Great to see christianity still on the defensive, still on the decline, still on the run, and still in the wrong.

Did God create atheists?

*sarcasm*
Lies trying to explain lies, how convenient.
Typical Christian nonsense.
Down vote for the perpetuation of ignorance.
*sarcasm*
*Apparently my sarcasm didn't come through, just like there was no downvote on my part...*

Now I'm completely confused, is this a parody? It's entirely self-contradictory, I think it's a piss take. Upvote.

This is *parody fer sure.

Adding video to channels (Parody) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

i find it hard to believe that some of you thought this was real. christianity just might be right up your alley!

I can't even concentrate on what he's saying. I'm too confused by the fact that he's wearing a tied sweater...over a sweater...like some kind of douche.

Check out some of his other videos, there's some utter comedy gold there

Atheists are no more dumb or deluded than anyone else.

We've seen this guy before, it's delicious parody. But seeing as people are confused, says a lot about the religious.

This guy can take is delusions and choke on em.

I love the fact that some folks don't know if this is parody or not! I love it!

>> ^solecist:
i find it hard to believe that some of you thought this was real. christianity just might be right up your alley!


Spend some time in the bible belt, you'll began to understand how some of us have a hard time distinguishing the parody from the plain ol' everyday Jesus nuttery. Until the Santa Claus remark I thought it was legit. I've even had that same "God doesn't send people to Hell" conversation with quite a few Christians.

This doesn't seem like parody to me. Wow.

Thanks for clearing all of that up for me, Edward.

I originally did not add the parody tag on purpose because I didn't want it to be a spoiler and let people figure it out themselves. I didn't realize that it was going to cause some confusion.

Imaginary friend? Pfft. I know God is real because I pray every day, and sometimes good things happen to me. Explain THAT, atheists!

^ Good things happening to you is all the proof I need...


...that there is no God.

What's scary is that the funny tag line on his last bit could have easily been "God is not the United States Government".

This is a billiant video. He's got the earnestness, the wide-eyed innocence, and the frustrated why-don't-you-see-my-point mannerisms down pat.

i dont believe even the average person is dumb enough to require a long drawn out decision on this topic.

I was so disappointed by this. I was actually hoping to see an intelligent non-parody debunking some harmful myths about Christianity, including ones continued in this thread. The fact that it had made it to the top 15 seemed to me like a sign of maturity for the Sift, which seems to tar all Christians with the same brush:

>> ^solecist:
i find it hard to believe that some of you thought this was real. christianity just might be right up your alley!

that all Christians are unintelligent.

I could make a list of some pretty retarded atheists, but that wouldn't mean all of us non-believers are retards.

i was totally suckered in until the "santa clause for adults",
and hollywood bob is correct.i live in the bible belt and what you see in this video in not as uncommon as you may think.
right now i am awaiting my court date due to a summons i received recently from a small town north of orlando called sanford.every other sunday i would do a lecture on early creationist myths.nothing big,maybe 20-30 people would attend,very informal at a small unitarian church.seems "focus on the family" thinks there is only ONE creation myth *cough* i mean historically accurate description of creation.(there are over 7000 for those of you interested)
now,to be frank,i have encountered fundamentalist christians all over the southeast,where i live,and i dont even attempt to engage them in a discussion of any type.not because i hate them,nor even because i disagree,but rather due to their incredible self-righteousness.the bible is the written word of god to them,i teach comparative religions and cultural religious history,so my
profession is in direct conflict with their entire belief system.
basically they view me as an enemy of god.
which is ironic to me considering i am an ordained minister.
think i would get in trouble if i sent this video to their website?

this guy isn't a christian, he's an idiot.

If educated Christians generally refuse to speak out against their fellow Christians who advocate Bronze Age paradigms (Creationism, Modern geocentrism, Homophobia, etc.), I don't see the problem with referring to Christians as all followers of the same diety.

The Video is "meh" but the comments are making me "OMFG!!!"

We have now reached the point were religious parody is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.

Great piece. Pure sarcasm. Not the blatantly obvious kind, like some cheap knock off walmart sarcasm. This is the good stuff.

When's the last time you saw a Christian video parody of an atheist? As in totally turning the tables? Never, right? It's always a parody of a Christian made by secularists/atheists. Christians never seem to get around to making a cleverly-disguised video (as this one was) that gets people talking.

Why do you think that is?

4. 'God doesn't send people to Hell'.
Ah the Original Sin paradox. Damned at birth, for an ancient offense you didn't commit, an offense which god couldn't/wouldn't forsee and prevent in his own creation, yet somehow it's still YOUR fault if you go to hell?

How is that Just?

And how did Sin originate anyway? In the perfect sinless multiverse that god created where did the angel Lucifer =get= the notion of jealosy and rebellion from in the first place? They weren't pre-existent and they didn't spontaneously pop into existence by themselves so where did they come from? If there was no sin how did sin come into being?

>> ^chilaxe:
If educated Christians generally refuse to speak out against their fellow Christians who advocate Bronze Age paradigms (Creationism, Modern geocentrism, Homophobia, etc.), I don't see the problem with referring to Christians as all followers of the same diety.



I'm all for bronze age paradigms!
I, on the other hand, am against the use of words like paradigm and zeitgeist in a pop cultural context.

>> ^messenger:
I was so disappointed by this. I was actually hoping to see an intelligent non-parody debunking some harmful myths about Christianity, including ones continued in this thread. The fact that it had made it to the top 15 seemed to me like a sign of maturity for the Sift, which seems to tar all Christians with the same brush:
>> ^solecist:
i find it hard to believe that some of you thought this was real. christianity just might be right up your alley!

that all Christians are unintelligent.
I could make a list of some pretty retarded atheists, but that wouldn't mean all of us non-believers are retards.


thanks =)

from an intelligent Christian

I know my stuff is too long. I apologize, but I don't want to cut anything.

Atheists are equally ridiculous in their self-satisfaction and complacence. Many of you seem to be content to believe that all religious people are idiots. I am dismayed and disappointed by that attitude.

An old philosophy teacher of mine and I are still in contact. A few weeks ago I asked him a question about theism and science and this was his reply:

"...of people who have a degree in science or claim to know what science is, only an extreme minority really apprehends what science actually is, does, and can do. In fact, I have on several public occasions inadvertently embarrassed even award winning specialized scientists, such as physicists, based on their ignorance about the nature and scope of science, properly speaking.

One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty. People who '...are more than happy to believe that all theists must necessarily be stupid and ignorant,' are people who have either fallen victim to false pride or who have an understanding of science that is extremely immature and indoctrinated."

This is a man that has studied philosophy at several schools in Europe, traveled extensively, has 2 doctorates, has tried being a Pantheist and an Agnostic and I don't know what else, speaks several languages, constantly reads and writes books on philosophy and theism, attends scientific conferences regularly, teaches at universities, and is still one of the most humble men I know. And he thinks that you are immature and indoctrinated. I tend to agree.

^Memorare
Original Sin and infant baptism is made-up drivel.

The question I pose to you is this: How can we expect Christianity to appear to contain truth when there are so many denominations, all claiming to preach truth, which disagree with each other so profoundly? It is logical to assume that most will be preaching things that are false and illogical because the nature of truth is that there can only be one. Maybe each church contains snatches of truth, and maybe one (and only one) of them preaches nothing but.

I will be the first person to admit that many Christians have no idea what science, philosophy, and logic are and that the churches they attend are false, corrupt, and self-serving. If Christianity commits major logical errors, it is because the people misunderstand scripture and misinterpret doctrine. I don't wish to sound self-righteous, because many of these Christians are better people than I and they have earned my love and respect.

I hope that if any of you read this it will make you think twice about lumping Christians into unflattering groups. Saying that religious people are stupid and ignorant is every bit as immature, ignorant, and intolerant as saying that black Americans are generally poor and criminal and that Asians are bad drivers.

"Some Protestants (including some of the above mentioned Lutheran and Calvinist groups) understand the account of "the fall" in Genesis 2 and 3 not as a historical-factual account of the origins of human sin, but rather as the narrative myth that the Israelite people used to express their recognition that man's relationship with God was broken, (a "myth" in the sense that the truth contained in the narrative does not depend upon its historical factuality). This view has the advantage of not conflicting with the evolutionary description of human origins, while preserving the traditional biblical idea of man's moral failure and need for redemption."

wiki

Bluecliff, that's a really bad understanding.

Good comments thepinky.

Jesus is a close personal friend of yours that never takes your calls.

>> ^shuac:
When's the last time you saw a Christian video parody of an atheist? As in totally turning the tables? Never, right? It's always a parody of a Christian made by secularists/atheists. Christians never seem to get around to making a cleverly-disguised video (as this one was) that gets people talking.
Why do you think that is?


Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs.

Christians are generally very tolerant. Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions).

>> ^thepinky:
The question I pose to you is this: How can we expect Christianity to appear to contain truth when there are so many denominations, all claiming to preach truth, which disagree with each other so profoundly? It is logical to assume that most will be preaching things that are false and illogical because the nature of truth is that there can only be one. Maybe each church contains snatches of truth, and maybe one (and only one) of them preaches nothing but.


Go look at Orthodoxy - being the original Christian church it predates all schisms that broke off from it. The divides that exist only appear through people thinking that they must know better than someone else. This is of course a normal human process - humans love to think they know better than someone else...

>> ^r10k:
Bluecliff, that's a really bad understanding.
Good comments thepinky.


Really! Why? You can't just say it is a bad understanding without backing it up with why.

Hey I think it is great. Genesis as a symbolic story rather than a representational one. It makes a lot more sense that way.

>> ^harlequinn:

Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs. Christians are generally very tolerant.

This is true...

Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions.

...but this is not. You go from trying to reduce one generalism immediately into posting another that's just as bad, if not worse.

Most atheists are extremely tolerant, as long as someone else's illogical belief system isn't being rammed in their face.

What's funny and true about this clip is that most of us atheists KNOW SOMEONE LIKE HIM. The target of his humor is knobs like these: http://www.videosift.com/video/Michelle-Malkin-Treat-Atheists-Like-Trolls-for-Christmas
not so much practicing Christians that keep their faith to themselves.

If you wish to live your life according to the teachings of a two thousand year old book, you're welcome to. There's some wonderful ideals encased in there. But if you find it intolerable that others do not share that same belief in its utter veracity and described pantheon, you're setting yourself up for ridicule, which includes well-deserved parodies such as these.

Yawn. Anonymous internet trolls declare themselves atheist/agnost in population percentages exceeding 99%. The constant parade of self congratulatory vids they post trying to justify their beliefs by attacking someone else's is merely more proof that they are a faith-based religion as much or more so than they people they make fun of. For every hypocritical Christian who doesn't live his religion, there is a counterpart atheist spurting intolerance and attack screeds from his pores.

Thepinky, that was one of the more eloquent responses I have read on the sift and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it (I am an atheist). My only problem with the text you quoted from your professor is that he seems to be assuming that his knowledge in an area that he has no proven background trumps that of those who have devoted their lives to science. If he were a science professor debunking scientists, fine. He is not, however, so I cannot take what he says about them too terribly well.

Although I do not feel the need to make parodies about someone elses beliefs in order to make myself feel righteous or justified, many athiests feel the way they do because they have been horribly discrimminated against by family, friends, religious followers, the government, etc. We are currently discrimminated against, so people lash out. Again, I am not defending it by any stretch of the imagination, I just can somewhat understand why people do it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Yawn. Anonymous internet trolls declare themselves atheist/agnost in population percentages exceeding 99%.
Huh? Who did that? And should I assume your name is really Winstonfield Pennypacker?

The constant parade of self congratulatory vids they post trying to justify their beliefs by attacking someone else's is merely more proof that they are a faith-based religion as much or more so than they people they make fun of.
Atheism is a rejection of theist beliefs. Period. We don't exercise faith in any way, Mr. Pennypacker. Except, you know, the sort of faith that our car won't break down on the highway, which is not really faith at all. More like trust. You may state that the rejection of theist beliefs itself requires faith, but you'd be wrong.

Theists make a positive claim which is extraordinary in nature, therefore, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that there is a God. Most theists do not "believe in" leprechauns, yet they would not consider a request to prove the non-existence of leprechauns to be reasonable. There is no reason why anyone should believe in leprechauns or God without positive evidence.

It is laughable to equate the following...
1) nonacceptance due to a complete lack of evidence
2) the leap required to believe

Theists commonly consider faith to be a virtue. It seems odd, then, that they would criticize atheism for being based on faith. Additionally, the "or more so" part implies that the more faith a proposition needs the less likely it is to be true. Pretty weird, huh?

For every hypocritical Christian who doesn't live his religion, there is a counterpart atheist spurting intolerance and attack screeds from his pores.

This might be true. Not all atheists are as reasonable as I. Just like not all christians are cut from the same cloth. For instance, KKK members are all christians but I doubt all christians are members of the KKK.

Pinky, nah, I think idiocy is not religion bound. The world is filled with idiots, no matter what they believe in. These are usualy people with low self esteem that use a piece of information they have obtained, like religions are all lies or god is our savior, and cling to it for dear life without caring if its true or not.

I'm a man of science, so I am pretty much aithiest. However since science do not write laws of socialism, we need a blueprint that guides society in the way they should live and that would be religion. I wont say christian has it best since the holy wars and early christian rule were some of the darkest days of our history, but its not bad today, probably better then most. I mean the 10 commandments are probably the best religion starter keystone you could ever ask for.

But yea the heaven and hell thing, imo if god didn't want you doing bad things he would have designed it so that you would be on your way as soon as it happened. Infact the world isn't doing to well for a world that is supposed to be "watched over". I am %100 sure we are on our own.

Well, as a man of science, you shouldn't be 100% sure of anything.

There is always the chance that the various scientific theories can be modified or outright reversed given the proper evidence. It may be really unlikely but it's not absolutely impossible. Same thing with religion. Since we atheists (the reasonable ones anyway) allow for the possibility of new evidence, we might all be wrong about our non-belief.

The difference is that christians would never ever say they allow for the possibility of being wrong because they have faith, which, by it's definition, requires the absence of evidence.

If I had compelling evidence of god's existence, I'd switch my belief immediately.

Huh? Who did that? And should I assume your name is really Winstonfield Pennypacker?

Winstonfield !Q! Pennypacker, thanks.

Atheism is a rejection of theist beliefs. Period. We don't exercise faith in any way, Mr. Pennypacker.

Atheism itself ostensibly is a rejection of theism, but its primary rhetoric is faith based - and therefore there is no practical distinction between faith-based thiest rhetoric and faith-based atheist rhetoric. When the bulk of atheistic communication takes the form of faith-based rhetoric, it is difficult for a neutral 3rd party observer to divine (no pun intended) a distinction.

Theists make a positive claim which is extraordinary in nature, therefore, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that there is a God.

The primary objective of philosophy is to lead individuals to greater understanding, more positive behavior, and a resulting improvement in the condition of mankind. Now - operating under that auspice - why is it necessary to 'prove' one philosophy more correct than some other one? Should not the standard be, "How well does the philosophy improve the condition of mankind?"

In that light, it cannot be argued that the philosophical teachings of thiesm improve mankind (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do not steal, do not kill, et al). The counterargument would be that religions (theism) also produce negative behaviors (violence, intolerance). However, an objective reviewer must conclude that the negative behaviors are not the result of religious philosophy. Religious philosophy teaches 'love thy neighbor'. Intolerance and violence go against that philosophy, and therefore the 'religion' is not to blame. Therefore whatever negatives take place that are blamed on 'religion' are in fact, erroneously applied. The blame for the negatives must then be shifted to individual practitioners who are failing to live up to the correct philosophy.

Atheism, by discouraging belief in a philosophy that (if followed) would improve mankind, is therefore a negative philosophy. Atheism does not propose positive behavior among its practicioners. It exists parasitically as a negative juxtaposition to a positive world view. Some atheists suggest that rejecting theism would result in a reduction of the negative behaviors of the theists. Such an argument ignores the fundamental reality that youd simply be replacing a jerk theist with a jerk atheist.

Anyone here believe in Noah's ark?
Fun fact: There are an estimated 1 to 10 million species on the planet, most of which require a second to mate with. So, this brings the estimated amount of animals onto this wooden ark between 2 to 20 million. Correct me if I am wrong, but the largest vessels on the ocean today, using the most advanced construction techniques and alloy metals, can carry 3-4 thousand passengers. Also, if the entire world is covered in water after the great flood, where does this water go? Water in our atmosphere does not escape, it remains trapped on earth as either gas, liquid or a solid. If water covers the surface of the planet, there is no place for this water to go - either it freezes, remains liquid, or evaporates enough for land to form.
Smell any bullshit?

^ I presume you are not familiar with Jewish/Hebraic storytelling.

Fun fact: The Bible is not a history book. Please quit reading into it as such

<beginNonsense>
The bible is bound paper with words on it.

Id rather watch the zeros and ones scroll across my screen.
</endNonsense>

Religion is a lie, just like nutritious/delicious cake:

http://granades.com/images/2007/Oct/portal-cake-is-a-lie.jpg
http://hicsuntdracones.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/jinx_portal_the-cake-is-a-lie.jpg
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/asgard/the%20cake%20is%20a%20lie.jpg

>> ^harlequinn:
>> ^shuac:
When's the last time you saw a Christian video parody of an atheist? As in totally turning the tables? Never, right? It's always a parody of a Christian made by secularists/atheists. Christians never seem to get around to making a cleverly-disguised video (as this one was) that gets people talking.
Why do you think that is?

Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs.
Christians are generally very tolerant. Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that most Christians are tolerant. In fact, the largest church in my area has a sunday-school class dedicated to telling people that my religion is false and that members of it should be avoided. LAME!

But you have a point. This website is giving me an very unflattering picture of Atheists based on which videos get sifted and the comments made about them. There seems to be a general lack of humility among Atheist sifters, at least the outspoken ones.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Atheism itself ostensibly is a rejection of theism, but its primary rhetoric is faith based - and therefore there is no practical distinction between faith-based thiest rhetoric and faith-based atheist rhetoric. When the bulk of atheistic communication takes the form of faith-based rhetoric, it is difficult for a neutral 3rd party observer to divine (no pun intended) a distinction.

I've explained the reasons why your "atheism is faith-based" argument is bunk so could you tell me why you still think it is? How are we exercising faith, that is, belief without evidence?

The primary objective of philosophy is to lead individuals to greater understanding, more positive behavior, and a resulting improvement in the condition of mankind. Now - operating under that auspice - why is it necessary to 'prove' one philosophy more correct than some other one? Should not the standard be, "How well does the philosophy improve the condition of mankind?"

I agree about your definition and purpose of philosophy but religion is not philosophy.

In that light, it cannot be argued that the philosophical teachings of theism improve mankind (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do not steal, do not kill, et al). The counterargument would be that religions (theism) also produce negative behaviors (violence, intolerance). However, an objective reviewer must conclude that the negative behaviors are not the result of religious philosophy. Religious philosophy teaches 'love thy neighbor'. Intolerance and violence go against that philosophy, and therefore the 'religion' is not to blame. Therefore whatever negatives take place that are blamed on 'religion' are in fact, erroneously applied. The blame for the negatives must then be shifted to individual practitioners who are failing to live up to the correct philosophy.

Yowzaa! That's a whole lotta accusations I did not make. I'm not making an argument about the validity of religion. I'm merely correcting you about atheism being faith-based (which I feel I did thoroughly).

I'll go through it again.

Atheists are big on evidence. It's our thing. We don't have much use for faith because it requires the absence of evidence. So the only way that you can say atheists practice faith is that we do not have evidence that god does not exist.

But you see, there are so many other things for which there is a similar lack of evidence that are easy to disbelieve. Elves, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and so forth. There's no evidence that any of these things exist, so does that mean people's default position should be to believe in them? If you believe in any of these things, then you need to provide proof. I don't need to provide proof that these fantastical things don't exist. You see my point?

Atheism, by discouraging belief in a philosophy that (if followed) would improve mankind, is therefore a negative philosophy.

No, atheism is a rejection of theist beliefs, specifically, god. I should have pointed that out before but I really didn't think I had to.

Atheism does not propose positive behavior among its practitioners.

Atheism doesn't propose any behavior.

It exists parasitically as a negative juxtaposition to a positive world view. Some atheists suggest that rejecting theism would result in a reduction of the negative behaviors of the theists.

Yes, some atheists do suggest this. Personally, I feel that if religion helps people, then great. Just don't go pushing those beliefs on others.

How is this done? Ohh, at the top of my head it's done by promoting things like Intelligent Design, pushing abstinence-only programs, keeping teenage girls from getting the HPV vaccine because it's seen among some religious groups as a deterrent to sexual activity (thereby increasing the risk of cancer), muslim suicide bombers, allowing state funding for groups that practice religious-based discrimination (like the Boy Scouts).

I'm not presenting this info in support of my main argument (atheism is not faith-based) but I'm presenting it as examples of religious activity externally imposing its will.

Such an argument ignores the fundamental reality that you'd simply be replacing a jerk theist with a jerk atheist.

Well, imo, being a jerk is less wrong than believing something you cannot prove.

By the way, atheists believe in much the same morality as theists (do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc.), we also love our children, we feel awe when we look at the Grand Canyon, we appreciate the beauty of a tree, a flower, an ocean, etc. We just don't attribute any of it to god. It's exactly that simple.

I quote this heavily out of context:


"Everyone knows that Western thought today, even in its most fashionable incarnations, has Christian roots. But somehow, most of us think it's possible to escape the implications of this connection by simply denying the Christian label, and adopting a metaphysical doctrine - atheism - which is repugnant to the unwashed who have not made this great leap. The result is that we land in "No Logo" nirvana. We are the enlightened ones. Hail us!

Imagine if I tried the same with Nazism. I could march around in a brown leather uniform all day, waving a swastika banner and condemning the filthy Zionist-Bolshevik hordes. When questioned by the usual voices of decency, I could respond that:

* I'm not a Nazi. In fact, I oppose Nazism. So I'm not a Nazi.
* I'm half-Jewish. The Nazis would never have me. So I'm not a Nazi.
* Nazis believe in the leadership of Adolf Hitler. I don't. So I'm not a Nazi.
* My inverted swastika is actually a Hindu fertility symbol. So I'm not a Nazi.

Etc, etc, etc. How much ice do you think this would cut with the diversity committee? But somehow, when the creed is Christianity rather than Nazism, it can be ditched as easily as a Muslim's wife. Just say: "I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist." And no one will ever be able to accuse you of being a religious fanatic, at least not without substantial preparatory explanation. What more perfect cover story for an actual religious fanatic?"

>> ^thepinky:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that most Christians are tolerant. In fact, the largest church in my area has a sunday-school class dedicated to telling people that my religion is false and that members of it should be avoided. LAME!

That a group of Christians near you preaches against your religion does not prove that most Christians are intolerant. Just about all the westerners I know are Christian, and I can't think of a single one who is intolerant of other religions, or forces his/her religious beliefs on others.

This doesn't prove anything either though, just that we both are exposed to large groups of Christians who happen to have different levels of tolerance.

How are we exercising faith, that is, belief without evidence?

By the simple act of arguing 'against' a theistic position of course. If you are a true atheist then what is the point of posting videos attacking theistic systems if not to prove or disprove 'your' point of view as more logical, more realistic, better, whatever? When you enter that rhetorical realm, you have begun to advocate a faith-based belief and you have no evidence to support it. Ergo - your argumentation is the exact same level of argument as a fundamentalist Christian thumping his bible in your face. Faith without evidence. Atheists do it every day.

I agree about your definition and purpose of philosophy but religion is not philosophy.

Religions encourage people to investigate truths, principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. That's philosophy. You may personally disagree with the PRINCIPLES of religious philosophies, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are philosophies. To a REAL athiest the only real measure of whether 'religion' is good or not is the measure of how much GOOD it accomplishes. Whether religion believes in God, or unicorns, elves, or spaghetti is completely irrelevant. And yet - strangely - God is all most athiests on the sift want to talk about. That is very strange considering how irrelevant he should be to them.

Atheists are big on evidence. It's our thing.

The fact remains that on the internet, athiests make a very poor case for being 'evidence based' persons. There are exceptions of course, but they are few and far between. The bulk of atheists come off as petty, selfish, spiteful, vindictive, mean-spirited buffoons who are worse than the people they claim are bad in the first place. For example, all the Sifts from self-proclaimed atheists here are predominantly negative screeds. What of the many evidences of the good things that religious practicioners accomplish? Why does not the atheist supply those kinds of evidences? The one-sided negativity of the so-called 'evidences' supplied by athiests indicate bias, prejudice, and untrustworthiness.

We don't have much use for faith because it requires the absence of evidence.

Untrue. Faith is not destroyed by the presence of evidence. Evidence reinforces faith. Follow the scientific process. Most scientific process begins with a hunch, an idea, a concept, or 'faith' in a hypothesis. Then experimentation is conducted, and evidence reinforces the initial concept. The faith in the concept is not negated. It is JUSTIFIED.

But you see, there are so many other things for which there is a similar lack of evidence that are easy to disbelieve. Elves, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and so forth. There's no evidence that any of these things exist, so does that mean people's default position should be to believe in them?

If there was a bunch of people out there who believe in elves and they were making the world (by and large) a better place because of thier beliefs, then what does it matter to you whether elves are real or not? Should you not rather be more concerned with getting as many people to believe in elves as possible because it is improving human society and conduct? You may chuckle up your sleeve at their belief in elves, but if the world is getting better does that not make the belief useful to you? And what harm would it be to you if these elf advocates approached you? You may be chagrined by the indignity of thier personal opinion that you're a scoundrel for not agreeing with them, but if they improve the world as a rule is that not a viable sacrifice on your part?

I'm not presenting this info in support of my main argument (atheism is not faith-based) but I'm presenting it as examples of religious activity externally imposing its will.

The question is not whether a huge group of persons is working to create an environment favorable to thier philosophy. That is a natural outcropping of human thought and proclivity. The only question that should be relevant to YOU (as an atheist) is whether or not the creation of that 'theist favorable environment' is an overall positive or an overall negative to the human condition. Whether that environment is favorable or unfavorable to YOU should be a matter of absolutely no importance.

Well, imo, being a jerk is less wrong than believing something you cannot prove.

That is a faith based statement. Where is your evidence that belief in something that cannot be proven is a WORSE outcome than that of being a jerk in real life?

Holy Crap People - I don't have time to read all this.....!

>> ^messenger:
>> ^thepinky:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that most Christians are tolerant. In fact, the largest church in my area has a sunday-school class dedicated to telling people that my religion is false and that members of it should be avoided. LAME!

That a group of Christians near you preaches against your religion does not prove that most Christians are intolerant. Just about all the westerners I are Christian, and I can't think of a single one who is intolerant of other religions, or forces his/her religious beliefs on others. This doesn't prove anything either though, just that we both are exposed to large groups of Christians who happen to have different levels of tolerance.

Oh, I'm definitely not saying that most Christians are intolerant. I just object to your vague use of the word "most". Most Christians are tolerant people? What does that mean? Have you done a study? Of whom are they tolerant? I find that many Christians are selectively tolerant. They can deal with some groups and not others.

Most Christians don't force their religion on others? Does that mean that they don't threaten to kill your family if you don't convert? I dislike the term "FORCE". Atheists use it all of the time to describe the actions of religious people. Ick.

For the record, I generally like and find Christians to be tolerant, pleasant people. My greatest exposure to Atheists has been on the Sift, and I find them to be self-satisfied, intolerant, and confrontational. I trust that this does not reflect the general attitude of Atheists in the "real world".

Pinky, you seem to be a good person, so I hate arguing against something you hold dear. When it comes to religion, there are two types of people. There are people who believe something because it makes them feel good, and there are people who only believe something when it is supported by evidence or logic. The people in the second group, Rationalists, look down on the people in the first group because... how can I put this? Theists have two different ways of looking at the world that they try to hold simultaneously. The everyday world, where you put on a coat when it is raining and look both ways before crossing the street, and the fantasy world, where any absolutely crazy thing can happen as long as it's written in your special book.

If you met a girl who said she was pregnant but had never had sex, you would think she is either lying or crazy. If somebody told you that they were dead for days but a traveling holy-man brought them back to life, you would think that a near-death experience had really messed them up. If you were at a wedding where they were almost out of food, but everybody ended up full, you would think they must have found extras in the back. But since it's written in your book and everybody in your regular life seems to accept the stories as fact, you go along with it. It just makes no sense!

That's why atheists seem smug and mean. You look like a fool, like a three year old who still believes in Santa. How can we possibly not look down on you? I try to stay humble by reminding myself that I believed those things, kinda, when I was younger. But it is extremely hard to be humble when confronted with stubborn ignorance. Like this Pennypacker guy.

Hey, Pennypacker, atheism is not a religion. Clear is not a color. Silence is not a musical note. An empty table is not a type of feast. The absence of something is not something.

Furthermore, the truth of something is not determined by its utility. Even if religion was the only thing keeping this world from utter destruction, that would not necessarily make it true. I honestly don't give a shit whether you think religion has been good for people. I think it is all lies, even if those lies contain the occasional bit of wisdom like "love thy neighbor".

When pressed on morality, most atheists will respond with a form of reciprocal altruism. Look it up. It requires no religious myths, and will not be available to use as an excuse for war. Another great source of atheist philosophy is secular humanism. It's stuff that is useful, and you don't have to believe in fairy tales to get it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
How are we exercising faith, that is, belief without evidence?
By the simple act of arguing 'against' a theistic position of course. If you are a true atheist then what is the point of posting videos attacking theistic systems if not to prove or disprove 'your' point of view as more logical, more realistic, better, whatever? When you enter that rhetorical realm, you have begun to advocate a faith-based belief and you have no evidence to support it. Ergo - your argumentation is the exact same level of argument as a fundamentalist Christian thumping his bible in your face. Faith without evidence. Atheists do it every day.
I agree about your definition and purpose of philosophy but religion is not philosophy.
Religions encourage people to investigate truths, principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. That's philosophy. You may personally disagree with the PRINCIPLES of religious philosophies, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are philosophies. To a REAL athiest the only real measure of whether 'religion' is good or not is the measure of how much GOOD it accomplishes. Whether religion believes in God, or unicorns, elves, or spaghetti is completely irrelevant. And yet - strangely - God is all most athiests on the sift want to talk about. That is very strange considering how irrelevant he should be to them.
Atheists are big on evidence. It's our thing.
The fact remains that on the internet, athiests make a very poor case for being 'evidence based' persons. There are exceptions of course, but they are few and far between. The bulk of atheists come off as petty, selfish, spiteful, vindictive, mean-spirited buffoons who are worse than the people they claim are bad in the first place. For example, all the Sifts from self-proclaimed atheists here are predominantly negative screeds. What of the many evidences of the good things that religious practicioners accomplish? Why does not the atheist supply those kinds of evidences? The one-sided negativity of the so-called 'evidences' supplied by athiests indicate bias, prejudice, and untrustworthiness.
We don't have much use for faith because it requires the absence of evidence.
Untrue. Faith is not destroyed by the presence of evidence. Evidence reinforces faith. Follow the scientific process. Most scientific process begins with a hunch, an idea, a concept, or 'faith' in a hypothesis. Then experimentation is conducted, and evidence reinforces the initial concept. The faith in the concept is not negated. It is JUSTIFIED.
But you see, there are so many other things for which there is a similar lack of evidence that are easy to disbelieve. Elves, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and so forth. There's no evidence that any of these things exist, so does that mean people's default position should be to believe in them?
If there was a bunch of people out there who believe in elves and they were making the world (by and large) a better place because of thier beliefs, then what does it matter to you whether elves are real or not? Should you not rather be more concerned with getting as many people to believe in elves as possible because it is improving human society and conduct? You may chuckle up your sleeve at their belief in elves, but if the world is getting better does that not make the belief useful to you? And what harm would it be to you if these elf advocates approached you? You may be chagrined by the indignity of thier personal opinion that you're a scoundrel for not agreeing with them, but if they improve the world as a rule is that not a viable sacrifice on your part?
I'm not presenting this info in support of my main argument (atheism is not faith-based) but I'm presenting it as examples of religious activity externally imposing its will.
The question is not whether a huge group of persons is working to create an environment favorable to thier philosophy. That is a natural outcropping of human thought and proclivity. The only question that should be relevant to YOU (as an atheist) is whether or not the creation of that 'theist favorable environment' is an overall positive or an overall negative to the human condition. Whether that environment is favorable or unfavorable to YOU should be a matter of absolutely no importance.
Well, imo, being a jerk is less wrong than believing something you cannot prove.
That is a faith based statement. Where is your evidence that belief in something that cannot be proven is a WORSE outcome than that of being a jerk in real life?


Wow, there's too many things wrong with what you wrote for me to respond. See, that's how religions ultimately win: they exhaust you.

I have a christian friend who once told me I wasn't going to hell because he found my spiritual path, which lacks the acknowledgment of a god, to be sufficiently logical -- mostly to do with my own sincerity and a fact, he perceives, that God being omnipotent would see the passion I have and judge me on another scale. He's not your typical christian. I lol'd a bit (mostly because I need not have a pardon for something I don't believe in) then I told him that I forgive him his ignorance. (We share a mutual good humor in such seemingly mean-spirited exchanges.)

He finds my lack of faith to be ignorant and I find his faith to be ignorant. Whatever. We both make jokes and take pot shots at each other's beliefs, yet we remain friends. I fail to see the immaturity in a video such as this. Nor do I see a parallel between an idea and the color of a person's skin. Your beliefs change over time, as you gain new information; your skin color does not. If there were a parallel, we would all need to be a little more humble to Nazis and death cults.

Humility? Overrated. Am I humble? At times, when I feel it is truly necessary, but for the sake of humor and (what I feel is) a little bit of truth, one need not hold back. I have no problem listening to the opposite, though I challenge anyone to make an insightful and humorous video about atheists. (Not that I believe it can't be done, but I just haven't seen one that was truly funny -- change my mind.) I mean, it seems all the theists are able to do is boohoo about being made fun of. These are ideas. Some people, however, have such an emotional attachment to ideas, that they are unable to see the truth of such a statement. Slaves to ideas. Is there nothing but our collective ideas to fight over, or is there something greater which theists and atheists alike never bother themselves with?

Remove yourself from a world of ideas and see what truths there are to find. Spirituality lies not in the idea itself.

People can be ignorant, arrogant, mean etc. no matter what they believe in. Maybe religion/atheism actually has nothing to do with it and it all depends on a person's individual personality? But then you guys would have to find something else to argue about.

^ like who's the better batman, Michael Keaton or Christian Bale?
(if you even say George Clooney, i will stab you in the jaw!)

>> ^Retroboy:
>> ^harlequinn:
Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs. Christians are generally very tolerant.

This is true...

Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions.

...but this is not. You go from trying to reduce one generalism immediately into posting another that's just as bad, if not worse.
Most atheists are extremely tolerant, as long as someone else's illogical belief system isn't being rammed in their face.
What's funny and true about this clip is that most of us atheists KNOW SOMEONE LIKE HIM. The target of his humor is knobs like these: http://www.videosift.com/video/Michelle-Malkin-Treat-At
heists-Like-Trolls-for-Christmas
not so much practicing Christians that keep their faith to themselves.
If you wish to live your life according to the teachings of a two thousand year old book, you're welcome to. There's some wonderful ideals encased in there. But if you find it intolerable that others do not share that same belief in its utter veracity and described pantheon, you're setting yourself up for ridicule, which includes well-deserved parodies such as these.


If you read very carefully I wrote "seem not to be" and qualified it by writing "as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions".

I made a hypothesis and gave it anecdotal support. I didn't present it as an absolute.

You write how most atheists are tolerant except when a different belief system is being rammed in their face. Tolerance is about being able to take these situations on the chin and tolerating religious people - which you readily admit that atheists don't do. Go figure.

You write that I can go live by the teachings of a two thousand year old book. I know I can. Anyone can. I assume you are talking about a religious text of which there are many (and not nearly all Christian or Jewish).

If you find yourself intolerable of those who disagree with atheism, you're welcome to go and be intolerant and make parodies to assuage your pain.

My challenge to all atheists is to go about their way and do as they will without attacking religious people and not trying to indoctrinate people into being atheist.

Atheism needs to be better than the religions it is trying to debunk if it is to be taken seriously. For that to happen, atheists need to have characters that are better than those of the religious people they are trying to be better than (yes better, you aren't trying to be worse).

You all need to be loving, tolerant, studious, humble, etc, etc. All the good things that people can be supposedly without religion.

I just don't see it happening yet, too many atheists in the zealot stage.

B.T.W. I haven't given any hint what my beliefs are yet so don't assume that I'm religious.

>> ^harlequinn:
Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs.
Christians are generally very tolerant. Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions).


BWAHAHA! As long as you are NOT native americanjewish muslim.

Sure... You keep telling yourself how "tolerant" Christians are. I hate clueless people.

Please enjoy your pagan winter solstice holiday you call "Christmas" because we all know Jesus was really born in December.... Your one big holiday is based upon corporate slogans and hanging animal entrails on a fertility tree and based upon lies. Bravo!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

We don't have much use for faith because it requires the absence of evidence.
Untrue. Faith is not destroyed by the presence of evidence. Evidence reinforces faith. Follow the scientific process. Most scientific process begins with a hunch, an idea, a concept, or 'faith' in a hypothesis. Then experimentation is conducted, and evidence reinforces the initial concept. The faith in the concept is not negated. It is JUSTIFIED.
But you see, there are so many other things for which there is a similar lack of evidence that are easy to disbelieve. Elves, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and so forth. There's no evidence that any of these things exist, so does that mean people's default position should be to believe in them?
If there was a bunch of people out there who believe in elves and they were making the world (by and large) a better place because of thier beliefs, then what does it matter to you whether elves are real or not? Should you not rather be more concerned with getting as many people to believe in elves as possible because it is improving human society and conduct? You may chuckle up your sleeve at their belief in elves, but if the world is getting better does that not make the belief useful to you? And what harm would it be to you if these elf advocates approached you? You may be chagrined by the indignity of thier personal opinion that you're a scoundrel for not agreeing with them, but if they improve the world as a rule is that not a viable sacrifice on your part?


Faith and scientific method are opposed to one another and that is the issue at the heart of the matter. That is why you get all butthurt and think atheists are jerks. Faith does not follow the scientific process. In fact, it requires someone to suspend all logic and evidence to adhere to it. Ok, there is a heaven, so find some evidence of it. Bad people go to hell, show me the experiments. God made the world 2,600 years ago, show me the evidence. God answers prayer.. Well, fuck that one should be easy. Have people in a double blind study pray and record how many prayers are answered.

Don't confuse "faith" with hypothesis. One is arbitrary unprovable fantasy of the mind of a three yeaer old. A hypothesis is something that can be tested.

And why don't you turn this elf analogy around. Since the majority of good in the world comes from science and technology and the majority of improvements in life span, quality of life, understanding of the universe, societal advancement... etc. Have all come at the hands of science and non-secular organizations. So, for the sake of the good that is done, why can't the elf-believers just STFU and let real good continue. The scoundrels are the assholes that want to teach fairy tales instead of biology and waste time trying to put education backwards decades if not centuries. (see: intelligent design, Scopes Trial, etc.)

You sir are the scoundrel. You are the one preventing the improvement of the world because you can't just keep your belief in elves to yourself. The world is getting to be a better place and it is not coming at the hands of religious extremists. Think of how many centuries are human potential were squandered because of fighting over which type of elfs and unicorns are the correct ones.

For the record,

generalization:n saying that all (or most, or...) of [A] are [B] because [localized group of A] are [B].

examples
Christians are intolerant. There's a church up the street that teaches intolerance.
Atheists are jerks. Look, you're a bunch of atheists and you're all jerks.

and

secular:a not religious

examples
Although 99% of Turks profess the Islamic faith, Turkey officially is a secular state.
Ignorants accused Saddam Hussein of being a religious terrorist even though his regime was secular.

PLANE AT 1:50 -> 2:00

\o/

>> ^GDGD:
PLANE AT 1:50 -> 2:00
\o/


Nice. Good ears. LOL!

*comedy

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by K0MMIE.

>> ^messenger:
For the record,
generalization:n saying that all (or most, or...) of [A] are [B] because [localized group of A] are [B].
examples
Christians are intolerant. There's a church up the street that teaches intolerance.
Atheists are jerks. Look, you're a bunch of atheists and you're all jerks.
and
secular:a not religious
examples
Although 99% of Turks profess the Islamic faith, Turkey officially is a secular state.
Ignorants accused Saddam Hussein of being a religious terrorist even though his regime was secular.

If this is aimed at me, I wish to remind you that I said, "Oh, I'm definitely not saying that most Christians are intolerant." It amuses me when people who are not a target group claim that they have never encountered intolerance among Christians. Try being a minority for a year and say that again.

Also, I did not say that most Atheists are intolerant. I said that most Sifter Atheists are intolerant. "My greatest exposure to Atheists has been on the Sift, and I find them to be self-satisfied, intolerant, and confrontational. I trust that this does not reflect the general attitude of Atheists in the 'real world'."

In other words, I realize that Sifters do not accurately reflect the Atheist mentality.

^ I think it was aimed at Joe, since he misspoke/mistyped when he said "non-secular."

You also seem like a good person, which is why I hate to tell you that your exposure to and knowledge about theism, theists, philosophy, and science is very limited and that you don't know everything. The scariest part about your attitudes is that you are so sure of yourselves. I doubt that your conviction about the ignorance of theists is based on much more than a limited understanding of doctrine, superficial observation, and exposure to the common Christian nut. Oh, and maybe you grew up Christian. Like my professor said, "People who '...are more than happy to believe that all theists must necessarily be stupid and ignorant,' are people who have either fallen victim to false pride or who have an understanding of science that is extremely immature and indoctrinated."

And even if you think that you have a good reason to be intolerant, you are still intolerant.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Pinky, you seem to be a good person, so I hate arguing against something you hold dear. When it comes to religion, there are two types of people. There are people who believe something because it makes them feel good, and there are people who only believe something when it is supported by evidence or logic. The people in the second group, Rationalists, look down on the people in the first group because... how can I put this? Theists have two different ways of looking at the world that they try to hold simultaneously. The everyday world, where you put on a coat when it is raining and look both ways before crossing the street, and the fantasy world, where any absolutely crazy thing can happen as long as it's written in your special book.

If you met a girl who said she was pregnant but had never had sex, you would think she is either lying or crazy. If somebody told you that they were dead for days but a traveling holy-man brought them back to life, you would think that a near-death experience had really messed them up. If you were at a wedding where they were almost out of food, but everybody ended up full, you would think they must have found extras in the back. But since it's written in your book and everybody in your regular life seems to accept the stories as fact, you go along with it. It just makes no sense!

That's why atheists seem smug and mean. You look like a fool, like a three year old who still believes in Santa. How can we possibly not look down on you? I try to stay humble by reminding myself that I believed those things, kinda, when I was younger. But it is extremely hard to be humble when confronted with stubborn ignorance. Like this Pennypacker guy.

The sad thing is that even without a degree in science, this man has debunked scientists with simple logic. He does not argue with them about the relativistic curvature of space/time. He asks them simple, rational questions about the nature of the universe, cosmogony, entropy, and other things they should think about before they make broad statements about what is true and what is not true.

>> ^Estuffing83:
Thepinky, that was one of the more eloquent responses I have read on the sift and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it (I am an atheist). My only problem with the text you quoted from your professor is that he seems to be assuming that his knowledge in an area that he has no proven background trumps that of those who have devoted their lives to science. If he were a science professor debunking scientists, fine. He is not, however, so I cannot take what he says about them too terribly well.

^Yes, but both of the "examples" seemed to be aimed at me. Maybe I'm just overly-defensive. Probably.

Faith and scientific method are opposed to one another.

That is your opinion. It is not based on facts or evidence, and is not much different than bible thumping. What evidence do you have that faith is 'opposed' to scientific method?

Faith does not follow the scientific process. In fact, it requires someone to suspend all logic and evidence to adhere to it.

The scientific process begins when someone develops a hypothesis. Quite often, the hypothesis (especially in the realm of physics) is based on no more than an idea, a thought, or an abstract concept. The scientist proceeds to conduct physical experiments in the real world to accrue evidence.

I do not see how this is fundamentally different from a religious person who is exploring right, wrong, and the condition of life and thier place in the world. Such a person would conduct personal experiments, test ideas, and arrive at conclusions. The inherent process is similar. The only real difference is the subject material. What you are essentially arguing is that you refuse to acknowledge the study of ethos, pathos, a priori, and other abstract sciences of thought and philosophy. While you may have no interest in such fields, you certainly cannot deny thier ultimate reality and value as a part of the human corpus of understanding?

Don't confuse "faith" with hypothesis. One is arbitrary unprovable fantasy of the mind of a three yeaer old. A hypothesis is something that can be tested.

I disagree that areas of faith are untestable. Human morality and emotion are very testable. Conduct the experiments. Go kick a puppy. Look at a vid of a cat playing in a box. Go watch a chick flick. Listen to a powerful strain of music. Did you feel a twinge of pity, guilt, joy, or whatever? From whence comes these strange compulsions? What evolutionary function do they serve? You will find that you have quite a few 'illogical' moral standards that are based on no evidence, that have no identifiable origin, and that fulfill no valid socital purpose. How did you - who claims to have built his life on nothing but physical evidence - obtain so many dimensions without having developed a hypothesis, conducted an experiment, and obtained the physical evidence?

Since the majority of good in the world comes from science and technology and the majority of improvements in life span, quality of life, understanding of the universe, societal advancement...

That's one kind of good, but science doesn't fill care packages, stand by a bedside, or volunteer at soup kitchens - and therefore we must reject your claim that 'the majority of good' comes from science and technology. Rather it would be more accurate to say, "Science and technology have allowed good people to do MORE good to others". Science is amoral and cares nothing for good or bad. It just does. Parenthetically, why would science want to improve human life-spans? Isn't that unsustainable? Therefore 'someone' in the scientific community is conducting experiments to achieve ends that are based on moral judgements of what is 'good'. You better stop them...

Why can't the elf-believers just STFU and let real good continue.

Well, first you as the evidence based individual must supply the proof that the elf-believers are deliberately interfering with good. That's going to be hard to do since the Elfians are the ones in the soup kitchens, in the hospitals, and out helping the poor.

You sir are the scoundrel.

Whuh? On what physical evidence have you arrived at the conclusion that I believe in elves? Come come, let us have your reasoning.

The world is getting to be a better place and it is not coming at the hands of religious extremists.

It is a sad truth that there are many bad people that abuse religion and wrest it to thier negative ends. I tend to not blame the religion for that though. I blame jerks for being jerks. Jerks are that way, and will find a delivery mechanism for thier jerkiness whether it be science, religion, politics, Global Warming, or whatever. Whence comes this tendency, think you?

>> ^thepinky:
...your exposure to and knowledge about theism, theists, philosophy, and science is very limited and that you don't know everything.

What? Where did that come from and what does it have to do with anything? I'm surrounded by devout Christians in my regular life, such as my roommate and my sister. You think I haven't had these discussions with them? That I haven't heard every argument in the book and watched as they ignore every reply I have? I've studied the bible and taken philosophy courses. Do I need a PhD in Comparative Religion before you will deign to consider my arguments?


>> ^thepinky:
The scariest part about your attitudes is that you are so sure of yourselves.

It is the theists that are arrogantly sure of themselves. With no evidence or logic, they cling to the belief that they know how to get into heaven. The atheists are the ones who are comfortable saying "we don't know". But here's the rub: we know that you don't know either. Because if there was a way you could know, then we could know too. And the vast majority of atheists would convert if the theists had anything tangible.

And that's the fundamental conflict. Atheists demand tangible evidence or logic. Theists go with "what their heart tells them". And the heart tells theists that they are right, that they will go to heaven, that others are wrong, that others deserve hell, that everyone else better do what they are told or there will be consequences in this world and the next... If that isn't the height of arrogance, I don't know what is. And you talk about being humble?

Atheists say "we don't know". Nobody knows. Yet you pretend you do, and we have to suffer for it. That's where the hostility comes from. That's where that annoying self-righteousness comes from. We don't rail against the beliefs of Australian aborigines or the tiny self-contained monasteries scattered around Asia. That's because they're not knocking on our doors, pushing their holy false humility on us. They're not trying to change our laws, pushing their fairy tales into government buildings, into school curriculums, into laws against medical research.


>> ^thepinky:
And even if you think that you have a good reason to be intolerant, you are still intolerant.


I have no problem being labeled intolerant when it comes to people trying to run my life for me. I know it isn't you personally, perhaps not even anybody associated with your particular church. But you are standing solidly on the side of people who are doing wrong. They claim to be doing it for our own good, and in order to push back against that claim we have to convince people that their fundamental beliefs are wrong. That is why you get painted with the same brush, even if you may not deserve it as much as them.

>> ^thepinky:
^Yes, but both of the "examples" seemed to be aimed at me. Maybe I'm just overly-defensive. Probably.

I wasn't aiming anyone (except whoever got "secular" wrong -- that was pretty pointed). I took ideas I remembered reading about earlier and made them clearly generalizations for the examples. I made one from each side so it wouldn't single anybody out. Missed.

FWIW, you'll notice, Pinky, that I had already upvoted a few of your comments.

Anyway, I'm just some anonymous guy on the net being snippy about faceless others. It's easy to do, so I wouldn't worry about what I say.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker
^ ^joedirt
Faith and scientific method are opposed to one another.

That is your opinion. It is not based on facts or evidence, and is not much different than bible thumping. What evidence do you have that faith is 'opposed' to scientific method?

It's more like the scientific method is opposed to faith (in the bible literalist sense, not the spiritual sense). That's an a priori fact; nobody's opinion. Faith seems to try to ignore science.

Within the scientific method, everyone should be willing to believe that it's possible their own theory is false, and a rival theory is true. Rival theorists should be able to agree on exactly what tests it would take to make them change their mind. This is the heart of the process.

Any theory whose proponents refuse to accept that their position may be incorrect or refuse to propose a test that would convince them, is excluded from the scientific process.

For example, let's say I believe that graphite is an electrical insulator. You believe that graphite is an electrical conductor. I tell you you're a lunatic, but if you can run an electric circuit through a graphite pencil, I'm willing to change my mind. And lo, the light comes on, and I thank you for teaching me something new, and pay for the next round.

For a real example, let's say there's this guy named Einstein who is spouting some crap like gravity is actually space curved by mass, and that nothing is exempt from this curvature, not even light. We all know he's nuts, but we talk about it, and agree on a test: before, after and during the next solar eclipse, we'll take pictures of the stars where the sun is going to be during the eclipse. If Einstein's theory is right, those stars will appear to shift towards the sun during the eclipse because of the sun's mass bending the path of their light, and then appear to shift back out again afterwards. Lo, the stars do appear to shift, and General Relativity is confirmed!

Now, ask a bible literalist what evidence it would take to make him accept that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, and no matter how scientifically educated he is, that answer will never come.

Note: None of this proves that anything in the bible is wrong, or that atheists are justified. It just demonstrates that faith (in the bible literalism sense) is not at all compatible with scientific method.

I don't wish to sound disrespectful. My knowledge about theism, theists, philosophy, and, science is very limited as well. I believe that it is relevent to this discussion because you just proved my point. You seem to be basing your opinions about Christians upon your everyday exposure to devout Christians (I believe there are something like 38,000 Christian denominations) who may or may not have any idea what they are talking about, as is the case with most Theists. Reading the Bible, taking a few Philosophy courses. This does not qualify you to proclaim with absolute certainty that there is no proof whatsoever of God's existence. Can't you see how this is arrogance? There are things that you don't understand and experiences you have not had. Maybe if you had a more open mind, you could come to realize that. It is the same for me. I do not know everything or anything, for that matter. But if you can empirically disprove all of the evidence that I have seen and felt, I would be happy to admit that you are right.

How many denominations have you been exposed to? Have you studied entropy and cosmogony? I think (don't know) that these things provide scientific evidence of God's existence. I do not believe in fairy tales and I do not believe that God breaks natural laws. But I believe in agency, and you could say that many of my religious beliefs stem from that. If the universe is an uncaused event, that fact flies in the face of determinism. If we have agency, there must be a mind or consciousness, and there must be something that interacts between our minds and our bodies. If we don't have agency and determinists are right, how is everything caused...except the universe?

I have never seen an Atheist on the sift say, "I don't know, but I think religion may be false." It is almost always "Religious people are stupid." That is what I mean by the need for humility.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^thepinky:
...your exposure to and knowledge about theism, theists, philosophy, and science is very limited and that you don't know everything.
What? Where did that come from and what does it have to do with anything? I'm surrounded by devout Christians in my regular life, such as my roommate and my sister. You think I haven't had these discussions with them? That I haven't heard every argument in the book and watched as they ignore every reply I have? I've studied the bible and taken philosophy courses. Do I need a PhD in Comparative Religion before you will deign to consider my arguments?
>> ^thepinky:
The scariest part about your attitudes is that you are so sure of yourselves.
It is the theists that are arrogantly sure of themselves. With no evidence or logic, they cling to the belief that they know how to get into heaven. The atheists are the ones who are comfortable saying "we don't know". But here's the rub: we know that you don't know either. Because if there was a way you could know, then we could know too. And the vast majority of atheists would convert if the theists had anything tangible.
And that's the fundamental conflict. Atheists demand tangible evidence or logic. Theists go with "what their heart tells them". And the heart tells theists that they are right, that they will go to heaven, that others are wrong, that others deserve hell, that everyone else better do what they are told or there will be consequences in this world and the next... If that isn't the height of arrogance, I don't know what is. And you talk about being humble?
Atheists say "we don't know". Nobody knows. Yet you pretend you do, and we have to suffer for it. That's where the hostility comes from. That's where that annoying self-righteousness comes from. We don't rail against the beliefs of Australian aborigines or the tiny self-contained monasteries scattered around Asia. That's because they're not knocking on our doors, pushing their holy false humility on us. They're not trying to change our laws, pushing their fairy tales into government buildings, into school curriculums, into laws against medical research.
>> ^thepinky:
And even if you think that you have a good reason to be intolerant, you are still intolerant.

I have no problem being labeled intolerant when it comes to people trying to run my life for me. I know it isn't you personally, perhaps not even anybody associated with your particular church. But you are standing solidly on the side of people who are doing wrong. They claim to be doing it for our own good, and in order to push back against that claim we have to convince people that their fundamental beliefs are wrong. That is why you get painted with the same brush, even if you may not deserve it as much as them.

>> ^thepinky:
I have never seen an Atheist on the sift say, "I don't know, but I think religion may be false." It is almost always "Religious people are stupid." That is what I mean by the need for humility.

What about my quote? It comes pretty close. (see above)

Since we atheists (the reasonable ones anyway) allow for the possibility of new evidence, we might all be wrong about our non-belief.

>> ^thepinky:
Reading the Bible, taking a few Philosophy courses. This does not qualify you to proclaim with absolute certainty that there is no proof whatsoever of God's existence. Can't you see how this is arrogance?

As many, many, many people have said before, it is not my job to do research to prove religion is false. It is religion's job to prove they are right. I have had many debates with many different types of theists, and there is never a scrap of evidence or logic that provides a foundation for a religious belief.

Every debate I have ever had centers around the question, "How do you know you are right?" And every reply has been crap. I don't know that I'm right, but since I have never heard a single convincing argument in the 20 years I've been struggling with the question and talking to many, many people about it, I'm left with the conclusion that it is all just made up drivel. If your cosmogony studies lead you to believe that Jesus is the one true Son of God, please feel free to enlighten me. I'm all ears.

I don't know how the universe started, or how it is maintained. But even if there is a God running things, that would not be evidence that Christianity is correct. It's just something in a book! It was written by people! They could be mistaken, they could be liars, who knows? But because some of it is pretty and makes people feel less afraid of death, they stop questioning its validity. And when somebody stops questioning their beliefs, and starts arguing in favor of something they don't completely understand, that's when I start calling them fools.

Please, never ask an atheist to prove they are right. It's not their job to prove a negative. If you believe in something, it is your job to support that belief. Or be mocked. That's not arrogance. That's intelligent self-preservation. Here's what happens to people who believe without looking for the proof behind the claims: http://www.videosift.com/video/50-Billion-Wall-St-Scam

WHAT THE-!?!? I just upvoted the same comment as USESPROZAC!!! *has a heart attack*

You definitely got me. Good job for being a cool Atheist! I just want to give you a big ol' hug and shake your hand! There is hope.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^thepinky:
I have never seen an Atheist on the sift say, "I don't know, but I think religion may be false." It is almost always "Religious people are stupid." That is what I mean by the need for humility.
What about my quote? It comes pretty close. (see above)

Since we atheists (the reasonable ones anyway) allow for the possibility of new evidence, we might all be wrong about our non-belief.

Well said. You are absolutely right that the burden of proof is not upon you. I was not trying to imply that is it, but I can see how you might think that. All I am saying is that just because you have not encountered evidence that God exists, it does not prove that there is none. Thus, you, MaxWilder, you should never positively state that you know for certain that there is no evidence that God exists, because you will never know for sure (that is, not in this life). You can believe that God does not exist, but you do not know. You can believe that there is no evidence to the contrary, but you do not know. That is why your ignorance is just as relevent as mine. That is why telling me that I look like a fool or a three-year-old who still believes in Santa is insulting and reveals that you still have much to learn about how little you know.

Christians cannot prove to you that God exists in the way that you are constantly insisting that they do. And because the burden of proof is upon us, you will always feel like you are winning. We should all lose the chips on our shoulders and try to get along.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^thepinky:
Reading the Bible, taking a few Philosophy courses. This does not qualify you to proclaim with absolute certainty that there is no proof whatsoever of God's existence. Can't you see how this is arrogance?
As many, many, many people have said before, it is not my job to do research to prove religion is false. It is religion's job to prove they are right. I have had many debates with many different types of theists, and there is never a scrap of evidence or logic that provides a foundation for a religious belief.
Every debate I have ever had centers around the question, "How do you know you are right?" And every reply has been crap. I don't know that I'm right, but since I have never heard a single convincing argument in the 20 years I've been struggling with the question and talking to many, many people about it, I'm left with the conclusion that it is all just made up drivel. If your cosmogony studies lead you to believe that Jesus is the one true Son of God, please feel free to enlighten me. I'm all ears.
I don't know how the universe started, or how it is maintained. But even if there is a God running things, that would not be evidence that Christianity is correct. It's just something in a book! It was written by people! They could be mistaken, they could be liars, who knows? But because some of it is pretty and makes people feel less afraid of death, they stop questioning its validity. And when somebody stops questioning their beliefs, and starts arguing in favor of something they don't completely understand, that's when I start calling them fools.
Please, never ask an atheist to prove they are right. It's not their job to prove a negative. If you believe in something, it is your job to support that belief. Or be mocked. That's not arrogance. That's intelligent self-preservation. Here's what happens to people who believe without looking for the proof behind the claims: http://www.videosift.com/video/50-Billion-Wall-St-Scam

Another thing that I keep repeating, and seeing other people repeat, is this whole "God does not exist" thing. When people say this, the vast majority of the time they mean "your God does not exist". Just like we can be fairly certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist. There may be something out there, but it ain't that.

But as I said, I will happily never mention this again when the Creationists and School Prayer people shut up, and they let stem cell research go forward. I don't want to see people waste their lives and money supporting a church, but I won't rouse myself to shout at foolish people if they just leave the rest of us alone.

I think you made some excellent points and I don't wish to continue arguing, but I thought you brought something up that would make a good discussion. If a god or this "something" did exist, why not God? It couldn't possibly be a personal being who interacts with us? If this were possible, why not the Christian God (not as he is defined by modern Christianity, but as Jesus described him)? Rather, it must necessarily be something that is impersonal, not conscious, or takes no interest in us? I don't know why you so positively reject that definition of the "something." If this were a conscious "something," why not see the life of Jesus Christ and the testimonies of prophets as evidence instead of drivel? But, whatever. I do not subscribe to the common Christian notion of God because I also think they have it WAY wrong.

Why not the flying spaghetti monster?

Am sick and tired of senseless attacks against the Church of the Latter Day Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

If the bible simply described Jesus coming to the world and offering advice on how to live a great life and offered some direction on what God had in mind for us, then I might consider it seriously. But as it was written, Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In essence, the Word is "You better believe me, otherwise you go to hell." Why would we go to hell without Jesus? Because without Jesus, we are not saved. Why do we need to be saved? Because of original sin. We are born into this world on the path to hell. Well, gee, thanks for that God.

So all we have to do is put our complete trust in the text of a book that tells the story of a jealous and vengeful God, who at some point decides he wants to be a nicer guy so he sends his only son to allow us a slim chance of escaping eternal damnation. All you have to do is believe with all your heart something that was written in a book many centuries ago. You have to follow all its rules, except for the ones you really don't agree with, you can call those archaic.

Oh and how does Jesus save us? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jesus was a sacrifice. He took our sins onto himself, that we need not pay the ultimate price if we simply accept him into our hearts. ...Wait a minute, how is Jesus a sacrifice? Jesus is God, right? He came down, said some stuff, died and went back to heaven. Where is the sacrifice in that? What was the point? It only makes sense to a culture that regularly made sacrifices to gods. A sacrifice is giving up something that is valuable to you. Jesus was not really a sacrifice on anybody's behalf, because God can't die.

It's fundamental absurdities like this that make Christianity so transparently false. They might have worked on people centuries ago, who had a worldview that included baseless guilt, vengeful gods, and meaningless sacrifices. But it doesn't work today. We have the ability to see things a little more clearly, if we choose to do so.

So to sum up, if there is a higher intelligence who wanted to tell us something, it would be internally consistent, and not dependent on the culture of a specific time and place. It would be impossible to be an atheist because it would be inherently obvious to anybody who saw it, and there would not be a single person on the planet who would fail to have the opportunity to learn about it. Christianity fails on every level.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Why not the flying spaghetti monster?
Am sick and tired of senseless attacks against the Church of the Latter Day Flying Spaghetti Monsters.


Ahh the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Let me compare the FSM with the Christian GOD.

Are they both omnipotent beings? Yes. In fact the FSM was made to have all the powers of the Christian God (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/) since he is a parody of it.

Could the Christian God appear as a FSM? Yes - he is all powerful. He could appear as a Flying Turd Monster as well. Or a giant walking penis.

Is the FSM a synonym for God? Yes.

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^harlequinn:
Because most Christians don't care to try and mock other peoples beliefs.
Christians are generally very tolerant. Atheists seem not to be (as evidenced by the large amount of atheist videos trying to debunk Christianity and sometimes other religions).

BWAHAHA! As long as you are NOT native americanjewish muslim.
Sure... You keep telling yourself how "tolerant" Christians are. I hate clueless people.
Please enjoy your pagan winter solstice holiday you call "Christmas" because we all know Jesus was really born in December.... Your one big holiday is based upon corporate slogans and hanging animal entrails on a fertility tree and based upon lies. Bravo!


It is great that you have learned to hate based on your own ignorance. What an achievement.

"Generally". Read it again. "Generally". All Christians are still human - they still make mistakes - but they are generally more tolerant than than non-Christians. If you have had a different experience then I'm saddened to hear it.

You enjoy your "pagan winter solstice holiday you call "Christmas" because we all know Jesus was really born in December.... Your one big holiday is based upon corporate slogans and hanging animal entrails on a fertility tree and based upon lies" as well. Oh wait - I'm just assuming your a dumb Christian. I didn't even bother asking you - because I'm an ignorant idiot.

Don't worry - I've studied the history of all religions extensively before I made this statement (about pagan winter solstice, etc) - just like I know you will have.

Oh and all Christians just love how corporations have hijacked their religious celebration to sell shit. The "season of giving" - oh yes a Christian commandment. No one who isn't Christian gives gifts at Christmas - they all know it is a crock of shit. I certainly know you won't accept anything or participate in any event even remotely related to Christmas this year (or any year) because your making a stand against dumb Christians and their dumb celebration.

Yes. The one big Christian holiday. There is no other. Especially not the most significant and largest one - Easter. I hear that's all based on some pagan ritual anyway. (yes - Easter is much larger and the most important Christian celebration).

NOBODY knows what's going on. Not scientists, not christians, not politicians, not you, not me, nobody, none of us.

That is the entire essence of being alive.

You are showing classic signs of being indoctrinated into thinking that all Chistians believe the doctrines that you just described. You are oversimplifying, and there is more than one way to interpret scripture. The reason that we have need for a Savior is because we have been given agency and will make mistakes. This agency provides us an opportunity to learn and grow because we are free to make mistakes. (We lived with God before we were given mortal bodies, but we were like children, and God wished to see us progress. This life is a stage in our progression.) God provided a Savior so that we could return to live with him, because no unclean thing can dwell in his presence. We are not born on the path to hell. We are born innocent and perfect and are not held accountable for Adam's sin. Only our own. God does require something of us. I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I believe that the faith, repentance, good works, and morality he requires not only lead us back to him, but they make us happy in this life. If God provided proof of his existence, faith and sacrifice (which test us and make us better) would not be necessary.

Many people do not understand the doctrine of the Law of Moses. Some of the commandments given in the Old Testament (sacrifice, dietary guidelines, etc.) were part of the Law of Moses. This law was meant to prepare the people to receive Jesus, thus the sacrifices (symbolic of the sacrifice of the Savior). This was replaced by a higher law after Jesus came. The Old Testament is a record of believers who never knew Jesus Christ. Christ taught the Jews the true nature of God, demonstrating through his teaching and service that he is not vengeful and jealous, but perfectly just and kind. But, yes, he gets mad when we're disobedient. No lightning bolts or anything, though. Similarly, some people understand that the Bible is not only a sacred book but a product of its time. Some of the opinions of the prophets are just that: Opinions. They are pretty easily distinguishable from doctrine. I don't believe that the Bible is a perfect book. It has been mistranslated many times. In the first place, it was written by imperfect beings. It is a record of sacred things kept by them. It may not always be literal, but it provides understanding, inspiration, and guidance. God is consistent and unchanging, but he understands that we are not.

I believe that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself. For more on this topic, read this:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=00d51b3e50cf5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hi
deNav=1
Jesus Christ suffered for our sins. The "Atonement" or "Passion," as some call it, did not occur solely on the cross. In the garden of Gethsemane prior to his crucifiction he endured pain of mind, body, and soul which was beyond what anyone but the son of God could have endured. This satisfied the demands of justice for a perfectly just god as well as a perfectly merciful one. Christ paid our debt, which is why we are indebted to him and why he requires our love and obedience.

This is not meant to convince you of anything. I'm just pointing out that your ideas about Christianity may be influenced by your underexposure to a number of Christian faiths which do not believe what evangelicals and Catholics believe. Your understanding of Christian doctrine is not perfect (as is the case with most people, including me), so I don't think you're qualified to say that the doctrine is absurd.

>> ^MaxWilder:
If the bible simply described Jesus coming to the world and offering advice on how to live a great life and offered some direction on what God had in mind for us, then I might consider it seriously. But as it was written, Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In essence, the Word is "You better believe me, otherwise you go to hell." Why would we go to hell without Jesus? Because without Jesus, we are not saved. Why do we need to be saved? Because of original sin. We are born into this world on the path to hell. Well, gee, thanks for that God.

So all we have to do is put our complete trust in the text of a book that tells the story of a jealous and vengeful God, who at some point decides he wants to be a nicer guy so he sends his only son to allow us a slim chance of escaping eternal damnation. All you have to do is believe with all your heart something that was written in a book many centuries ago. You have to follow all its rules, except for the ones you really don't agree with, you can call those archaic.

Oh and how does Jesus save us? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jesus was a sacrifice. He took our sins onto himself, that we need not pay the ultimate price if we simply accept him into our hearts. ...Wait a minute, how is Jesus a sacrifice? Jesus is God, right? He came down, said some stuff, died and went back to heaven. Where is the sacrifice in that? What was the point? It only makes sense to a culture that regularly made sacrifices to gods. A sacrifice is giving up something that is valuable to you. Jesus was not really a sacrifice on anybody's behalf, because God can't die.

It's fundamental absurdities like this that make Christianity so transparently false. They might have worked on people centuries ago, who had a worldview that included baseless guilt, vengeful gods, and meaningless sacrifices. But it doesn't work today. We have the ability to see things a little more clearly, if we choose to do so.

So to sum up, if there is a higher intelligence who wanted to tell us something, it would be internally consistent, and not dependent on the culture of a specific time and place. It would be impossible to be an atheist because it would be inherently obvious to anybody who saw it, and there would not be a single person on the planet who would fail to have the opportunity to learn about it. Christianity fails on every level.

P.S. I love it when people periodically visit the conversation to downvote, but don't actually make any contributions to the discussion. It's my favorite.

I'd hate to create a blanket statement, but almost all of the time theism (specifically Christianity) is "debunked" or ridiculed or debated or what have you, the fuel for those arguments are immature theologies that dont belong outside of children's Sunday school.

Pinky put it nicely and went further by goin into a lil detail of some mature theologies.

Look, if I still thought God was a heavenly version of Santa Claus, making his list and checking it twice for the naughty boys and girls to send to hell, then I'd would maintain that Christianity was preposterous. But these childish theologies are simply that, childish.

I've got a close friend who is an atheist of sorts; believes that there is something greater than him, a Maker behind the universe giving us purpose, but isnt so sure about religion in general. Guess that makes him an agnostic i dunno. But we have great discussions about such things and have a wonderful mutual respect for each others belief systems

In short its really just boring and redundant to hear the same debunk fodder.

Here's a tip, instead of assaulting someone elses world views or belief systems and making presuppositions, ask questions. I, and others I'm sure, would be glad to answer to the best of our knowledge and then you might have a better understanding of why we believe what we believe.

Thanks Pinky for your thoughtful and intelligent reply. I have a habit of writing late at night so my posts are sometimes more biting than I intend.

You are correct in your assumption that I am offended when somebody suggests that God requires something of me. If he knows me and loves me, then he understands the reasons why I think the way I do. It's because of the way he made me and the way he set up the world. Then for him to judge me for being skeptical? For not knowing which religion is the correct one, out of thousands? For this I face eternal damnation?

Nah, I don't think so. If he loves me then when I die all will be forgiven, if there is even anything to forgive, which I doubt. How could it be otherwise?

As for the rest of your explanation, you are clearly picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to believe as Divine. Upon what grounds do you make your decisions? Obviously there are many, many people who interpret the Bible differently than you. What makes you right and them wrong?

For me there is no halfway. Either the Bible is perfect, in inspiration and translation, or it is completely untrustworthy. Obviously it is not perfect, so I can't trust it. If God wants me to believe in Jesus, he's gonna have to give me something more solid than a moldy old book that I have to pick through for nuggets of salvation.

^MaxWilder

My posts are almost always more biting than I intend. It gets me into trouble all of the time, so no worries.

I think I can safely say that I understand where you are coming from, and your logic is right on based on what Christians have lead you to believe about salvation. But that is just the thing about most Christian churches that I dislike. They teach salvation as if it is some sort of checklist. But I think that if you assume God is perfect, you must assume that he is perfectly just. That is, if there were a final judgement, God would make up for all of the inequities of this world and forgive you for things that you could not help. My foster sister lived with us for many years after being taken out of an extremely abusive situation. We did the best we could to help her, but her life is in shambles and will probably never fully recover. Her life is full of what I would call sin. Do I believe that she will be eternally damned? Absolutely not. She is not accountable for her parents' actions.

That is not to say that God overlooks everything. To be religious, you must truly believe in agency and that all or most of your choices are truly your own. Even if it is hard for people to make good choices, they still could have made them and God will judge them accordingly. It's called accountability. Obviously this depends on if the person knows they are sinning or not. Children are not accountable. Insane people are not accountable. I'm not God or anything, but I would think that a trained and indoctrinated terrorist would not be as accountable for murder as I would be, because I have grown up in a healthy society and a good environment.

As for being skeptical and not knowing which religion to choose out of thousands, that may or may not be your own fault. If the right thing has never come your way, of course it isn't your fault. If you have done your best to do what feels moral and correct, you're not going to be eternally damned. If Christians believe that, you don't really believe that God is just and merciful and loving. If I'm right, God does love us. He is not waiting in the shadows to catch us in the act and then throw us into hell.

As for picking and choosing, I don't really believe that I do that. These "opinions" that I speak of do not include important points of doctrine. Most of the stuff Christians "ignore" is the Law of Moses, which I explained was thrown out by all but the Jews after Christ's birth. If you would like to point out something specific from the Bible that you think we (or I) ignore, I would be happy to explain to you why I think it isn't relevent or doctrinal.

Also, I believe in prayer, personal revelation, and modern-day scripture and prophets and all of that, so that always helps with Bible interpretation. I'm an odd duck, though. Most Christians believe that God stopped communicating with us on that level at some point in the past. Don't ask me why he would do that. I guess he doesn't love us as much or something.

I know you guys probably think I'm off my rocker, but I just hope that you realize that there is more to Christianity than meets the eye. Logical thought and theism are not always mutually exclusive.

^Thanks for the offer to ask you what is perceived as "picking and choosing." The most obvious one to me is all the stuff about treating women as unclean when they're on their period, and believing homosexuality is evil, and (mis)treating perpetrators accordingly. I'm paraphrasing, but they're both there in black and white in the old testament somewhere. Leviticus, maybe? Is that the Law of Moses you're talking about?

And what do you think about the miracles? Are they to be taken as literal truth, or are they stories that represent something else entirely? Was there an actual Garden of Eden? Was the entire planet actually flooded for 40 days? Are all animals descended from the ones on Noah's Ark? Is the Earth only a few thousand years old? Not challenging, just asking, since you offered.

the way i personally interpret the more grand stories, noah's ark, the creation story, etc etc. For me its not so much did these happen literaly or are they metaphors because that would be to miss the point i think. The tradition of Hebraic storytelling is similar to what we know today as fairytales. Stories that are wildly imaginative and that convey a certain message, or "moral of the story".

The ancient Hebrews had a way of explaining and describing great theological truths through story or parable. Often times they would use things that took place in history as the backdrop, so to speak, for these parables. It's not important whether or not the events actually took place as they are told but rather it is the message that is important.

So, i guess to answer your question, no i dont necessarily believe the earth and all its inhabitants were created in a literal six days or that Noah snatched up every animal on the planet and rode out the great flood and so forth. But if they did it wouldnt matter much to me either way. The message is what is important.

One I get a lot as a rebuke of sorts for my tattoos and piercings (when i had em) is Leviticus 19:28 - Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD

However those that would use this to rebuke me are hypocritically "picking and choosing" for Leviticus 19:27 reads, "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
And I assure you all of em were clean shaven and had nice haircuts. But again its all silliness really because those laws were more or less specific to the Levite priests ....... and I'm not a priest nor a Levite

here's the thing with the Bible. If you want to critically analyze it you cant go about it the same way you would write a report on some book you read in high school. It's important to remember that this was a book written by many authors over many, many centuries to all kinds of target audiences and backgrounds.


In short, Garden of Eden? Maybe, maybe not. Not really important.
The great flood and all those animals? Maybe, maybe not. Not really important.
6000 year old earth? Well since science has pretty conclusively proven it is much older than that, no. But then again, if somehow science was wrong and the earth WAS 6000 years old it still wouldnt matter. The Bible was not written to tell us how old the earth is.

It really is refreshing though, for an atheist to actually ask if I believe in a 6000 year old earth instead of presuming I do because I'm a Christian and I'm obviously a giant dumbass

thanks mate =)

"because I'm a Christian and I'm obviously a giant dumbass"

I'll get back to your questions on some other day that isn't Christmas, messenger. Thanks for taking me up on the offer. I think that MaxWilder and I were mostly focusing on doctrines and moral guidelines and not as much on stories like Noah's Ark, but I would be happy to discuss that as well.

Smooman, this is hilarious.

>> ^smooman:
It really is refreshing though, for an atheist to actually ask if I believe in a 6000 year old earth instead of presuming I do because I'm a Christian and I'm obviously a giant dumbass

thanks mate =)

@smooman
You're welcome!

I think, smoo, that you and I might have have similar views on storytelling, spread of knowledge, the truth of the world, and such. You identify as Christian and I don't, however.

I like the expression, "Pray to the god of your understanding." Just about everyone from ultra-orthodox literalists to so-called atheists, understands what that means.

I'm not an atheist, by the way. Making an absolute claim ("There absolutely is no god,") based only on insufficient evidence to the contrary is fallacious. There's a lot of evidence around that there might be a deity of sorts (I'm talking about the causes of abiogenesis, evolution and other extraordinary things about life, and the fact that every society in the world has some concept of a deity). However, I see no evidence at all that this deity is in fact the Christian God of the bible, so I cannot believe in Him, except as the figurehead of a decent life guidance model, if properly interpreted.

@thepinky
You're right, I did change the subject. Let's not divide the thread too much. Doctrine is quite interesting. Here are some questions about it:

Do you take any direction from the Bible as dictate, as in, you have to do it even if you don't understand why? Or do you take bits as they appeal to your sense of the world?

Would you change or consider changing your belief about something if you found it was directly contradicted in the bible?

Would you accept dictates from other religions into your life if they happened to fit your sense of the world, and were not present in the Bible?

well one of the things discussed in my world religions class in college was the idea that of the many many religions in the world it may be that we worship the same God, it's just when we pray to him we each call him something different.

It's tough to switch gears from arguments against fundamentalists to questions for moderates. But the last couple of days reminded me of my most important question for modern moderate Christians:

If there is a good person, who lives a good life, doesn't break any laws, contributes to his community and passes down a strong code of ethics to his children, would that person go to hell without Jesus?

As far as I can tell, that's what it says in the Bible, and that's one of the very first things that led me to reject Christianity. Most modern, compassionate Christians say you can still go to heaven just by being a good person. But that leads directly to the next question:

What is the point of Christianity if you don't really need to be a Christian to go to heaven?

I think you'll find that if you answer that question, none of your reasons will have anything to do with Jesus being an actual "Savior" or "Son of God".

To "answer" your first question, salvation is a personal thing. That is between them (the good person) and God.

And the second.........well i really dont have a good answer for that. To be honest I dont quite fully understand salvation. Frankly I dont think anyone does fully. You raise a very thought provoking point.

Exercising the body, mind, and soul with questions such as these is healthy and I appreciate your provocations

Faith unprovoked and unquestioned is a very weak faith =)

I completely forgot that I was supposed to come back here and answer questions! I don't really have the energy right now, though. If anyone see this post in 5 months when I'm not in school, remind me to answer these questions.

Faith and religion is at heart dangerous to people. It narrows the spectrum of human understanding, because the answers already are given and you are supposed to take them "on faith".

Philosophy is good, moral philosophy is also good, religion is neither of those. It has a moral dimension to it, and a philosophical dimension to it as well, but they are merely cloaks to mask the underlying premise of religion which is false.