Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24:

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

>> ^messenger:
First, you've made the assertion many times here that if we will only just invite Jesus into our lives, he will reveal himself to us, etc. I've told you somewhere here that my own family did just that. We were all faithful Catholics. My parents have been practising for over 70 years. My sisters were Catholic for varying lengths of time from 15-26 years. I was Catholic until I was 14. We all fervently believed, but at no point was anything revealed to any of us. Nobody in my family has ever directly experienced anything like what you claim will happen in 5 minutes.

That isn't really surprising. There are two kinds of Christian out there, those who have a religion and those who have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Catholics primarily fall under this first category of Christian. The Catholic religion, if you've done your research, is essentially Christianity blended together with paganism. There is no pope in the bible, no nuns, no monks, no sacraments, no confession, no mary worship, no bowing to statues, no praying to saints, etc. These is very little resemblence between what catholics practice and the Christian faith. That is why so many catholics do not know Christ. My mother, who attended the catholic church when she was a child, told me she barely ever heard about Jesus while she was there.

A Christian who has a religion is someone who simply has a head knowledge about Jesus. They were most likely brought up in the church, and have inherited their parents religion. They don't know why they believe what they believe, it is just simply what they were indoctrinated with. They believe Christianity is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. These people do not know God and are not born again.

A Christian who has a relationship with Jesus Christ is born again and supernaturally transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. They have intimate knowledge of God because they have the Holy Spirit living within them and experience the presence of God on a daily basis. These are those who have given their entire lives and personalities over to God, as Lord and not just Savior.

While by a miracle some catholics are actually born again, most are not. You do not know the Lord for the reason that you had a religion and not a relationship. I don't blame you for running away screaming from the catholic religion. I empathize with anyone who escapes that madness. What I pray is that you consider Christ without the burden of that religion, and look at what He actually taught about how to know Him.
>> ^messenger:
Second, most times that you make the assertion that if you look for Jesus wholeheartedly that you'll find him, I remind you that the same can be said for every religion on Earth. If I gave myself to Islam, I would become Muslim and believe. If I gave myself to Judaism, I would become Jewish and believe. You gave yourself to Jesus, so you believe in him, not Mohammed. If your test for your claim of Jesus's divinity is that if we seek him we'll find him, then by that exact same test, we could also prove that Islam and Judaism are also true. Can you give me something other than statistics on the predominance of Christianity in the world to support the claim that Jesus is the true god and the other religions are false?


If you invite Jesus into your life as Lord and Savior, you will receive the Holy Spirit, whom will supernaturally transform your being and give you an undeniable revelation of Gods existence. You will experience true joy, a lasting peace, and have intimate knowledge of the love of God. I am not saying this as some sort of metaphor..that is what will literally happen to you. You will know when you encounter the living God, versus some feel-good experience with false religion.

@shinyblurry

Two points I want to make, one that you have never addressed here, and another that you haven't addressed well.

First, you've made the assertion many times here that if we will only just invite Jesus into our lives, he will reveal himself to us, etc. I've told you somewhere here that my own family did just that. We were all faithful Catholics. My parents have been practising for over 70 years. My sisters were Catholic for varying lengths of time from 15-26 years. I was Catholic until I was 14. We all fervently believed, but at no point was anything revealed to any of us. Nobody in my family has ever directly experienced anything like what you claim will happen in 5 minutes.

Second, most times that you make the assertion that if you look for Jesus wholeheartedly that you'll find him, I remind you that the same can be said for every religion on Earth. If I gave myself to Islam, I would become Muslim and believe. If I gave myself to Judaism, I would become Jewish and believe. You gave yourself to Jesus, so you believe in him, not Mohammed. If your test for your claim of Jesus's divinity is that if we seek him we'll find him, then by that exact same test, we could also prove that Islam and Judaism are also true. Can you give me something other than statistics on the predominance of Christianity in the world to support the claim that Jesus is the true god and the other religions are false?

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

To say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement about your psychology. It has nothing to do with the question of Gods existence. Atheism, by definition, is a denial of any deity. When you describe your beliefs, you aren't talking about atheism, you are talking about agnosticism. You are saying you don't know. The problem, and confusion begins when you take that a step further, and say you don't believe in God because you don't know. That doesn't logically follow. Does it make any logical sense to say that because I don't know if apple pie tastes any good, I don't believe it tastes good? Does it make sense to say that because I don't know if Howard is left handed, that I don't believe he is left handed? If not, then why does it make logical sense to say that because I don't know if God exists, that I don't believe He exists?

If you really didn't know, you wouldn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. You would be neutral to the existence of God. You are not clearly neutral, since you are taking a negative position on God, and a negative position has a burden of proof.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

Your premise is faulty for a number of reasons. First, you presume that all spiritual experience is a trick of the mind, based on the fact that you had a break with reality and believed in something that wasn't true. I've given you an alternative explanation to your theory, which is that most people who claim to be having a genuine spiritual experience are having that experience. The question is, is it from a genuine source or are they being deliberately deceived?

You also presume that the reason people believe is because it makes them feel good. If all it were was a spiritual high, I wouldn't believe it either. My faith isn't based on feelings, it is based on the action of God in my life. Many times I did not have the feelings, but God provided the evidence. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and there are certain things only He can do. God has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt that He is an absolute control of reality, down to the very atom, down to the mircosecond.

What I am saying to you is, God will provide the evidence that will convince your skeptical mind. He will provide the undeniable evidence that you could not interpret away. When you encounter the living God, you will walk away utterly changed, in every conceivable way, forever.

Ask Jesus to throw you a bone. Say to Him, Jesus, if you are real I will serve you. Please show me evidence that you are who you say you are. If you are sincere about serving Him, I have no doubt He will respond. He said knock and the door will open.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

Two points I want to clarify:

... it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

As to demonstration:
How can you test my claim? Give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and God will provide you undeniable evidence of His existence. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

I'll address the rest of your content above in a later comment.

The Joker was created by a couple of Jewish artists, Bob Kane and Bill Finger.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

Joker's joined Judaism now has he?

Joker's joined Judaism now has he?

>> ^Payback:

>> ^gorillaman:
So stop pretending jews are human beings.

Extremist Muslims,
Extremist Jews,
Extremist Douchbag.


Keep living the propaganda. Extremism isn't the enemy. All truth is extreme - if you're not an extremist you are 100% guaranteed to be wrong.

Extremist muslims are a problem because Islam is fucking retarded, so its extremists act like fucking retards.
Extremist jews are a problem because Judaism is fucking retarded, so its extremists act like fucking retards.
Extremist rationalists are a problem because, oh wait, no we aren't.

I'm trying to teach you people to think like human beings.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^jwray:
Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.
I disagree with this statement. What you are referring to is blind faith--faith without question. Faith is actually much more diverse than that. You also seem to be assuming that all people who are religious are blindly faithful. Certainly some are. But are the majority of them? I don't believe so, though I don't have any statistics to back that up. I base my belief on my (admittedly anecdotal) experiences talking with people from all of the five major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism). I have found many people to be critical of their own religion. Are they critical enough? Perhaps not, which is why I value the anti-theist movement for forcing people to think more about the issues (even if I disagree with the anti-theists' ultimate goals).
I'm curious, @jwray, if someone were to be critical of their religion (as an organization and force in the world) but found their own personal faith to be beneficial to their lives (and not causing any sort of harm in the world) would you demand that they give it up?


Lots of people mix faith with reason in their worldviews, but the reason is reason and the faith is faith. Faith is by definition to believe things for which there is no evidence or contradictory evidence. Reason is to require evidence. They are utterly contradictory concepts.

>> ^jwray:

Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.

I disagree with this statement. What you are referring to is blind faith--faith without question. Faith is actually much more diverse than that. You also seem to be assuming that all people who are religious are blindly faithful. Certainly some are. But are the majority of them? I don't believe so, though I don't have any statistics to back that up. I base my belief on my (admittedly anecdotal) experiences talking with people from all of the five major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism). I have found many people to be critical of their own religion. Are they critical enough? Perhaps not, which is why I value the anti-theist movement for forcing people to think more about the issues (even if I disagree with the anti-theists' ultimate goals).

I'm curious, @jwray, if someone were to be critical of their religion (as an organization and force in the world) but found their own personal faith to be beneficial to their lives (and not causing any sort of harm in the world) would you demand that they give it up?

I think all religious texts were written by people with sincere beliefs... so whats the difference? the number of different authors of the bible makes it more valid than other religion's texts? and whose christianity is the right versions of the textsts and interpretations? After 2000 years of pondering the texts does christianity stand together as a united whole?

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:



>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.

That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.