@shinyblurry

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

Hope is what keeps people going … They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

This is my fault. As I mentioned in my last comment, I had intended to write further down about people who do find bliss in hurting others, and I had it fleshed out in the drafting process, but I guess I accidentally deleted it before posting. Anyway, here it is. First, there’s psychopaths. You don’t understand what a psychopath is. It’s not a blood-crazed killer from a Hollywood movie. In real life, a psychopath is someone who fails to feel empathy or sympathy, someone who has no sense of altruism. They do whatever serves their own interests best – however they define that. This is in sharp contrast with how the rest of us think about other people, which is mostly with compassion. I’ve been close to a few psychopaths, and they enjoy things like music or sports or writing or whatever like anyone else, and they mostly understand that others think hurting people is bad, so they avoid it. They don’t get any special thrill from hurting others – it just doesn’t hurt their conscience if they do. I’m guessing they don’t really ever feel the bliss I’m talking about.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead. What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves). Like, I might like to eat your cookie, but it would feel worse to steal it from you than it would feel good to eat it. Instead, I think about how I can have the cookie without feeling bad about it. I would probably ask you for some of your cookie, and then I’d not only have some cookie, but I’d also share a friendly interaction with another person in my community, someone who will probably enjoy sharing their cookie with me and be glad I asked them. Win-win. So to recap, “taking what I can” to me and most people, involves having the greatest amount of personally rewarding experiences I can, and those involve not doing bad things, and often involve doing good things.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself…That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

I have to say that her face is putrifyingly ugly, and her slow drawl feels like it's digging into my brain and trying to take control. What a vile creature in all respects.

Humans can be vile.

I spent the winter on the verge of a total breakdown
While living in Norway
I felt the darkness of the black metal bands
But being such fawn of a man
I didn't burn down any old churches
Just slept way too much, just slept

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

I spent the winter with my nose buried in a book
While trying to restructure my character
Because it had become vile to its creator
And through many dreadful nights
I lay praying to a saint that nobody has heard of
And waiting for some high times to come again

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

Dirty old shadow, stay away
Don't play your games with me
I am older now, I see the way you operate
If you don't hurt me then you die

My mind rejects the frequency
It's static craziness to me
Is it a solar fever?

The TV man is too loud
Our plane is sleeping on a cloud
You turn the dial, I'll try and smile
We've eaten plastic weather
This family sticks together
We will escape from the south to the west side

My mind rejects the frequency
It's just verbosity to me

>> ^shinyblurry:

First of all, it wasn't discrimination. He didn't refuse to serve them because they are gay. He refused to make them a gay wedding cake. Little bit of a difference there. The nastiness that comes out of people when they think they have an excuse to attack Christians is the real story. Immediately after the chick-fil-a controversy you had so much vile filth posted in comments and message boards, even celebrity tweets, viciously maligning Christians. That's just fine with people, but it's not okay that a man will only bake heterosexual wedding cakes. It's a hypocritical double-standard.


Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.

Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.

Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.

First of all, it wasn't discrimination. He didn't refuse to serve them because they are gay. He refused to make them a gay wedding cake. Little bit of a difference there. The nastiness that comes out of people when they think they have an excuse to attack Christians is the real story. Immediately after the chick-fil-a controversy you had so much vile filth posted in comments and message boards, even celebrity tweets, viciously maligning Christians. That's just fine with people, but it's not okay that a man will only bake heterosexual wedding cakes. It's a hypocritical double-standard.



>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
In the name of tolerance, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash Christian businesses like Chick-fil-a on the basis of their beliefs about homosexuality being a sin. A lot of these are setups; the gay community gets wind of a Christian business who has strong convictions, and then they send someone in to get refused so they can go to the media and create a bunch of hype and drama and generate sympathy. In the end, the hatred and intolerance seems to be entirely one sided. Christians don't hate gays; Jesus died as much for them as He did for the rest of us. Christians who do hate gays are simply ignorant and wrong and they should be chastised. That doesn't mean you should indict Christianity as a whole, because true Christians recognize that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
>> ^UsesProzac:
Business has doubled since the incident? I really don't understand why religious people glorify in the hatred of others. I've seen it firsthand in extended family members and it chills me. How can Christians ignore the gospel of loving thy neighbor and judge not and all those other fancy things their prophet said in their own religious text?
@shinyblurry, how do you reconcile that hypocrisy within yourself? You're the only person I know to ask here, seeing as you called me a harlot and all that. When you judge another person and go directly against the words set down in your bible, do you immediately ask your god to forgive you or what?
Edit: I'll throw in one of my favorite quotes to further illustrate the rampant hypocrisy.
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.” - Stephen Colbert


Rosa Parks was a set up as well. So would me saying right now, "So you're against Rosa Park's fight for equality you fucking racist." Either it's right or it's wrong, discrimination is wrong doesn't matter what tool you use to shine a light on it, just that it's represented fairly. Chick fil A was a situation where the president said that shit himself, that's not a set up, that's putting your face out their and people bitch slapping the shit out of you.

This really is another storm in a bloody teacup.

@ChaosEngine brought up the perfect example of what's wrong on both sides of this type of thing with the Penny Arcade Sixth Slave comic debacle. That comic was absolutely innocuous. Having a slave say they were raped to sleep by dickwolves was merely a ludicrously horrible statement to show what a terrible existence the slave had, and why the player ignoring their pleas because they had fulfilled their quota was such a hilariously callous reaction.

To think that someone could read that and be offended, be offended enough to write a bloody blog post, is just stunning. It absolutely demonstrates a demeanour that's looking for the worst in everything and not the humour. I get that you may not find the comic funny, but to actually get riled up by it, to actually think it was worth telling people that you got riled up by it is stunning.

But then we get to the other ugly side of things. We have people who get angry at the people who got offended, and so they start attacking them (verbally), and start saying just horrible, mean spirited, ugly things. They start saying misogynistic, aggressive things that seem to demonstrate an ACTUAL core of anger/hatred towards women.

And that becomes scary.

So I think both sides are usually wrong in these cases:

* Those who get offended:
A lot of the time have very little reason to actually be offended (especially in the penny arcade example), it's as if they're attuned to their own little sphere of outrage and if someone mentions one of their keywords then they'll go nuts, regardless of the intent of a given joke.

* Those who made the initial joke and/or those who defend them:
Far, far, FAR too often they end up really attacking those that were offended, becoming vile and disgusting and not showing any restraint or compassion at all. Mike Krahulik demonstrates how NOT to handle something like the dickwolves incident. The correct way? 'Sorry you were offended by it, really don't understand how anyone could be, we're not taking it down as we don't see anything wrong with it. Let this be the end of it'. But nooo, he pushed and pushed and pushed it.

Louis CK, as usual, demonstrated that he can joke about horrible things and come up trumps because it's ALWAYS obvious that he's saying things in jest and from a good place (or for pure shock value). When someone says something so shit as 'It'd be funny if she was gang raped right now' without a damn strong demonstration that it was in jest and in no way meant to be mean or serious... well then that's a dick move and probably should be called out.

But for it to be as big as it's got? Gah!

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Why is this? Surely the intent matters. Take Ann Coulter, for instance. She often couches the ridiculous stuff she says in humor. Now the humor isn't usually very good, but suppose it was. Would that somehow magically make the content of what she is saying OK?

You're missing the point. Of course the intent matters. The intent goes to whether it's funny. Nothing Ann Coulter says can be funny because she's a fucking idiot. On the other hand, Stephen Colbert could repeat an exact speech of hers verbatim and be hilarious.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

If she's using humor to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview, we can still call her out on the ignorance and bigotry.

Yep and that's exactly what we do. I want to break this down a bit.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

If she's using humor....

I would replace "using humor" with "attempting to use humour".

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

... to promulgate an ignorant and bigoted worldview...

and that's the point. Coulter isn't funny because she actually believes the vile crap she's espousing. If someone makes a joke about rape and actually believes that rape is in anyway acceptable.... that's not funny. If someone is using a joke about a horrific situation to make you think or take you to such an uncomfortable place that your only escape is to laugh at it, that's comedy genius.


>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Patrice O'Neal is a more pertinent example, and I talked about this in the other thread. He was a genuinely funny guy, and in his act (and elsewhere) he said a lot of horrible things about women. The thing is, he actually meant a lot of that stuff. Even his close friends admit that he was an actual misogynist. Does the fact that he was also funny somehow make his misogyny inoffensive?

I don't really want to comment on this because I'm not really familiar with O'Neals work or life. But let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is true. It's possible to be really funny and still say unfunny things. If he was genuinely promoting misogyny is some of his material, did you still find it funny?

Personally, if something feels that wrong to me, I find it hard to see humour in it.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Also, I think there are two separate points to consider here that some people (not necessarily you) are getting mixed up: (1) Are rape jokes funny?, (2) Are rape jokes offensive? The answer to both questions is "Some of them are." And the thing is, sometimes the exact same joke can be both funny and offensive. These properties can coexist.

I don't really believe so. A funny joke can be shocking, uncomfortable or even borderline offensive, but if you're actually laughing at something, the joke itself was not sufficiently offensive to become unfunny.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Even if Tosh's joke had been hilarious (which it obviously wasn't) it still would have been really dickish, and I still would have thought that he ought to make a genuine apology to the woman if he is a decent human being.


To me, it's about your own moral compass. Toshs joke wasn't funny precisely because there was only dickishness to a relatively innocent victim (I say relatively because she went to his show, it's not like he's an unknown).

>> ^shagen454:

@Boise_Lib
shagen454
notarobot
Stormsinger
calmlyintoit

The problem isn't so much the judge but Texas itself. Release Austin from your belly vile wretch!
Uhh,yeah.-Blame a state ya pusillanimous and oft ("ist") assholes-The problem ain't with a state-It's with the state of mind that ejects such bile in the form of comments. Read a fucking book or GET OUT MORE!!!

bobknight33 nailed it. You others well, you need schooling!

The problem isnt so much the judge but Texas itself. Release Austin from your belly vile wretch!

She looks utterly vile

@shveddy

""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""

Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.

""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""

When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.

""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""

God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.

Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?

You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.

Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.

God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.

""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""

Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.

Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.

What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation. Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.

Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Couldn't agree more with all that he said. Religion is part of the bondage that Jesus came to liberate us from..man made traditions can't save you and good deeds don't make you righteous. Only a personal relationship with Jesus is what saves you. To those religious people who showed up to church but never did what was right He will say "I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity"


Sorry dude, you can't have it both ways. In a single paragraph you manage to lament how Jesus came to save us from the need to do good deeds for the sake of righteousness in one sentence. Then, in the very next one, you tell us that Jesus will reject you if you don't to right. So which is it?

As for this video, it kept popping up on my Facebook feed a few months ago and my response is as such: Yea, Christians can do some pretty hypocritical things - but that's expected. They are after all human, and despite their claims of divine moral motivation and whatnot, they are really imperfect humans with no special powers just like me, so I give them the benefit of the doubt (though it would be nice if they were to adopt a world view that promoted the concept of responsibility for one's own actions). God, however, is supposed to be perfect, unerring, loving, benevolent, truthful, good and so on, so I have a hard time reconciling that with all of his vile behavior.

The problem I have with the "buried million dollars" story is that it's complete propaganda, utter flatuent bullshit.

Religion promises you the million dollars. Sure, even more...
...but it then says you need to pay everything you possibly can to get the coordinates, but you will receive them only after you die.

No church, NOT A ONE, allows you to believe without paying. Period. Every last one says if you don't pay, to don't get to Heaven(tm). It's win-win for the religion, they get the cash wether or not there is an afterlife, as well as if the allegeded afterlife doesn't work as they say.

Religion is based on humans, and humans are devious, disgusting, and delinquent. Churches are just ancient pyramid scams, allowed to fester and spew their vile lies only through fear and threat.

From Evangelicals paying for whores, or pedophilic Catholic priests, every religion shows its true colours. Religion is disgusting, and preys on the week-willed and the ignorant.