that time and would have been exposed to this church doctrine and attitude during his formulative years, it is not really a stretch to theorize that he believed it. People today beleive it, firmly. A lot of people in the Arab nations feel that Hilter was a hero who just did not go far enough. Other historical figures, including those of the Christian faith, have committed atrocities on a grand scale and were probobly not mentally unbalanced. Wholesale slaughter of innocent people does not by definition take a sick mind, just a firm conviction that what you are doing is correct or "righteous".

I would also point out that while there is mountains of historical instances where people are put to death, by the thousands, in the name of religion, be it Christianity, Islamic, Quetzacotal and many others, there is not one recorded instance of a person being killed in the name of atheism.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the double post. I was proofreading and I guess I clicked on the Post button before I was ready to.

Patrick said...

im going to be honest and say yes this is such a poorly crafted attck on atheist which is totally unessessary. and like the poster i struggle with capitals and spelling, but my point is grouping people together is wrong.
'Christians' are nice people - WRONG!
'Atheists' are nice people - WRONG!
People called John are nice people also wrong.
Some of the people in these social catagories could be naughty or nice there are few absolutes when talking about groups.
When people are defending atheists as a whole saying they are polite and intelligent, also wrong. Many may be, but lets sort out the stereotyping for now shall we?
everyone gets so uptight when they are challenged. even by such a poor, unstructured and downright pointless statement.

Anonymous said...

Good gracious. I didn't know that I had to have a degree in cosmology in order to ask questions. I have read books by Steven Hawkings and watched and read Carl Sagan. I also have read stuff by Hugh Ross. I figured that would get the fires burning!I know that I am hardly the brightest bulb on the block. But I do try to understand. A quote I like is "Seek first to understand rather than to be understood."I may be talking to the wrong folks if I need to have a PhD. in astrophysics to discuss the meaning of life.I think we only go through life once and I don't want to waste the life that I have. I come to you to understand why you have left Christianity. I have also gone to Hindus, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Scientologists and agnostics.I have read Thomas Jefferson's Bible.He didn't believe many things in the original and tore it up and printed his own.
1. Huey- No flaming way Hitler was a Christian. One can judge a person by their actions that should come out of a deeply held belief system. Evil is what came out of that man. Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that Christians haven't done evil. They have-Crusades, Inquisitions, Slavery, Racial Discrimination to name a few.
2.ALANH-As I have talked with folks from a variety of belief systems, I have rarely found fear of death as the prime motivating force. Also, among these groups of true believers I have found many people who were not haughty at all as they discussed their beliefs. For me, the questions is this. I have a daughter who survived a massive malignant brain tumor. All of the other children where she was treated died. Is this life all that there is? If so, it is a cruel life. Children suffer and die, people starve and are sold into slavery in the Sudan. I volunteer with kids who have awful lives-abuse, poverty. I want to see what the hope is for these. I have a great life, a nice home, the ability to travel, a great family. I was born privileged. When I die, I will leave a legacy. Children who love me, dear friends who will hold my memory. What about all those who do not have this? Just too bad?
3.Tigerpaw told me to educate myself. Well...I am trying. However, I doubt that I will ever be a Carl Sagan in my knowledge. Does this mean I should give up and not ask questions? Believe me, if you think I am uneducated, you must be frustrated with most people in the world who do not meet your standard for what is acceptable education and beliefs.
4. Spirula- I have talked to astronomers. I go to lectures on black holes, etc. I don't understand much of what's being said but I do try. I understand that believing God started the universe is a default position. However, the only other position says that, to quote the Berenstain Bears"Nature is all there was and all there ever will be." This reference should drive Tigerpaw up a wall. So, is there such a thing as an uncaused first cause?
5.Finally, nvrgoingbk. I have researched the contradictions you pointed out. I go back to the theologians who deal with these issues. I believe we should ask the people who know this stuff. I have done this with Mormons, Jews, etc. After discussing your examples, I believe that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for your points. I shall not force this on you unless you wish. I do not want to be perceived as trying to "convert" someone.I am not trying to do that at all.
Well, I hope that I have made sense.
Dee

boomSLANG said...

Patrick: ...there are few absolutes when talking about groups.

There are no absolutes. However, "change" is an absolute, and religious convictions are not subject to change. That poses a problem for those "groups" who hold religious convictions.

Patrick: but lets sort out the stereotyping for now shall we?

As an Atheist, it's not my position to say that "ALL" Christians are this, that, or the other thing....however, I don't think it's being sterotypical to say that much of the ignorance in this world can be directly linked to people who adhere to religious convictions.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Dee, you said: "Finally, nvrgoingbk. I have researched the contradictions you pointed out. I go back to the theologians who deal with these issues. I believe we should ask the people who know this stuff. I have done this with Mormons, Jews, etc. After discussing your examples, I believe that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for your points. I shall not force this on you unless you wish. I do not want to be perceived as trying to "convert" someone.I am not trying to do that at all."

Okay, first of all, why would you go to a theologian to answer questions from the Bible, when the only education most of them have had are biased educations from seminary school? There are plenty of other unbiased literary scholars and experts in world religions, who could also give you their opinion regarding the Bible. You need to inquire of BOTH sides.

Second of all, I am sure that I have all of these "perfectly reasonable explanations" memorized. I was given all of the same apologetic answers by "theologians". Let's see, when it comes to the sun revolving around the Earth: Uhm, well, the people were fairly uneducated back then and from their perspective the sun DID move, right?

Oh, and regarding the two different accounts of Judas' death: Obviously BOTH of those things happened, right? It's "perfectly reasonable".

Let's see, regarding God being a jealous god but also being a god of love: Well, he's God and he's perfectly loving AND perfectly just, so he can not allow sin into Heaven, and loving ANYTHING more than him is a sin and causes his jealousy, but HIS jealousy is righteous, correct?

Regarding human sacrifice: Well God didn't COMMAND that Jephthah sacrifice his daughter, now did he? The Bible doesn't actually say how God felt about it one way or another. He just fails to stop his hand from taking his daughters life the way he did with Abraham and Isaac. Who cares, anyway, afterall, he was sacrificing a DAUGHTER. Women aren't as valuable as men.

Hmm, I guess the contradictions surrounding the burial, resurrection and last words of Jesus can't be seen as contradictions at all, since the gospel accounts are given by different people and they obviously heard and saw different things. Apparantly ALL of these things happened or were said, so now the contradictions are cleared up.

Salvation takes faith AND works, right? THat's it!

God allowed polygamy and concubines, because of the "hardening of their hearts", right? BUt now, since Jeebus came, we are not even allowed to remarry even if our husband abandons us for another woman, even if he beats the shit out of us, even if he remarries, himself. Now wives are slaves to their marriage vows FOR LIFE. Damn those lucky Jews!

When it comes to murder: Well, uhm excuse me, everyone knows that those damn Heathens were dirty birdies - evil through and through from the oldest all the way down to the infants. Not even the newly born were innocent. NOT ONE of them deserved to be spared (unless of course they were a young virgin - THEY could still be put to good use). And if you're going to commit genocide in the name of Yahweh, you better do it right. You've got to smash babies on rocks! THat'll show them pagans! God had to do away with those nations, because they would have just polluted the Earth and the faith of the Israelites if they were allowed to live. God's commandments are JUSTIFIED, cause, cause, well cause HE'S GOD, GODDAMN IT!

Did I leave anything out?

I don't understand you at all, Dee. One minute you call yourself an Athiest, and the next, you are telling me there are perfectly reasonable explanations to the contradictions in the Bible because a "theologian" told you so. If you are an Athiest, why are you trying to find explanations to the contradictions in the first place? It doesn't make sense. Do you spend as much time trying to find answers to the contradictions in the Koran (and believe me, there are plenty. Just ask a Christian theologian - HA!) Where are you coming from, and where are you going?

boomSLANG said...

Dee: As I have talked with folks from a variety of belief systems, I have rarely found fear of death as the prime motivating force.

Whaa? You're kidding, right? Of course they don't MENTION it as a motivating factor, because they have already convinced themselves that they will survive death.... this, in exchange for behaving appropriately, and worshipping their deity.

And BTW, I'd be curious to know what these people you interviewed stated as their "motivating force" for belief. Is it that they need moral guidance?...like, it's too much of a strain to figure out that murder and rape is a "wrong"??? Or is it just something to do on Sundays? Is it the comfort in being able to answer the unknown with "God did it!", as opposed to admitting ignorance? No, I'm NOT convinced. And honestly, if Santa, not "God", promised us eternal life?.. I shit-you-not we'd have full grown adults putting out milk and cookies for Christmas.

Dee stated: Children suffer and die, people starve and are sold into slavery in the Sudan. I volunteer with kids who have awful lives-abuse, poverty. I want to see what the hope is for these. I have a great life, a nice home, the ability to travel, a great family. I was born privileged. When I die, I will leave a legacy. Children who love me, dear friends who will hold my memory.

And then she asks: What about all those who do not have this? Just too bad?

Concerning these unfortunate situations, if we hypothetically say, "yeah, it's just too bad".... is that, and the fact that it makes us feel uncomfortable about it, in and of itself, an objective reason to believe that there will be "make up" in another life? I think not.

Furthermore, I find the notion that an "all-loving" being would decree and/or allow a child to suffer such a pointless, painful, and drawn-out death as cancer, and then "make up" for it later, a very lacking notion. Especially when said "omnipotent" being could've just prevented it in the first place, and/or, not brought said child into existance. If you can rationalize it(and I bet you can), I'm listening.

Dee asks: So, is there such a thing as an uncaused first cause?

Well, if "yes", that would mean that the singularity could be "uncaused". If "no", that would mean that "God" needs a "cause", and you have an infinite regress. Of course, physics already tells us that "something" can come from "nothing".

Dee: I have researched the [Bible]contradictions you pointed out. I go back to the theologians who deal with these issues. I believe we should ask the people who know this stuff.

The people who "know" it?....or do you mean the people who have decided, a priori, that there's no contradiction??????? BTW, you can find "Theologians" who can reconcile the contradictions in the Holy Qu'ran. So?

Dee: I have done this with Mormons, Jews, etc. After discussing your examples, I believe that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for your points.

Of course you can.

Anonymous said...

Dee: "Tigerpaw told me to educate myself. Well...I am trying."

Not really.

Dee: "I just wanted to make an observation."

This would be your trying to become educated?

Dee: "Just because someone says they are Christian, Hindu, or even atheist, does not mean they are meaning the same things that an adherent of that faith or nonfaith might believe."

Just because Dee says the above statement, doesn't really mean Dee actually means what she says, obviously Dee has an agenda.

Dee: "People will use different monikers to advance their peculiar agenda."

That includes you Dee; how do you remove yourself from the pool of people who have agendas?

Dee: "Just because Hilary Clinton claims she believes in God doesn't mean that she does."

Is that your agenda'd observation?

Dee: "Hitler, in no way, was a Christian."

So, Dee, which person in the world, who has an agenda, is going to define Christian for us? You?

Dee: "He claimed to be so in order to advance his agenda amongst the elite who were unwilling to give up their faith, shallow as it might have been."

Sounds like Paul's description of Jesus, who was trying to advance his agenda amongst the Jewish elite. Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew? Was he God, or did he have a moniker "God" as well, that he prayed to in the garden?

Dee: "Please be careful when you believe what somebody says. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Yeah, but suckers don't have freedom to act, you do Dee, what is your agenda?

Dee: "However, I doubt that I will ever be a Carl Sagan in my knowledge."

Suppose you'd have to know Carl Sagan's level of knowledge, before making that statement, but you can doubt without any evidence, I mean, there are plenty of people who believe all kinds of things without any evidence.

Dee: "Does this mean I should give up and not ask questions?"

Not all questions are legitimate, but... you don't seem to know the difference between a legitimate question as opposed to an illegitimate question.

Dee: "Believe me, if you think I am uneducated, you must be frustrated with most people in the world who do not meet your standard for what is acceptable education and beliefs."

You don't know the half of it.

Dee: "I understand that believing God started the universe is a default position."

Interesting, which "g"od would you be talking about?

Dee: "However, the only other position says that, to quote the Berenstain Bears" Nature is all there was and all there ever will be." This reference should drive Tigerpaw up a wall."

Dee, there aren't just "two" positions for the cosmologic beginnings of this Universe, where one has a god, and another doesn't, ever hear of pantheism? A "god" manifests in Nature within the realm of physics and metaphysics... or so I understand, care to elaborate, since you see in extremes only.

Dee: "So, is there such a thing as an uncaused first cause?"

This would be an example of an illegitimate question. Care to become educated?

Dee: "I believe we should ask the people who know this stuff."

No, first, you "believe" in other people, without having a clue as to ascertain the truth of their statements, and "then" you parrot their responses, suggesting "they" know their stuff, as "if", you would know any different. If you do know how to tell when someone is lying or not, please provide that methodology. If you don't, then I'll assume that you are just passing on lies, because you can't tell the difference.

Jim Arvo said...

Dee said "I didn't know that I had to have a degree in cosmology in order to ask questions."

If someone here implied such a thing, I must have missed it.

Dee: "A quote I like is 'Seek first to understand rather than to be understood.'"

Good quote. I like it too. Who is it attributed to?

Dee: "I may be talking to the wrong folks if I need to have a PhD. in astrophysics to discuss the meaning of life."

Nobody has implied such a thing.

Dee: "I come to you to understand why you have left Christianity."

Have you ready any of the hundreds of testimonies here? That would be an excellent place to start.

Dee: "No flaming way Hitler was a Christian. One can judge a person by their actions that should come out of a deeply held belief system. Evil is what came out of that man."

"Evil" has come from many professing Christians. As to whether Hitler actually believed half the things he professed, I have no idea. To be blunt, I don't think you do either. The man clearly used whatever ideology he could leverage, including Christianity and the theory of evolution.

Dee: "...Is this life all that there is? If so, it is a cruel life. Children suffer and die, people starve and are sold into slavery in the Sudan."

Yes, there is abundant cruelty in every species. By using our minds, we humans have mitigated the cruelty to some extent. It seems that we can do better, however. In my view, that requires reason, not superstition. As for life being "all there is", I find that to be an odd question. You seem to suggest that we are due something more than a life. I can't imagine what that would be, or why you think there is such a thing.

Dee: "What about all those who do not have this? Just too bad?"

Look at what you are arguing. You are suggesting that because you don't like the outcome, reality must therefore be different. That makes no sense. As far as I can tell, the universe is under no obligation to conform to our wishes (or, to your wishes, as the case may be).

Dee: "So, is there such a thing as an uncaused first cause?"

There are uncaused events, yes. Plenty of them. In fact, space is essentially frothing with uncaused events known as vacuum fluctuations. As for a "first cause", I honestly don't even know what that means, as it would appear to be something that would be independent of time. All the talk of "first causes" from theologians is basically hot air--it's nothing more than naive armchair cosmology.

Dee: "I go back to the theologians who deal with these issues. I believe we should ask the people who know this stuff."

So, who is the ultimate authority? Who actually "knows"? The fact is, there are many different points of view and many schools of thought, each with its supporting scholarship. There is no one authority--all we can do is to hear them out and try to make sense of it for ourselves. Many of us here do exactly that. It sounds like you are trying as well. If so, then good.

Anonymous said...

Ok. let me express a couple more things then off to bed.
1.Boomslang-I agree. We cannot makeup another life just because there are hard things in this life. Besides, I think it is humans who have mucked things up and that's why babies die and people are sold into slavery. However, I am curious about one thing. You say that we don't need some outside source to tell us murder and rape are wrong. Well...how do we deal with groups like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Associatian) which, with the help of the ACLU, is fighting to make pedophilia legal? How do we determine if they are right or I am right(They should all be shot)!? I am also curious about your comment that physics shows us that something can come from nothing. Please explain. I don't understand.
2 NVRGOINGBK I have inquired and read critiques of the Bible by nonChristians like Bart Ehrman, Chairman of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill and the Jesus Seminar. On the Jephtheh deal- she wasn't sacrificed, she became a priestess at the Temple. Also, to your question, why didn't God stay the hand of Hitler, etc? Is there any other reason except that, if He exists, He is bad? Also, I have spent a great deal of time trying to reconcile the contradictions in other religious sources such as the Book of Mormon, etc. Just ask the local Mormans where I live. They have worked on me for 1 1/2 years to no avail but I find their conversations fascinating.
3. Dear tiger paw How on earth do I educate myself so that you would think that I am actually trying? Can I ever live up to your expectations? I have never removed myself from the pool of agendas. I am filled with mixed motives in everything that I do. I think that is part of being human. I bet you have the same problem. Hitler was not a Christian. I would be happy to define it for you but I think you are quite capable of doing so on your own. Except for this tough crowd, I bet a quick survey of folks in universities would agree that he was not a Christian. he was the embodiment of evil. You claim I ask illegitimate questions? Huh? What would be a legitimate question within your framework? You also say I deal in extremes. Why?
4.Jim Arvo Thank you for being encouraging in your answers. Do you think that the wish for having things made right in this world (and maybe the next, if there is one) is in us for a reason? Is there a justice gene? Is there a gene that helps us understand beauty? Also, why is the serach for a first cause "armchair cosmology?" Granted, I sit more now than I did 20 years ago but it is something I think about.
Again, thank you all for attempting to deal with me.
Good night
D

Anonymous said...

"Hitler was not a Christian. I would be happy to define it for you but I think you are quite capable of doing so on your own."

Yeah, yeah. Hitler was capable of defining it on his own, too, and he and his fellow Nazis defined themselves as christians.

Jim Arvo said...

Dee asked "Do you think that the wish for having things made right in this world (and maybe the next, if there is one) is in us for a reason?"

Let me see if I can rephrase the question in a way that makes sense to me. I think you are asking whether we (humans) currently understand, through science, why belief in an afterlife is so widespread, particularly an afterlife in which perceived injustices can be rectified. Is that a fair phrasing of your question?

The answer is, of course, that we cannot fully explain it. However, I think that evolutionary psychology goes a very long way toward explaining it. Our brains are very clearly adapted for cooperation among others of within small clans; this presumably gave our species tremendous advantages. Part of the machinery needed for such cooperation is the ability to feel empathy, to internalize rules of conduct learned from others (particularly our parents), to keep track of who owes what to whom, and to feel indignation toward those who violate the "rules", to mention just a few. These are very basic mental mechanisms that appear to be the basis of everything we think of as "morality". Of course, the society we are raised in influences this tremendously, but no rules of conduct would take root if there were not an appropriate substrate for them in our brains.

So, why the widespread belief in an afterlife? I think the broad outline of an answer is easy to see, although the details are only now being worked out. I believe it is due to multiple factors: 1) our brains are largely geared toward social interaction, which depends critically upon perceiving and anticipating the intentions of others, 2) we have some innate mental mechanisms for rudimentary "justice", and 3) we have no way to experience "what it is like" to be dead, and thereby have no way (either individually or as a species) to truly understand what death is. Putting all of these together, I think it's easy to see why we (as a species) are prone to make incorrect assumptions about when and how "justice" will be prevail. In other words, I see it as a relatively easily-explainable cognitive error.

Dee: "Is there a justice gene?"

Just as skin color is affected by numerous genes, so too (I presume) is our mental machinery for social interaction. In fact, I would expect it to be influenced by hundreds of genes. I don't know if there is any hard scientific evidence for such genes yet, so I am simply speculating here.

Dee: "Is there a gene that helps us understand beauty?"

Beauty is an attribute we bestow upon the world; it's not something existing objectively that we somehow detect. So, yes, again I would expect that such perceptions would be influenced by hundreds of genes, as would any complex behavior or perception.

Dee: "Also, why is the serach for a first cause 'armchair cosmology?'"

Because it is an extrapolation backward in time using our innate understanding of the physical world. Any extrapolation from our everyday experiences to circumstances ate vastly scales of time and space, extreme temperatures, speeds, pressures, etc., is virtually guaranteed to be radically wrong. If 20th century physics has shown us anything, it is that. For example, if your notion of a "first cause" comes from a mental image of the entire universe running backwards in time, following innumerable causal chains in reverse, back to a single primordial "cause", then you are simply indulging a bit of casual daydreaming. From what science has already uncovered, such intuition is extremely unlikely to correspond to anything real. Causality, space, and time are all far more strange than our intuition reveals, particularly under extreme conditions (such as the Big Bang). Quantum theory, for example, has demonstrated that our innate notions of causality are only approximations that work on middle scales of time and space (which is where we live). We now know that there are uncaused events at the subatomic scale, which is totally unintuitive to us. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox goes even further toward demolishing our naive notions of causality.

In a nutshell: it's fine to sit there and wonder what "started it all", but be careful not to confuse intuition with insight. There is little reason to suspect that one can reach profound conclusions about cosmology by consulting one's naive intuition about time, space, and matter; indeed, there is much to suggest otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Dee: "Dear tiger paw How on earth do I educate myself so that you would think that I am actually trying?"

Define what you believe you know, understand what those limits are by testing your rules, and then filter information baesd on those rules.

Dee, until you can understand how to tell a lie from the truth, then engaging you is irrational. In a variety of ways, you will come to believe or not believe in what is presented to you, not because you can actually show a relationship between the information presented to you and reality, but because you just "choose" to accept the information, based on intuition, emotion, etc.

You suggest you go and talk to Hindus, Mormons, etc., and that is totally meaningless unless you are able to measure the veracity of their words; that requires you to "know" how to tell the truth from a lie.

Santa Clause is a Real Magic figure that lives in the N. Pole, is that a "lie" or is that the "truth" Dee? How do "know" the difference?

Until you have the ability to frame information in the proper context, you are just an information collector, a hobbyist.

Dee: "Can I ever live up to your expectations?"

Sure, tell everyone here on this site and around the world how "Dee" tests information to determine its veracity. I mean, you are honest with yourself, right? Or, perhaps not, I mean, if you can't tell us how you come to truth, how do you sell it to yourself?

Dee: "I have never removed myself from the pool of agendas. I am filled with mixed motives in everything that I do."

Well, at least you're honest about yourself. So, your declaration about what a "true" Christian consists of, is based purely on your mixed "agenda or motive". The implication being, you have a biased opinion, and no way to offer others a more objective way to understand how you came to your decision on the matter.

Does Dee, hold in a mental state, the "perfect" and "Ideal" Christian? Is this how Dee determines how close or far away from being a "true Christian", a person is?

And, how does Dee "form" this perfect Ideal? Come on Dee, we all know the answer, you can tell us.

Dee: "I think that is part of being human. I bet you have the same problem."

Am I human and "subject" to understand my reality "subjectively"? Sure, however, isn't it possible to test my subjective knowledge with my external reality in order to make it more objectively understood? Yes.

Dee: "Hitler was not a Christian. I would be happy to define it for you but I think you are quite capable of doing so on your own."

Oh, I don't think you get the point. Surely, I have the ability to define what a Christian is; but it's for that very reason I say Hitler was a Christian.

I don't have any preconceived notions about what an "Ideal" Christian should or shouldn't be; if Hitler says he's a Christian, who am "I" to suggest that he wasn't? Using a Christian perspective, who are "you" or "me" to judge his heart?

Want to suggest that a "follower" of Jesus "The" Christ, is a "true" Christian? Care to proffer the teachings and ancient renderings of "one" Jesus Christ? No? Right, there are no "extant" writings from this literary figure, all that is "known" comes from alternative sources.

Thus, the "Ideal" of Jesus, and how one can follow him as an "Ideal", exactly as he in theory "taught"... is impossible.

Care to defend or define a "True Christian"?

Dee: "Except for this tough crowd, I bet a quick survey of folks in universities would agree that he was not a Christian."

Logically, that is an appeal to authority, I really don't care what "other" people say, what do "you" say Dee, and "why"? What is the logical foundation for your argument? How are you able to measure Hitler's "Christianess"?

Dee: "he was the embodiment of evil."

The Christian God, murdered his only begotten son, is that Evil? The Christian God, damned all the little children of the world to eternal torture, because of God's parenting skills in the Garden of Eden.

Jesus Christ, being "omniscient" if you view him as Divine/God, committed suicide, in order to make things "right" with God.

How many ways do you want to examine what it means to be the "embodiment" of "Evil"?

Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:"

Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

The Christian "LORD" oversaw Hitler and his very actions, he is the creator, instigator, and evaluator of all "Good" and "Evil".

Dee, why don't you "define" Evil for us...

Dee: "You claim I ask illegitimate questions? Huh? What would be a legitimate question within your framework?"

Here's a better question Dee, what is a legitimate "answer"?

Well, well, here we are come full circle... in order to know what a legitimate "answer" is, one has to be able to determine "truth". Now, Dee, you haven't proffered a manner by which any answer given to you can be validated...

Dee, what do you look for in an answer, in order to know if the answer is a lie or not?

I know, you will fail once again, to answer that redundant question, which is a "legitimate" question, since you are the very source of your knowledge, but I'll continue to bring it up.

Dee: "You also say I deal in extremes. Why?"

Dee, most people like seeing things in black and white, it's easy, clean, and to an "idealist", the best way to measure between two opposing events, views, etc.

Your naivety precedes you, in your comments, both in lack of depth of knowledge, but as well, breadth of experience in the world. Rarely, if "ever" is anything binary. For example; there is a True Christian on one side of a spectrum, and a not True Christin on the other side, is there anything in-between these two degrees of Christianess? I mean, what if there is a priest who says they are Christian, but doesn't pray three times a day, are they moderately Christian, not-Christian, True Christian, or what?

The point is Dee, until you can define your terms, and understand how you are able to discern what truth is, you have no ability to logically, without conflict make an assessment on anything.

Language is a medium for information transference, deconflict that medium, make a connection between abstract ideal thought, and this reality, and you will have a sound foundation by which to make "observation". At the moment, you have an untempered idealistic view of reality.

There is "m"eaning in all we do, we have "conceptual" meaning, and "relational" meaning, conceptual is mental, relational is our external reality. When the two knowledge bases come together without conflict, there is harmony/"M"eaning.

You are still working in a conceptual frame of mind, give it time, eventually, you will be asked, at least here you've been asked, to take your "concept", e.g., True Christian, and force it to "relate" to "reality". Your inability to do such, shows the level of education you hold... that's not a "ding" on you personally, that is an assessment on the information you have provided.

Anonymous said...

No, I don't think I'm more sophisticated and intelligent over those who believe in a higher being. However, I do think that I'm more sophisticated and intelligent than people who don't know how to use the "shift" button on a computer keyboard to create capital letters, know how to use punctuation beyond the occasional period, or spell correctly. In that regard, I'm a lot more intelligent than you. (How old are you anyway, 12?)

Language mechanics errors aside, perhaps you should do some more searching into history before making such judgments about the effects of religion. Neither Adolf Hitler or Napoleon were atheists. (Incidentally, what was wrong with Napoleon? He never engaged in mass genocide or torture. His only real "sin" was arrogance in his battle tactics.) Stalin was an atheist, but that had nothing to do with religion--he was an atheist because he wanted power in a nation where it was illegal to be religious. If it was the law in the former USSR that everyone had to be Christian or die, Stalin would have converted in a nanosecond. Whatever it took in get into power and stay there, he would have done it. Religion (or lack thereof) was a political tool and nothing more.

What about many of the evil people in history that were Christian? Or the evil things done in the name of Christ? The Salem Witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades? I'm probably just wasting key strokes here because you obviously don't want to be confused with facts; your mind is made up.

-Avie

Anonymous said...

OK One more try to answer tiger paw's points. You really stretch me to think.
1. How do I know Hitler wasn't a Christian? Better yet, how do I tell the truth from a lie? First, one must identify what is the truth in order to understand what is a lie. If I take a course in music, and I am told the professor is an expert on 1960s music, I might ask him questions such as his/her opinion on John Lennon. If he does not know who John Lennon is or tells me Mozart piblished his works in 1961, I might think he is a liar and not an expert.

For Christianity, one must find something that the vast majority of Christians believe in such as the Nicene Creed. I might look at the New Testament and see what is says about Jesus. I might then research how the New Testament became the authoratative text and see if the claims that it is essentially unchanged since the beginning are valid. I might look at the lives of the Apostles and how, except for John, all were hung or killed precisley for expressing this faith.

With as much information that I have in hand, I can then judge the actions of an individual. I cannot read their minds but I can see what they do and say. I think that the New Testament links words to actions for this reason. The only way to judge is by the actions of an individual. If that individual is saying she is a Christian but her actions show a propensity to genocide, the arrest of many Christians as well as Jews, no attendance at Christian events, hatred towards Jews, torture and wanton killing, then I would say that this person may claim to be a Christian but they have not shown any acts that reflect on the Creeds or the behaviors of the apostles.

The existence of Santa Claus is not an ideal example. Everyone knows that this is a made up story. Not so, with Jesus.We have seen the North Pole, we understand that one dude could not bring presents to all the children in the world. No one has claimed to see him(except for a few folks who are nuts).

I think you might say that belief in the Christian God is akin to belief in Santa.However, there appears to be more evidence for the existance of Jesus than Santa. His exsitence was confirmed by some nonBiblical texts. If you wish, I shall expound on this further.

Is there anything in between a true Christian and a nonChristian? Well, if the Nicene Creed outlines what a Chrsitian believes, then there is no in between point. However, one is allowed, by you, to define what he believes so that person could come up with a new version of Christianity. We could call it the beta version. However, one is only muddling up the terminology. We are free to do so but is it wise to do so?
So, again, how do we all agree on good morals? I think this one is very hard. Again, I point out NAMBLA (Noth American Man Boy Love Association) which is making strides in getting consensual sex between men and young boys legalized. Well, I don't think this is right. But...they think it is and have studies to "prove "it. Is this to be left in the hands of the courts? Who defines if this sort of thing is good or bad? Can atheists be moral? Yes. But if an atheist or Christian supported NAMBLA is he still moral? How do you tell?
I await further pummeling.
Dee

webmdave said...

Dee,

Martin Luther hated Jews and laid the foundation for the rise of Nazism. LINK.

By your logic, Luther was no Christian.

And neither were the Catholics because then were silent on the whole discussion.

Epicurienne said...

Jake, if you don't like this website, feel free not to come back. Nobody's forcing you to be here.

Ah, yes, the old "Hitler and Stalin" argument. It goes like this:

1. I don't like X.
2. Hitler and Stalin were X.
3. Therefore, anybody who is X is as bad as Hitler and Stalin.

Or, as stronger now said:

The worst people in history were all men. The worst people in history were heterosexual. The worst people in history ate meat. My point here is to show you how easy it is to lump people together using whatever criteria is required to get you to believe that there is a correlation. When in fact there isn't one.

Dee said:

I just wanted to make an observation. Just because someone says they are Christian, Hindu, or even atheist, does not mean they are meaning the same things that an adherent of that faith or nonfaith might believe. People will use different monikers to advance their peculiar agenda. Just because Hilary Clinton claims she believes in God doesn't mean that she does. Hitler, in no way, was a Christian. He claimed to be so in order to advance his agenda amongst the elite who were unwilling to give up their faith, shallow as it might have been. Please be careful when you believe what somebody says. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Dee, I for one don't really care what people believe (or say they believe.) I watch what they actually DO. IMHO, actions speak louder than words.

Anonymous said...

Epicurienne:
At last, someone agrees with me on something. I, too, believe that actions speak far louder than words.
Dee

boomSLANG said...

I, too, believe that actions speak far louder than words.

Perfect. And thank you.

So instead of ceaselessly hearing about "God" and Her "Words", maybe we'll actually start seeing some "action", for a change?

Anonymous said...

Every time someone says Hitler wasn't a Christian you have to ask... Did Hitler actually kill all those people himself?

Well, he didn't. He gave the orders, but ordinary people did the deeds.
Who were these ordinary people? The vast majority were Christians!


Seriously, it makes no difference whether Hitler was a Christian or not... the ones who did all the killing were. Unless someone wants to claim that Germany was mostly Atheist at the time... in which case, why did Hitler have to do all the bull to convince the Christians to side with him?

Anonymous said...

Dee: "1. How do I know Hitler wasn't a Christian? Better yet, how do I tell the truth from a lie? First, one must identify what is the truth in order to understand what is a lie."

Not necessarily, if someone tells me Santa Clause exists, I can work backwards as well, and seek evidence that falls in line with "known" facts.

For instance, with Santa Clause. It is a fact; men exist, red suits exist, reindeer exist, sleighs exist, candy canes exist, decoration of trees pre-existed christianity, and on and on.

However, taking these factual elements alone would require me as a reasonable person to at least open the door for the possibility that Santa Clause is a real figure.

But, factual elements alone are not entered into the argument for Santa Clause. There are; flying reindeer, midnight rides like Delta Airlines in the sky, the breaking of the sound barrier, the slipping down of chimneys, pipes, etc., magically, etc., etc., that gives one reason to ponder the truthfulness of a historicity of Santa Clause.

I don't "always" need to know what is the "truth", prior to examining the veracity of a claim. That would limit my ability to "grow" as an intellectual. However, I "do" require information that I can verify.

If I can not verify information, then the information itself is nothing to me but a mere mental abstraction/ideal, which can be claimed to exist in a mode of ontology and epistemology. That would be fine for me; except, when a person suggests that their ideal follows externally known facts.

I then require those facts, else I suggest a person is dishonest in their assessment of the very reality in which I live.

Dee: "If I take a course in music, and I am told the professor is an expert on 1960s music, I might ask him questions such as his/her opinion on John Lennon. If he does not know who John Lennon is or tells me Mozart piblished his works in 1961, I might think he is a liar and not an expert."

Ah, however, the "claims" that surround John Lennon & Mozart can be tested with the known facts of today. You must admit, that there are facts and natural laws that are as true today as they were yesterday. For instance, males existed then and now, it is conceivable that a particular male did exist then, right.

Let's take Mozart, because he is much older than Lennon, who has "countless" eye-witness accounts alive today, along with visual media, etc. to support the claim of his existence.

Mozart; a male, alive in "recorded" history, composer/musical theorist, pianist, etc., etc.

All attributes I would give Mozart, align with all known facts of today. There are "males", there are "composers/musical theorists", there are pianists, etc., etc. There is nothing about him that would suggest that what someone would write is false.

However, we are talking facts and epistemology. As well, there are societies... that hold him as a friend, that can vouch all the way back to his presence, and pull original manuscripts, writings, musical score, etc. These are evidences that surround the non-conflicted claims of a Mozart. His attributes; male, pianist, etc., are validated by factual association, and then, physical evidence of his existence is used to corroborate the claim.

Interesting note; Mozart's body/remains are not publicly known, yet, that doesn't seem to keep people from giving credence to his existence. Why? Because, all that is suggested of him, does not conflict with the facts and reality of today.

Dee: "For Christianity, one must find something that the vast majority of Christians believe in such as the Nicene Creed. I might look at the New Testament and see what is says about Jesus. I might then research how the New Testament became the authoratative text and see if the claims that it is essentially unchanged since the beginning are valid. I might look at the lives of the Apostles and how, except for John, all were hung or killed precisely for expressing this faith."

For brevity; it's not the factual possibilities that make Jesus unreal to many. It is the fact that he is claimed to be "divine", a "God", and that one can not take just the pieces that do not conflict with known facts of today as "truth", but that every person must accept his story package as a bundle deal. It's the bundling that makes his story fantastical.

Many Christians want to focus on the pieces that do not "conflict" with known facts of today, and then take that forward momentum to propose a case for a "God", that was resurrected, ascended into heaven, cured the damnation for all of humanity as the hero of the world, etc., etc.

What can be said of "Christianity", is that it requires bundling acceptance. It is the forceful requirement to accept the "whole", not just the "parts" as "truth".

Yet, it is the "parts" which have caused the splintering of Christianity into many separate denominations in the past few thousand years.

I could ignore all of the fantastical parts, and create my own mental version of "Christ"ianity, as an abstract ideal, but it would be my personal belief system, and "truth". It would be my "christianity" with a lower case "c", meaning one of "many", instead of the "True" Christianity, with a capital "C", meaning "The" one and Only "Truth", absolutely.

I am not convinced that there is such a thing as "C"hristianity, even the original voters of the Nicene Creed, did not do so unanimously, and some of the voters went on to create their own version of Christianity almost immediately following the vote. Further, there was little to no participation in the voting, from the religious leaders where a Jesus was said to have lived.

Dee: "With as much information that I have in hand, I can then judge the actions of an individual. I cannot read their minds but I can see what they do and say. I think that the New Testament links words to actions for this reason. The only way to judge is by the actions of an individual. If that individual is saying she is a Christian but her actions show a propensity to genocide, the arrest of many Christians as well as Jews, no attendance at Christian events, hatred towards Jews, torture and wanton killing, then I would say that this person may claim to be a Christian but they have not shown any acts that reflect on the Creeds or the behaviors of the apostles."

Forgive me, if I appear sarcastic for a moment, but... you are elevating your own "c"hristianity into the sphere of "C"hristianity, based on "your" particular belief attributes. You cite works not faith, yet, there are others who would cite faith, not works that makes a Christian, and then there are even those who would suggest there must be both, etc.

Further, you are attempting to mentally "isolate" an "ideal" form of Christianity, and link it to reality; by a test - works.

Ideals are interesting, they seem to exist mentally as perfect forms and reality, yet, they can not be found to manifest themselves in the external environment. Ideals are measures used to test how close/far one is to a position.

The interesting part of a Christian Ideal is that it must inherently align its "ideal" with "God", who is "The" greatest "Ideal" by which to measure oneself. Lets call this "perfection" for a moment.

Perfection can never be attained, lest, one becomes God's equal, therefore, all "c"hristians are equal, in the form that they will never be the "Ideal" Christian, which is synonymous with perfection/God.

Therefore, if you want to make an argument for a "True Christian", you would be better advised to suggest that there is no "T"rue" and "Absolute" "C"hristian running around, there is but the "Ideal" of a "True" Christian, and that all "c"hristians will ultimately fall short of the "Ideal". That is, if all Christians could come up with what an "Ideal" Christian/God would be.

Now, here's one to think about. If you/or any Christian are not "perfect", then how "perfect" can your "Ideal" be, as it comes from an imperfect source? I mean, some may argue that there can "never" be an "Ideal" Christian, even as a construct. The best that can be done, is to have a "vote" on what the Ideal Christian would be, from a number of imperfect people. A majority vote, doesn't make something "True", it just makes it agreed upon by the majority.

Dee: "The existence of Santa Claus is not an ideal example. Everyone knows that this is a made up story. Not so, with Jesus."

Dee, there are parallels between Jesus and Santa Clause... Jesus/God is to discern who has been ultimately naughty or nice, and so it goes with Santa on a yearly basis, the milestones are yearly measured, not lifetime though.

Jesus ascended into heaven by flying, and Santa flies yearly into the heavens to bring goodies using helper reindeer.

The bible tells us of flying chariots, Santa rides in a chariot/sleigh himself. I mean, there are so many parallels that one could write a book about it, if they had nothing better to do.

Dee: "We have seen the North Pole, we understand that one dude could not bring presents to all the children in the world. No one has claimed to see him(except for a few folks who are nuts)."

You discredit Santa based on his inability to overcome the laws of gravity and time, yet, have no apprehension about accepting resurrection after death? Have you seen Mozart lately? Because you haven't, does that make you a nut if you say you believe he existed?

Dee: "I think you might say that belief in the Christian God is akin to belief in Santa.However, there appears to be more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Santa. His exsitence was confirmed by some nonBiblical texts. If you wish, I shall expound on this further."

Sure, you do realize that Jesus was not described by the Gnostics or Jews as the Christian bible (NT) suggests, right?

Dee: "Is there anything in between a true Christian and a nonChristian? Well, if the Nicene Creed outlines what a Christian believes, then there is no in between point."

Then Hitler may in fact be a Christian, got it.

Dee: "However, one is allowed, by you, to define what he believes so that person could come up with a new version of Christianity. We could call it the beta version."

I'd suggest every individual has their own particular beta version running, since there is no "Original" version, and if the "Original" version was to exist, as an Ideal, no one would ever be capable of reaching Christianhood...

Dee: "However, one is only muddling up the terminology. We are free to do so but is it wise to do so?"

It's inevitable, unless you are going to suggest that Christianity follows the laws of Nature in lock-step fashion, and then, there is possibility, but that is not what makes "C"hristianity, is it... it's the bending and breaking of the laws of Nature that make it so - appealing.

Dee: "So, again, how do we all agree on good morals? I think this one is very hard. Again, I point out NAMBLA (Noth American Man Boy Love Association) which is making strides in getting consensual sex between men and young boys legalized. Well, I don't think this is right. But...they think it is and have studies to "prove "it. Is this to be left in the hands of the courts? Who defines if this sort of thing is good or bad? Can atheists be moral? Yes. But if an atheist or Christian supported NAMBLA is he still moral? How do you tell?"

We've been discussing epistemological boundaries of truth/Truth... Now, that you have moved into deontology, I would suggest it is purely based on "values" and "desires". Whether is be from an atheist or theist. Further, "values" should align neatly with one's objective(s) in life.

Let me ask you Dee, what is your "objective(s)" in life? Your values should support your objective, and your actions should support your values.

If one's objective is to "grow" a herd of religious believers, in order to become the dominant political force in the world, then, being "gay" is likely not to be "valued", as it prevents population "growth", unless aided through medical practice.

Therefore, you would hold heterosexuality as a value, to support your objective, and you would vote, and influence your environment through your actions to support your objective. It is not too difficult a task to discern one's objective(s), by studying their actions.

Which objective(s) are the most promising and "true"? Nature seems to suggest that adaptation for survival is a key factor in all that we do and how we will progress as a species. Therefore, that which supports survival, seems to be a path that many will follow instinctively.

If there is over-population in parts of the world, and it is a human condition to exercise our bodies in the form of sexual expression, then... it would appear that natural controls would be inevitable; being gay, or at least sympathetic towards gay relationships would seem natural in an over-populated region of the world.

Genital mutilation is required in over-populated parts of the world to prevent sexual urge/expression, is that somehow more moral than lets say allowing one to be gay?

It appears that this can go in many different directions; however, I think people should be able to "choose" with liberty, what their nature tells them, but only after they are mature enough to make responsible decisions.

Now, how do we prepare our children to make responsible decisions? Do we teach them fantasy as reality, or...

Dee, how do you tell a child the earth if flat, biblically speaking, and then expect them to rationally observe their environment properly, orient themselves, make sound decisions, and then act when presented with extremely difficult and confusing issues that require immediate judgment calls?

Dee said...

Hi Tiger Paw
Thank you so much for your incredibly well expressed thoughts. You challenge me to think on a far higher level. I hope I am up to it. I bet you are a professor. If not, you should be.
One of the points that I picked up on is the idea of degrees. One might have an idea of what would constitute a perfect Christian but that does not leave open the possibility of degrees. I see how hard, then, that it might be to define what constitutes a Christian. Perhaps it is something different. Could it be the wish or the striving to be a perfect Christian? Hitler did not indicate a wish to be a better Christian. However, Mother Theresa often mentioned her flaws and her wishing to overcome those flaws. Perhaps that is what makes an ideal Christian. By the way, someone on this site mentioned that Mother Theresa was not very nice. Is that true?
Our exalted webmaster made a great point about Luther hating Jews. He is right. On the surface that would not constitute a Christian by my previously expressed standards. But, Luther did so much to free people from the tyranny of the established church. He made the Bible available to all people. He created schools to educate. But, he was flawed. We all are. But I think perhaps it is that part in our spirit that strives to be better in spite of our flaws that define us.
I was interested in your response to my question about NAMBLA. Yes, maturity is a good guideline for choices. But what constitutes maturity? Is it 12? 14? These guys seem to think that small children are capable of making such a choice. There are those who are mature that do horrendous things and believe that these things are good. Hitler was mature but he believed that the Jews deserved extinction. A little over a century ago, slavery was the norm, voted on by mature individuals. Slaves were treated as nonhumans.
Today there is Peter Sanger, chair of Ethics at Princeton, who believes that parents should be allowed to decide to have their child euthanized up to a year after birth if the parents believe the child would be a burden. He believes that folks with disabilities and elderly people should do the right thing and die to help society. Then, there is the hideous procedure of partial birth abortion. This is done on children who could easily eixt outside of the womb.
All of these things seem wrong to me. Yet, there are many who disagree with me. Slavery is alive and well in the Sudan. Again, is this just up for a vote? Perhaps by allowing mass euthanasia we could cut down on global warming?
Ah well. I am off to Alaska for a few weeks of exploration. I shall look forward to further discussion. You might be interested to know that I am bringing your reponses to me on my trip to think more about them.
Thank you all so much for your thoughts.

Dee said...

I wanted to add one PS. I shall diligently look for a fat man in a red suit. I hear he runs a B+B offseason.

YME said...

Did I read my history book wrong or did Hitler use Christanity to justify the killing of Jews? If he wasn't a Christian, he sure did believe he was one. Crazy or not, that doesn't make my any less a believer. There are plenty of believers who were crazy and committed lots of horrible acts in the name of their god. It's still going on to this day, with many different beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that Atheism means you're not going to use a god or goddess to justify hurting others. Does that make it better? I don't think so. Does it make it worse? No.

Dee, all you proved was that parents matter. Don't have children if you're not ready to be a parent. Although, her belief leaves little choice to her, doesn't it? (hitlers mother, that is)

However, he (hitler) could have been born with some kind of brain damage. It seems to be the going trend with people who commit acts of murder in the name of god. They are so far gone there's no hope for them. Look at Manson. He's been dignosed as a skizo. Ask him if he's a Christian and he'll say yes.

Look at the KKK, those people love god. They too are Christian. Now think about what makes a person a "Christian." Nothing more then the belief in the "Christian" god. Everything after that is subjective. Quite a bit like Atheism; lack of belief in all gods and goddesses. If you believe in any god or goddess you can't be considered an Atheist.

I've lost my point now, sorry, prego brain... I'll be back later.

boomSLANG said...

If he[Hitler] wasn't a Christian, he sure did believe he was one.

Good point, when we consider that ALL self-professed Christians "believe" they are "Christian"(redundant); bad point, in the implication that one can determine what other people "believe", or not. In other words, there is no "if he wasn't a Christian"---it's what HE believed that stands. And to illustrate what he "believed", here is the insignia on the Nazi belt buckle:

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/belt.htm

Anonymous said...

God is not a Psychopath.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are more convincing & certainly more authentictahn the New Testamnet.
Yeshua & Miriam & Yusef were very common names in the Judea /Galilee. To say the Yeshua dint exist is absurd simply because there were thousands of men called Yeshua & plenty of historical examples.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are conclusive proof that Yeshua Bar Yusef existed. To say that he didnt is also absurd. However the new Testament is a fabrication by various religious experts by decree or order of the Imperial Caeser namely Constantine a worshipper of Sol Invicta. Chritians say Conatantine was a Christian because he won the Battle of Milvern Bridge after seeing the sign of the Cross.
The Cross was the Symbol of Sol Invicta & Solar Worship / Astrology way before Chrisitanity. The Pices fish was the Original Sign of Chritianity. When the Caeser spoke all obeyed or died , simple. Caeser wanted a religious solution to a political problem. Namely the Empires state of anarchy.So he called some experts from various factions not related to his enemies beliefs. His enemies were followers of the Religions of Jupiter ,Mars & Saturn.
Constsntines army were followers of Mithras the Sun God, Contantine was a follower of Sol Invicta the Sun & most of the Eastern Empire was Egyptian / Greco Roman and Worshipped The Sun & Isis in various forms ie Apollo , Mithras ,Sol,Horus etc. So the Council of Nicea of Course obeyed Caeser & the synthesis of Greco /Roman , Egyptian & Soalrism & judeao beliefs occurred.
The result was a totally confusding fabrication fuly inconsistant & totally hypocritical. Eventually only priests were allowed to read the bible or preach becuase it is so clearly absurd.
Thats not to say that Jesus wasn't a good man or prophet or even God.
But the New Testament is absurd. Read the Dead Sea Scrolls . This is clearly the most realistic & credible account. Those that say Jesus never existed havent read the Historical proof.
God is not a psychopath or liar or hypocrit.But the Bible portrays God as a psycotic mass murderer & genocidal maniac.
However there is no proof that God does not exist.You may be shocked but you shouldnt be. Read the Bible all of it & the Koran & the New Testament. Write down all the Laws , write down all the Prophets. Without bias check the symptoms of Psychosis, Schizophrenia , Mania ,Personality disorder & Egocentric megalomania compounded by acute Paranoia.
Remember there were no mental health hospitals or sanatoriums in the Bronze Age or Dark Ages. If you hear voices in your head telling you to live with a camel in a desert because the Angels want to tell you what God thinks. What are you really truely? A prophet or a metally ill person in need of treatment?
Mohammed told every one he was Gods prophet. Yet he lived with camels in a desert hearing voces in his head telling him he was Gods prophet and he must kill all unbelievers. I suggest that this is clearly a sign of a mental illness. The same is true of all the Bibles prophets.After telling us that a thief should have his hand cut off & murderes should be executed.Turn a few pages and what does Mohammed do? He robs a Silk Caravan killing most of the people & enslaving the rest.
Thou shall not kill thou shall not steal etc was given by God from a burning Bush to a murderer called Moses who was on the run in the desert. What was the first thing Moses did when he came down from the mountain? He broke the law.
Then he went up got a second set of Stone tablets came down and read them out. Thou shalt not kill , thou shalt not steal etc. What did Moses then do?

He killed all the people that didnt agree with him and stole all their Gold, sheep ,cattle & propeerty. Didnt anyone notice that the prophet broke the law after just after getting the law from God? Total hypocrisy.

Our world is based on these evil books.

Secondly Paul was an enforcer for the Sanhedrin who worked with Rome.
Even if Paul were Jewish , he was a murderer. He persecuted Chrisittans & Jews that disobeyed or disagreed with Rome or the Sanhedrin & their puppets. He never met Jesus. But Paul according to the New Testamnent etc did kill most of Jesus' followers & family. Would you follow a Government Killer?
Would you trust a murderer? Evry thing about Paul is abhorant .All he wrote went aginst the Essens & was far more Greco / Egyptian than Talmudic.

Anonymous said...

God is not a Psychopath.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are more convincing & certainly more authentictahn the New Testamnet.
Yeshua & Miriam & Yusef were very common names in the Judea /Galilee. To say the Yeshua dint exist is absurd simply because there were thousands of men called Yeshua & plenty of historical examples.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are conclusive proof that Yeshua Bar Yusef existed. To say that he didnt is also absurd. However the new Testament is a fabrication by various religious experts by decree or order of the Imperial Caeser namely Constantine a worshipper of Sol Invicta. Chritians say Conatantine was a Christian because he won the Battle of Milvern Bridge after seeing the sign of the Cross.
The Cross was the Symbol of Sol Invicta & Solar Worship / Astrology way before Chrisitanity. The Pices fish was the Original Sign of Chritianity. When the Caeser spoke all obeyed or died , simple. Caeser wanted a religious solution to a political problem. Namely the Empires state of anarchy.So he called some experts from various factions not related to his enemies beliefs. His enemies were followers of the Religions of Jupiter ,Mars & Saturn.
Constsntines army were followers of Mithras the Sun God, Contantine was a follower of Sol Invicta the Sun & most of the Eastern Empire was Egyptian / Greco Roman and Worshipped The Sun & Isis in various forms ie Apollo , Mithras ,Sol,Horus etc. So the Council of Nicea of Course obeyed Caeser & the synthesis of Greco /Roman , Egyptian & Soalrism & judeao beliefs occurred.
The result was a totally confusding fabrication fuly inconsistant & totally hypocritical. Eventually only priests were allowed to read the bible or preach becuase it is so clearly absurd.
Thats not to say that Jesus wasn't a good man or prophet or even God.
But the New Testament is absurd. Read the Dead Sea Scrolls . This is clearly the most realistic & credible account. Those that say Jesus never existed havent read the Historical proof.
God is not a psychopath or liar or hypocrit.But the Bible portrays God as a psycotic mass murderer & genocidal maniac.
However there is no proof that God does not exist.You may be shocked but you shouldnt be. Read the Bible all of it & the Koran & the New Testament. Write down all the Laws , write down all the Prophets. Without bias check the symptoms of Psychosis, Schizophrenia , Mania ,Personality disorder & Egocentric megalomania compounded by acute Paranoia.
Remember there were no mental health hospitals or sanatoriums in the Bronze Age or Dark Ages. If you hear voices in your head telling you to live with a camel in a desert because the Angels want to tell you what God thinks. What are you really truely? A prophet or a metally ill person in need of treatment?
Mohammed told every one he was Gods prophet. Yet he lived with camels in a desert hearing voces in his head telling him he was Gods prophet and he must kill all unbelievers. I suggest that this is clearly a sign of a mental illness. The same is true of all the Bibles prophets.After telling us that a thief should have his hand cut off & murderes should be executed.Turn a few pages and what does Mohammed do? He robs a Silk Caravan killing most of the people & enslaving the rest.
Thou shall not kill thou shall not steal etc was given by God from a burning Bush to a murderer called Moses who was on the run in the desert. What was the first thing Moses did when he came down from the mountain? He broke the law.
Then he went up got a second set of Stone tablets came down and read them out. Thou shalt not kill , thou shalt not steal etc. What did Moses then do?

He killed all the people that didnt agree with him and stole all their Gold, sheep ,cattle & propeerty. Didnt anyone notice that the prophet broke the law after just after getting the law from God? Total hypocrisy.

Our world is based on these evil books.

Secondly Paul was an enforcer for the Sanhedrin who worked with Rome.
Even if Paul were Jewish , he was a murderer. He persecuted Chrisitians & Jews that disobeyed or disagreed with Rome or the Sanhedrin & their puppets. He never met Jesus. But Paul according to the New Testamnent etc did kill most of Jesus' followers & family. Would you follow a Government Killer?
Would you trust a murderer? Evry thing about Paul is abhorant .All he wrote went aginst the Essens & was far more Greco / Egyptian than Talmudic.

Heretic Zero said...

You don't deserve any more respect for your beliefs than I do for mine. Who gives a crap? Atheism is no religion, what are you five years old? You write like Forest Gump.

The whole problem with this world is that they cater to every crack pot's thoughts no matter how stupid so long as some mention is made of belief or religion. I don't care what your beliefs are, those are yours not mine. If you make preposterous accusations or assertions in public, you deserve the outpouring of animosity you receive.

Anonymous said...

I'm Catholic, and proud of it. But I respect the freedom of choice whether someone chooses to believe in God or not. But I have to say, as a history major, NEVER put Napoleon and Adolf Hitler on the same level. EVER. Also, if a person wants people to respect their right to be aethist, then they shouldn't make fun of those who aren't. Christians have as much right to believe as atheists have the right not to believe. In my mind, both sides need to stop. Insults like "religion is the source of all misery" or "the worst characters in history are atheists" are uncalled for. C'mon people, this is what causes trouble in this world. Just have a mature discussion for once.

webmdave said...

Both sides?

Which sides are those? Do you mean all theists vs. all non-theists? Or do you mean all Catholics vs. all Protestants, all Sunnis vs. all Shiites, all Islamics vs. all non-Islamists, or what?

There are many more than two sides to any religious discussion. Perhaps you should study your history a bit more. And, in the future, click the "Name" radio button and type in a pseudonym.

Pageviews this week: