Standard atheist argument that I've heard 100 times before, this time it's just in cartoon form. I'd upvote if it was something creative, but it was just a rehash of old talking points. It wasn't even much on the animation. The drawings were okay but they didn't do much in the moving department.

I don't think they were trying to break new ground in the religion debate here, BP. It's just a little comedic cartoon.

If it's a stupid argument, what's your answer to it?

well, theo, my understanding is...

Jesus loves you, but also allows bad things to happen. Why? Well, the standard response goes like this; we are given free choice, which allows us to do good and bad, and also grow in character. When good or bad things happen to us because of our actions or because of random chance this is a product of our freedom, and will help build us all into the person God wants you to be.

Boiled down a bit, but its basically all there. Pretty general and unsatisfying, eh?

@theo

putting words in someone's mouth much?

The standard atheist argument against Christianity (it doesn't apply to all religions) that if God was truly all powerful then he could make a world in which there was no evil *and* we had free will to grow as indivduals. If he can't do that then he isn't omnipotent. If he chooses not to, then he is not benevolent.

Omnipotence and benevolence are the two key Christian concepts about their god.

If nothing else this is an amusing animation in a distinctly British style, which I love, so its all good as far as I'm concerned

Well
you could say that Jesus loves you, he is the uncreated son of God blah blah blah
his love is true love, pure love, and
when love is closest to itself it is always requited. One-sided love is simply lust, or egotism in disguise, or selfinflicted pain

SO you're being in hell is actually the inability of you to accept love, which is there, ready to be percieved and taken, it is free , you are freely loved and allowed to love freely.
I mean have you ever been loved by someone you don't love? I mean really loved?
It's not a pleasant experience, you want that person to get off, you want to be free from this kind of love.
So, a christian could say that God's love is actually more difficult an terrifying than his wrath or his indifference.

So many people quoting "standard" atheist arguments.

The funny things is, we atheists have no need for these arguments.

The burden is on you, the magical teapot believers, to present a compelling argument for the existence of God. Not us.

However, in the interest of accuracy, the quote that many seem to be trying to reference here is this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)

"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

All well and good to say so, unless you also happen to believe that God wishes us to exercise free will.

@lmayliffe

You and those like you continue to prove that atheists can be a lot more annoying than Christians will ever be.

Personally, I consider myself somewhere in between, and while I find both sides annoying, atheists hands down win as the most irritating side. I may find a Christian trying to convert me once a YEAR if that. Atheists on the other hand, I see their BS spewed around every nook and cranny. There is no hiding from the crusading atheist. You're more fanatical than those you criticize.

Most of you have an attitude of HEY LOOK AT ME, I HAVE AN OPINION!!!!! while most Christians don't even seem to let you know they are Christian... at least until a rampaging atheist comes to town.

So sick of that meaningless criticism. How annoying or "fanatical" you are has no impact on how right you are.

Atheists try to fix theists' disgusting, broken minds because they're fucking up the world with their bullshit. Personally, I'd burn them all at the stake if I had the chance, but in the meantime I have to content myself with explaining to them why they're morons.

BrknPhoenix:

I'm not entirely sure what world you inhabit, but it most certainly isn't the same one as everyone else on the planet for the last 2,000 years.

A fundamental tenant of Christianity is evangelism: There is a scripted dogmatic call for Christians to go out and spread the Gospel.

When was the last time you heard of an indigenous species being enslaved and murdered by atheist missionaries?

Oh wait. You haven't. Because we don't have missionaries. There is no set of dogma governing atheists. We don't presume to know the mysteries of the universe based upon some divine truth communicated to us via a giant mystical being.

Also, you just typed a screed without saying anything substantive at all. You use words like fanatical, crusading, convert, rampaging, you claim to see "atheist BS spewed around every nook and cranny", et cetera.

I don't think these words mean what you think they mean. And unless you are going to provide some credible evidence for what you claim to be some massive atheist agenda to annoy you, no one is going to read your words as anything but the baseless hyperbole that it is.


detlev409:

The idea of god wishing you to exercise "Free Will" is completely ludicrous, and in many ways is the point of this video.

Free will is either free, or not. You can't have it both ways.

So to say that God wished you to have free will with the exception of every outdated, dogmatic rule set forth in the bible that, upon breaking, will land you in a fiery pit of damnation for the rest of your life, precisely proves the point.

God wishes you to have free will (conditionally).

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no such thing as conditional free will. It is either free, or not. And the Christian set of rules by which you must live is most certainly NOT free.

As an afterthought: I'd much rather be annoying for challenging irrational beliefs with rational thought, than part of an ancient system of mental slavery that produces acts of mass genocide and punishes the best and brightest of our species for independent thought.

The generic religious view that all life has value--flawed and unrealized though it may be--is superior to the nihilism that so often is found holding hands with atheism.

The enraged responses of many at this sift proves humans--including atheists--are ruled by primitive emotions, thinly veiled by reason.

And English "humor" is enough to make anyone agnostic.

Quantumushroom:

You are comparing two things that have no relation.

Atheism does not make a statement one way or another on the intrinsic value of life. Atheism merely states a disbelief in the existence of God. That's it.

Atheism has nothing to do with Nihilism.

You also claim that religion believe in the intrinsic value of life. I think that is a highly debatable point.

The responses to this sift alone prove absolutely nothing. If you are going to base your assessment of the rationality of humanity on the responses of a handful of people to an animated cartoon, then you have some serious rationality issues yourself.




Is there anyone out there capable of actually making a substantive point in the favor of religion, or are all of you going to speak in hyperbole and generalities that mean absolute jack shit?

@lmayliffe

You need only look at yourself to see my point. But apparently you're too busy patting yourself on the back for educating the stupid theists about how stupid they are. Your argument had remarkably little to do with what I said. Instead, you just resorted to attacks on my intelligence. Since I didn't claim I was a theist, you just decided to say "I don't know what words mean" instead.

I still submit that you are annoying. I so far have not been proven incorrect.

Spirituality -- or the absence thereof -- seems to be something that is deeply personal for many people. Myself, I was raised an atheist, but had a number of experiences that simply couldn't be explained with a scientific mind, so I went to live in India for a while and did a lot of meditating. While that didn't really give me any answers, it sort of took away the questions.

Not everyone will agree with me, but the one thing that I do believe in is consciousness -- and that it exists on personal, collective, and cosmic levels. And I don't believe that there is any real separation between those different levels of consciousness, other than the ones that we create for ourselves.

I actually think that science and religion, at their core, have a lot in common; they just use very different approaches and language in their search for Truth.

I've met some very mystical quantum physicists!

BrknPhoenix:

Your argument had no substance to begin with. I pointed that out rather succinctly, although you apparently did not read it. And in response you offer.....what? Still no substance.

Your original points were the following:

1. Atheists are "more annoying" than Christians.

2. Atheist are more evangelical, that is to say more invested in converting others to their way of thinking, than Christians.


As you can read in my response, I debunk these two ridiculous claims as hyperbolic bullshit. If you are incapable of reading my response within that context, then please tell me which parts you are having trouble with and I will attempt to clarify and restate my rebuttal.

If you simply have nothing of substance to offer, then dismiss with the "poor poor me" ad hominem bullshit, grow a pair, and admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I actually think that science and religion, at their core, have a lot in common; they just use very different approaches and language in their search for Truth.

I've heard this before, and I just don't buy it.

Science searches for truth via experiments that can be repeated and verified.

Religion provides truth to it's believer through faith.

Faith is the acceptance of a truth with an absence of evidence.

I don't see how the two could be more at odds.

It's so refreshing to read a positive message like yours, Arvana and I tip my hat to your courage in expressing it on a thread like this.

Thank you, persephone -- I tip my hat to your courage for reading through the whole thread!

lmayliffe, I understand your position, and in many ways I agree. However, I also think that there is a convergence between science and spirituality that may not be so obvious.

Good science seeks truth by verifying theory with objective and repeatable experimentation.

Good spirituality seeks truth by subjectively eliminating all non-truths until only truth remains.

Both approaches are valid, and yet both have led to a lot of dogma and incorrect beliefs over the ages. I would say that each can benefit from the experience of the other.

The key thing to both methods is to always be willing to let go of anything that you hold to be true, when faced with contrary evidence -- and that is something that we are all guilty of getting stuck on from time to time.

similar to my older post
http://www.videosift.com/video/God-loves-you-fail-to-reciprocate-and-he-will-torture-you

The key thing to both methods is to always be willing to let go of anything that you hold to be true, when faced with contrary evidence -- and that is something that we are all guilty of getting stuck on from time to time.

That right there is the crux of the issue, and I thank you for bringing it up. Science frequently produces theses that are proven false or inadequate, and are replaced with more accurate ones.

Religion, on the other hand, cannot afford these inconsistencies. The Bible is either the infallible word of God, or it is not. Inflexibility is an innate feature of dogma. And since the God theory isn't predicated on evidence to begin with, no amount or type of evidence will have an effect.

If history is any judge, the best definition of faith and/or spirituality is making up answers to things individuals or societies don't yet understand.

Arvana-- thanks for an intelligent and well-spoken post.

Gorillaman-- if you would indeed burn people at the stake for being Christians, then I admire your boldness for being a true atheist. Most atheists hold values like "do unto others," "be kind to your neighbor," etc, which all borrow from religion. Way to stay true to atheism.

lmayliffe-- "A fundamental tenant of Christianity is evangelism: There is a scripted dogmatic call for Christians to go out and spread the Gospel." You're playing word games here. Fundamental, tenet (not tenant), scripted, and dogmatic all carry negative connotations. I could say the same thing and paint Christians in a different light: "Christians have the opportunity to share the good news with their friends and neighbors." Jesus never called Christians to cram a message down anyone's throat, but they are instructed to share their belief with those close to them.

"When was the last time you heard of an indigenous species being enslaved and murdered by atheist missionaries?"
When was the last time you heard of an indigenous species (or did you mean people) being enslaved and murdered by representatives of any religion (or non-religion)?

"Because we don't have missionaries. There is no set of dogma governing atheists."
Again, word games. Call it debunking or truth sharing or whatever you want, Richard Dawkins is spreading a message of what matters to him. And I don't hate him for doing it. We all share what is important to us. Just don't pretend that atheists are somehow exempt from sharing their worldview.

Finally, I really appreciate science a lot. I began college as a physics major (graduated with a kinesiology degree), and I have benefitted several times from medical science (I was born with some health problems, and my wife went through serious health complications 2 years ago). However, as much as I appreciate science, it cannot be our only source for truth and understanding.
"Science searches for truth via experiments that can be repeated and verified." That's great and I'm all for it. But I can't repeat historical fact. There will never be another George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. If I cannot repeat what happened, does that make it untrue. No. I go by another type of evidence: eyewitness testimony. I think that science should be used whenever possible to explore the natural world around us. But we can't turn away from all other types of learning in the name of science.

Guess I should read my own work closely before posting. I made a punctuation mistake. My bad.

It's easy. God is like a animal behavior scientist. He's got some mice in a big maze, and he's standing there watching them with his big clipboard taking notes.

(Let's forget about reincarnation, heaven, hell, and death for simplicity)

Ok, certain mice find a piece of cheese and either eat it or not. Maybe the scientist is keeping notes and says, "Mouse #32241 did not eat the Stilton". One day the scientist is going to come and collect all the mice that did (or did not) eat cheese based on whatever experiment the scientist happens to be conducting.

Could the scientist intervene if there was a homicidal mouse biting the necks and killing all the test subjects? Probably. Would the destroy his mouse test protocol, maybe. Depends on what kind of behavioral study is going on.

And such is God and human "free will". This analogy I think is the closest I can come to JudeoChristian God relationship to humans living on Earth. Do the humans know what will and won't get you into heaven? Nope, completely arbitrary. Depends on which divinely inspired book you read, and in what century you happen to read it, and which Pope happens to be around.

A mouse that will not eat Stilton??? Now that's a messed up mouse....keep him in the maze for further..."testing"

So what is so hard about Christianity, any "ity" or "ism" to understand? As far as I can tell, both Christian's and Atheists, have not been able to figure out either system of beliefs or disbeliefs yet....at least the ones that chime in on streams like these.....

Atheists that keep kicking the dead horse of "There can't be a God" are as clueless as fundamentalist Christians, who take every verse in the Bible literally...even though, interpreted correctly, the verses speak quite lucidly, of universal laws and social phenom....

All the Atheists need is a manifesto (bible), and a meeting place, and you've got apples and oranges.....Arvana is the closest to a mark here, and anyone who asks me to explain my personal position on the matter......needs to ask more than once, with a humble and sincere heart, and even then you may be told to go fuck yerself.

So what is so hard about Christianity, any "ity" or "ism" to understand? As far as I can tell, both Christian's and Atheists, have not been able to figure out either system of beliefs or disbeliefs yet....at least the ones that chime in on streams like these.....

I'll agree whole-heartedly about Christians. Atheists, however? You seem to be confused as to what atheism is. It is not a system of belief or disbelief. We intentionally eschew systems. Atheism merely states that there is no god. End of story.

Atheists that keep kicking the dead horse of "There can't be a God" are as clueless as fundamentalist Christians, who take every verse in the Bible literally...

You know, all atheism says is that there is no god. If there is only one defining characteristic of a concept, then to repeat it is not "kicking a dead horse". I don't think this phrase means what you think it means.

That's like saying physicists who insist on repeating Einstein's Theory of General Relativity are kicking a dead horse. That is to say, laughable and ludicrous.

even though, interpreted correctly, the verses speak quite lucidly, of universal laws and social phenom..


Hahahahahahahahahaha. Interpreted correctly. You must be fucking kidding me.

You don't mean interpreted. You mean cherry picked. The Bible advocates racism, slavery, homophobia, genocide, mass murder, mysogyny, and all sorts of lovely things. No amount of "historical recentering" or interpretation is going to change that.

All the Atheists need is a manifesto (bible), and a meeting place, and you've got apples and oranges.....Arvana is the closest to a mark here, and anyone who asks me to explain my personal position on the matter......needs to ask more than once, with a humble and sincere heart, and even then you may be told to go fuck yerself.

Again, you seem to have atheism confused as an alternative belief system to religion. It isn't. That's why we don't have a Bible, or meetings. That would be like herding cats.

And to be frank, we also don't really give a shit what you're position is. My heart is sincere, although not very humble, when I say, get a clue about what you are talking about, or go fuck yourself as well.

"Science frequently produces theses that are proven false or inadequate, and are replaced with more accurate ones."

Look Imayliffe, your statement here is utterly problematic.
If science is anything it is the will of particular human being, a particular man, to approach things in a certain way, or it is a set of traits of a particular human beings.
YOU via your statement are turning science into a "thing" into an ideology, an entity . SCIENCE doesn't do anything, if it does we are in big trouble, it means that something which was in essence the work, labour and passion of people - who chose a certain PHILOSOPHICAL outlook, who chose a way of life, has been turned into a brainless, unconscious mas of ideas.



IF a scientist doesn't have a philosophicaly inclined mind, or some form of eccentricity that removes him from the popular mass he is a priori a functionary, he could be working for the communist party or an unitarian church.
.
The scientist had to be a skeptic or a passionate lunatic. If he isn't he's just the promulgator of a worldview, even if the worldview is a dynamic one.


finally...
Skepticism is not an end in itself, you are skeptical because you WANT truth, and this is an utterly alien concept far removed from any experimental study.
One has to have a basis of beliefs to function (and one does). The fact that the scientists and so called skeptics aren't analysing their set of beliefs frightens me more than nuts who fly planes into buildings.

"A fundamental tenant of Christianity is evangelism: There is a scripted dogmatic call for Christians to go out and spread the Gospel."

bhyphenlow:

You're playing word games here. Fundamental, tenet (not tenant), scripted, and dogmatic all carry negative connotations. I could say the same thing and paint Christians in a different light: "Christians have the opportunity to share the good news with their friends and neighbors." Jesus never called Christians to cram a message down anyone's throat, but they are instructed to share their belief with those close to them.

I'm not sure if you are being serious, but I'll bite. If you've read the Bible, that is precisely what Jesus commands.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" Matthew 28: 19-20

That is about as clear cut as you can get. It's a fundamental tenant of the religion that you are supposed to go around the world converting and baptizing people in the name of Jesus. There's no proscribed limit to it being people "close to them" so I'm not sure where you are getting your facts.

bhyphenlow:

When was the last time you heard of an indigenous species (or did you mean people) being enslaved and murdered by representatives of any religion (or non-religion)?

Again, you've got be joking. Here's a short list.

We'll start with the Ancient Pagans.

As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer."
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356.
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues.
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.

* Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded.
* Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany.
* Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered.
* 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown.
* 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage.

First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II.
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands.
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively.
Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown)
after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed.
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres.
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis.
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children).
(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished."
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone.
Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ".
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian.
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone).

Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims.
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians.
The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control.
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000.
* Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed.
* subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated.
* After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324.
* Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone),
* Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
* Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings.
* John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415.
* University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna.
* Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

# 5th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain.
# 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action).
# 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.
# 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee.
# 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'."
# 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers."
# 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany.

* Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
* Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion."
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it."
* On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him."

* Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ."
* In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess."
* On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead.
* The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
* As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous."
* The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."
* What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs."
* The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated."
* "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next."
* Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
* "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."

I'm not sure how many millions you need to have killed in the name of Christ before you accept that they are in fact responsible for the worst genocides and mass murders in the history of the planet.

"Because we don't have missionaries. There is no set of dogma governing atheists."

bhyphenlow:
Again, word games. Call it debunking or truth sharing or whatever you want, Richard Dawkins is spreading a message of what matters to him. And I don't hate him for doing it. We all share what is important to us. Just don't pretend that atheists are somehow exempt from sharing their worldview.

Sharing your worldview via books and scientific thought, and evangelism on the end of a sword are two very different things. If you cannot grasp the difference then there's not much else I can say.

bhyphenlow:

But I can't repeat historical fact. There will never be another George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. If I cannot repeat what happened, does that make it untrue.


I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Or maybe I am, but I can't believe you would actually use this as an example. Are you suggesting that since we cannot "repeat" the existence of Abe Lincoln that he did not exist acoring to science? AS far as comparing apples and oranges goes, that's a doozy. Abraham Lincoln is not a scientific experiment. He's a person. His existence has nothing to do with science.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are probably just trolling. But read this post before you come back at me saying I am playing word games. Historical fact and eyewitness account have shown time and time again that Christianity has a built in motive to evangelize others, and when they are resisted they murder and brutalize in the worst way possible.

"Science frequently produces theses that are proven false or inadequate, and are replaced with more accurate ones."

Look Imayliffe, your statement here is utterly problematic.
If science is anything it is the will of particular human being, a particular man, to approach things in a certain way, or it is a set of traits of a particular human beings.

Um. No.

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. There is nothing individualistic or human about science. It is what it is. That's the definition of science.

YOU via your statement are turning science into a "thing" into an ideology, an entity .

Umm. No. I use the term science to refer to the process of "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." That's all. It's not that hard to understand.

SCIENCE doesn't do anything, if it does we are in big trouble, it means that something which was in essence the work, labour and passion of people - who chose a certain PHILOSOPHICAL outlook, who chose a way of life, has been turned into a brainless, unconscious mas of ideas.

I'm really not sure what rhetorical bone you are trying to pick here, but it's a red herring. Thank you for capitalizing the important words though, I don't read good.

IF a scientist doesn't have a philosophicaly inclined mind, or some form of eccentricity that removes him from the popular mass he is a priori a functionary, he could be working for the communist party or an unitarian church.

What? Where the hell do you get that from? Haha. There is no law that says you have to be weird to be a scientist, and if you aren't weird then you might as well work for a church. Whatever weed you are smoking, I want some.
.
The scientist had to be a skeptic or a passionate lunatic. If he isn't he's just the promulgator of a worldview, even if the worldview is a dynamic one.

Skepticism and science do go hand in hand in many ways, but again, I'm not sure where you are getting this shit. There is no scientists's handbook out there that requires you to fit a certain personality type or mindset before starting an experiment.

It's possible I am misunderstanding your point here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the hell you are trying to get at. You sound really really stoned, tbh.


finally...
Skepticism is not an end in itself, you are skeptical because you WANT truth, and this is an utterly alien concept far removed from any experimental study.

I don't think skepticism means what you think it means.


One has to have a basis of beliefs to function (and one does). The fact that the scientists and so called skeptics aren't analysing their set of beliefs frightens me more than nuts who fly planes into buildings.

Wow, way to play the 9/11 card there, chief. So you are saying that non-introspective scientists scare you more than terrorists who murder our friends and family.

You need a fucking reality check and a head exam while you are at it.

Dude - link, don't cut and paste.

Dude - link, don't cut and paste.

When people make claims like, "Tell me one instance where Christianity was responsible for mass genocide" it makes me think they haven't picked up a single history book in their entire lives, suggesting that linking them to information will most likely be useless, forcing me to cut and paste in the hopes they will actually read some information. Thankfully these wacky wild interwebs are big enough to handle lots of information.

Damn! once again i am forced to yell over a raging torrent of (dead end) debate.

I LIKED YOUR VIDEO! IT MADE ME GIGGLE, AND THE ANIMATION STYLE WAS PLEASANT.

Wow, I didn't bother to read any of these posts, and the only thing I've come away with is even cartoons in Britain have really bad teeth.

wow. remember when this conversation was about jesus and free will, rather than christianity (and religion overall) vs atheism?

coincidentally, i recently read an interesting philosophical point on this exact argument (the free will one):

"1. God is all powerful. anything possible is within his power.
2. God is all knowing.
3. God is perfectly good.
4. there is evil in the world.

traditionally theists have accepted these four claims, but many philosophers have argued that they are incompatible. if god is all powerful, he could have mad a world without evil. and since a world without evil is better than a world with evil, how could a perfectly benevolent god knowingly create a world in which there is evil?

one solution is to deny that god bears responsibility for the evil in the world. supporters of this view argue god created the world, but mankind created the evil. Mankind has free will, and the only way god could have prevented evil is by not giving us free will. but, the argument goes, a world in which we do not have free will would be even worse than the actual world. therefore, god made the best possible choice: he created mankind with free will, which led to there being evil.

of course, this theory does not resolve the problem of natural evil--hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis that cause death and suffering. god could have created a natural world with fewer disasters that kill innocent people. so why didnt he?

Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz responded to this question by famously claiming that this is the best of all possible worlds. admittedly, there are features of this world that are bad. for instance, the existence of deadly hurricanes. however, argued leibniz, a world without deadly hurricanes would be worse than this world. for instance, it would lack the elegant natural laws that govern the behavior of weather."

just needed to get that out and i read this whole thread to do it. im'o go to bed now.

The cartoon and the arguments within the comments take too much latitude assuming an invalid perspective.

God made people as the pinnacle of his creative efforts and gave them the ability to love. With love comes free will (because without the ability to choose, it really isn't love). People used their free will to essentially say "Fuck you God, we don't need to follow your rules and we're doing things our own way." Selfishness has since worked its way through the ages and the consequences have followed (by elevating one's needs/wants/desires above others, one can justify pretty much anything -- deceit, theft, murder, etc.).

God made multiple attempts to reestablish the relationship, but people kept messing it up. Many simply chose to continue in their ways because they liked playing master of their destiny. Others thought they knew how to fix things -- through the words they said, the rituals they observed, the rules they followed, etc. Very few really "got it". Jesus came to try fix things while making it clear that what counts is not what is on the outside (appearance, words, rules, etc.), but what is on the inside (the attitude, the driving motivation).

How have people responded? We continue to screw it up. Some want to ignore it all, placate themselves with some logic and go their own way. Many Christians believe they are in the "in crowd" because of their denomination, rituals, beliefs, etc., while their inner attitudes aren't really any different. As we can see from this collection of comments, the groups argue and insult each other.

The cartoon along with the collection of comments just proves that we still don't understand. We continue to essentially say "Fuck you God, I'm doing it my own way" and then try to add on "God, you could have prevented me from messing up in the first place, so this whole thing is your fault anyway. What do you mean that you won't want me living at your place with you forever? You aren't much of a God if that is the way things are, you weak, stupid, evil... Hey, I've got it! I don't even think you exist at all!"

The statement that "Jesus loves you" is rather amazing given how he has been treated by those who argue against him, those who have tried to usurp his name to justify their hideous actions and those who present themselves as representing him while not following his words and examples. Jesus is truly unique in the way he dealt with people, how he spoke, the logic he used, his interactions with the "religious" and what he claimed about himself. I think it is worth more consideration than a cartoon and some philosophical arguments.

Oh spare me. Yeah, God has tried his hardest and people keep fucking it up. That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it. How sad.

God made people as the pinnacle of his creative efforts and gave them the ability to love. With love comes free will (because without the ability to choose, it really isn't love). People used their free will to essentially say "Fuck you God, we don't need to follow your rules and we're doing things our own way." Selfishness has since worked its way through the ages and the consequences have followed

That's bullshit Joe, sorry. What the hell did humans engineer? - life forms? please...


Your fake progressivism makes me sick Imayliffe; intellectual rebels coming out of the woodwork. Repeating old folksy arguments, and claiming supreme truth.
This is sooo 19th century...

just goes to show you that the unthinking mass will remain the unthinking mass.

Imayliffe - Your posted comments detail an extensive history how those claiming to be Christians have screwed up multiple times. While you may want to blame Christians for everything, we could use history or current events to detail how other groups of people have messed up too. Your statement that this is "good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt" ignores the very facts you've tried to use to bolster your own claims.

God loves everyone, anyone who says your going to hell is full of crap. God never said "Hey Joey Joe Joe Shabadu, I'm going to let you judge these people to go to hell." Eventually we'll all have to stand for what we've done in this life and God will judge with understanding and mercy. And guess what, the same applies to atheists. We'll all have the same knowledge someday and then we can decide what to do with it.

In the meantime I don't see why we need to fritter time away with who's going to hell. Because quite frankly none of us fully know what we're talking about.

Man can't comprehend everything. And all this talk of science and religion amounts to so little that this pissing contest atheists and religious types engage in grows tiresome and ridiculous.

"Do What Thou Wilt, Shall Be the whole, of the Law."-Alistair Crowley

"Do unto others...etc. and Love Thy Neighbor, as yerself????-in every holy text known to man, in one form or another, from Zoraster to Atheism's, "unwritten" manifesto

Quite simple and thorough a Hitchhiker's guide....so simple, even a human could fuck it up.

joedirt - If humans have created "advanced technologies", then it is not evidence that God is a half-wit but rather confirms we are the "best an omnipotent deity can come up with." As for our inventions being "better", I've yet to hear a doctor/scientist/engineer make a serious claim that we've achieved anything that is more than just a fraction of the capability and complexity of the human body and mind.

"You are selfish and half-witted to view religion like this." Therein lies the core issues. First, we're back to name calling and trying to claim superiority over each other -- the very issues I was trying to point out in my previous post. Second, it isn't about religion as that often turns out to be doctrine, rituals, rules, etc. Those aren't the things that are important and, in too many cases, it ends up being a cover for those with other motives. It is about trying to get back to the original relationship and a change in internal attitude.

Imayliffe - Your posted comments detail an extensive history how those claiming to be Christians have screwed up multiple times. While you may want to blame Christians for everything, we could use history or current events to detail how other groups of people have messed up too. Your statement that this is "good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt" ignores the very facts you've tried to use to bolster your own claims.

Your fake progressivism makes me sick Imayliffe; intellectual rebels coming out of the woodwork. Repeating old folksy arguments, and claiming supreme truth.
This is sooo 19th century...

just goes to show you that the unthinking mass will remain the unthinking mass.

More rhetoric and no substance.

Let's recap this thread for those playing at home.

The "arguments" set forth by the religious nuts so far amount to the following:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.
2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.
3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.
4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.
5. God wants us to have free will.
6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

All of these arguments I have refuted with supporting evidence.

And yet, not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning.

So until you are going to actually provide some substance and evidence for your claims that "other groups have messed up too" and use facts to contradict the points I have made, dismiss with the hyperbolic ad hominem bullshit and man up.

All I've heard so far is "No, you're wrong" from the religious crowd without a scant piece of logical argument to back up their ridiculous claims.

Grow a pair and make a coherent point, or shut the fuck up and go back to feeling guilty about existing because you can't please your imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm most interested in your suggestion that you can use current events to detail how non-religious groups have fucked the world up. I would LOVE to see a cogent argument concerning current geopolitical messes that doesn't involve religious nutjobs. Seriously. Back up your bullshit.

All your points attack something, they don't support your position. Simply mocking or deriding someones beliefs does not constitute a solid argument.

neither points validate anything. Seeing as well over 90% of the world is religious of course 90% or more of those events are going to include that party.

God loves everyone, anyone who says your going to hell is full of crap.

Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well.

Which I happen to agree with.

But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

Sorry, Christians can't have it both ways.

Obey God, or spend eternity in unimaginable suffering.

All your points attack something, they don't support your position. Simply mocking or deriding someones beliefs does not constitute a solid argument.

Perhaps you are confused as to what exactly a rebuttal is. It is an attack, a refutation, of another argument using evidence and examples. If your problem is with the tone of voice (text?) that I have used to convey those ideas, then I need only direct you to the multiple ad hominem attacks made by the proponents of religion in this thread.

And again, you have not offered anything of substance. If you are saying my points are invalid, then make a case for it citing examples and offering an alternative viewpoint. But saying "X=Y because I said so" doesn't mean anything.

neither points validate anything. Seeing as well over 90% of the world is religious of course 90% or more of those events are going to include that party.

Do you even bother to fact check the statistics you are making up on the fly?

"Well over 90% of the world is religious" is simply not true. You're making up bullshit to support the idea that we should not use religion as a causality for tragedy because "well over 90% of the world is religious".

Do some research before you spout off fake statistics.

16% of the worlds population does not claim a religion. 6% are primal-indigenous. 7% are in the "other" category.

That leaves 71% to be spread around the various religious sects including such winners as Scientology.




Is there a single religious person here capable of offering a coherent refutation without making up bullshit statistics to prove non-existent points?

No.

No.

Sweet. Now I can go back to watching videos of cats acting like people.

I love you lmayliffe

I did check my facts and, yes well over 90% of the world subscribes to a religious view of life. What holier then thou source are you using anyway? I wasn't saying "no one goes to hell" I was saying no one mortal should be so arrogant to say he can determine such a thing.

I can sit here and say your full of shit but that doesn't prove anything. Which is why your arguments are invalid because your format and strong bias on issues.

I think your unwilling to compromise your emotional position on the subject and resort to adding a "bullshit" and "idiots" to everything. that's why you have no valid points because you resort to name calling and childish tantrums.

You have strong feeling about stuff, kudos, but emotion without reason is nothing more then a immature rationalizing of behavior.

You'd be more persuasive if you didn't exhibit so much hate and anger in your speech.

/cracks knuckles

I did check my facts and, yes well over 90% of the world subscribes to a religious view of life.

You need to cite a source for that.

What holier then thou source are you using anyway?

Source 1. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Source 2. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Source 3. http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/mystat.html

The numbers vary from 70% to 81%. The statistics quoted in my previous post come from Source 1. Where are your sources for your claim of "well over 90% of the world is religious"? Back it up, kiddo.

I wasn't saying "no one goes to hell"

To quote you, "God loves everyone, anyone who says your going to hell is full of crap."


I was saying no one mortal should be so arrogant to say he can determine such a thing.

Thank you for clarifying your position on the going to hell issue. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold water. The Bible is supposed to the the word of God. The pope and various clergy are supposed to be holy men with a mystic understanding of that word. And it's pretty clear throughout the Bible that if you break any of the Lord's divine rules, hell is precisely where you are going.

I can sit here and say your full of shit but that doesn't prove anything.

You're right, it doesn't. You would have to, say, offer evidence and supporting rational arguments in addition to calling me full of shit for it to prove anything. Which is exactly what I am doing. I am saying you are both full of shit, and offering citations and rational arguments as to why you are full of shit.

Which is why your arguments are invalid because your format and strong bias on issues.

Unfortunately for you, that is not how logic works. Arguments are not invalidated based on format, kiddo. Arguments can only be invalidated by proving they are either illogical, irrational, or by countering them with contrary evidence in a logical fashion. Just because you don't like what you read doesn't mean it ain't true, but by all means go stick your head in the sand and act like it does. It would fit with the religious mindset I've come to expect from you nutjobs.


think your unwilling to compromise your emotional position on the subject

My emotional position? What the fuck does emotion have to do with anything? Did you even read this thread before you decided to come in here and prance around like a high schooler who just read Ayn Rand for the first time? Pray tell (no pun intended) what my emotional position is?

and resort to adding a "bullshit" and "idiots" to everything. that's why you have no valid points because you resort to name calling and childish tantrums.

Again, you seem to have no concept of logic. The validity of an argument exists independent of the intended audience's reaction to it's format. And as far as name calling and childish tantrums goes, you need only look to the beginning of this thread to see who threw that gauntlet down first. At least I have facts and logical arguments to back my "tantrums" up, whereas you have only....what? You haven't made a coherent point yet, you've only seen fit to rebuke my tone but not my argument.

You have strong feeling about stuff, kudos, but emotion without reason is nothing more then a immature rationalizing of behavior.


Oh snap, you are breaking out the polysyllables! Kudos to you. However, I can't help but think again that you didn't read this thread. I've set forth a number of coherent rational arguments contradicting the claims made by the religious in this thread, which I will sumarize AGAIN since you are incapable of reading.


The "arguments" set forth by the religious nuts so far amount to the following:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.
2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.
3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.
4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.
5. God wants us to have free will.
6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.
7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

All of these arguments I have refuted with supporting evidence.

And yet, not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning.

You'd be more persuasive if you didn't exhibit so much hate and anger in your speech.

Religion would be more persuasive if they didn't murder and rape anyone that didn't agree with them, but hey, you don't see me complaining. Or wait, I suppose I am. Oh well. I guess you'll just have to fucking deal with it, and if you don't like it, offer some evidence or logical arguments to prove me wrong.

Until then, as before, go back to feeling guilty that you can't make your imaginary friend in the sky happy. If you can't cite a source for your bullshit, if you can't actually read the arguments set forth by the religious and my response and then formulate a logical rebuttal based on evidence, then you are just spouting off bullshit.


The time for politeness and eggshell-stepping on the subject of religion is way, way over. Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet.

Get an argument that makes sense, or get the fuck out.

Dude listen to yourself talk, you get so mad about something you don't understand. Much less even try to empathize with. I'm sorry you were neglected as a kid or whatever it was that made you so angry about life.

When you haul off and scream that everyone (or between 71-80% of the world is an idiot). It makes you sound like a psycho. And believe it or not you express a genuine hatred of religious peoples.

It's one thing to base an argument on facts and evidence. You cross a line when you start insulting people on a personal level and prance around using four -letter words to express yourself.

It just makes you sound like an idiot. Which I'm becoming more inclined to believe.

Matter of the fact is this. You can't prove there is no God. I can't prove that there is. In the meantime you might want to try and be civil to people around you so you don't come off as an asshole.

Just some advice.

I never said that 80% of the world is an idiot.

And yet again, you can't back up the shit you say.

Your first entry into this thread was to call the debate that had been going for 40 posts before you showed up a "tired and ridiculous pissing contest". Certainly you had to know that was going to engender a response.

If you can't take the response to your claim, if you can't handle being called on falsifying statistics and making up bullshit to support illogical points, then just don't talk at all.

And I think you know where you can store your advice. Just write it all down, fold it into little pointy corners....

"Not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning." To your points:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.

I tend to agree with you that this argument matters little and is tangential to the whole topic. However, you've supplied a fair amount of evidence for this point including inflammatory phrases such as "magical teapot believers", "nutjobs", "full of shit", "I think you know where you can store your advice", etc.

2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.

Again, I don't see it being too central to the original discussion. It is interesting, though, that you stated "Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet." Sounds like you're out to "evangelize" change in the world then? Perhaps even applauding where militant atheism is applied? More on that in point #4.

3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.

A strawman argument that is so over simplified and incorrect that it isn't worth addressing.


4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.

Nobody denies the crusade, inquisition, etc. took place, but the issue is whether these people are "Christian" or not. Did they call themselves Christian? Yes. Were their actions aligned with the words and example Jesus laid out for his followers and, therefore, what Christians are supposed to be like? No. You are assuming that all those who claim to be Christian are truthful representatives of Jesus and not self-centered, power-hungry, opportunists who saw it was fashionable to call themselves "Christian" given the power structure of the day. You are attempting to equate two vastly different entities and, therefore, the logic fails.

Is it fair to level the same charges against atheism by equating the actions of atheistic states to represent all atheists? 26.3 million killed in China under Mao Tse Tung, 66 million in the Soviet Union under Lenin/Stalin/Khrushchev, 2.5 million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. If you are going to make the claim that Christians are genocidal monsters, it would seem that atheists are in the same boat. If you want to talk about current events, communist regimes with atheistic tenants (e.g. China, North Korea, etc.) continue to be highlighted for human rights abuses as they target those purely because of religious beliefs (do a search on hrw.org for examples). The problem here is that it is hard to argue that these leaders are not following the "beliefs" laid down by what you portray of atheism -- religious people are "nutjobs" and there is work to do in "salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet".


5. God wants us to have free will.

Free will is a core point used against the logical "problem of evil" or "problem of hell" arguments. You've had your own ad hominem arguments to try and avoid it -- "That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it."or "More rhetoric and no substance." You also attempt to claim that free will can't exist in the Christian view -- "And the Christian set of rules by which you must live is most certainly NOT free." You are trying to change the definition of free will with freedom from consequence -- again, another logical fallacy. Along your line of argument, free will should include the ability to choose to go to heaven. However, if heaven is a "perfect place", would it be perfect if anyone and everyone could be there? Free will cannot make logical impossibilities true -- can I choose to make myself invisible? score 5000 on the SAT test? etc.


6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

Old argument? Yes. The core argument of the cartoon is "The Problem of Hell", a variant of "The Problem of Evil"/Epicurus' Riddle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell) which is a logical argument that has been around for a long while.

Hold water. Not bad. You could say the same of the theistic ontological argument too. Atheists and Christians have used these for some time and, as such, it is apparent that neither side considers the other's logical "proof" so compelling as to concede defeat. I expect that you'd claim this to be more "bullshit", as you are fond of saying, so I'll be more direct. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is not true. Free will and yet being unable to choose evil are logically inconsistent. On one hand, you have free will with the potential for evil while on the other, no evil but no free will.


7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

Arguing over a relatively small percentage seems to be silly -- the point that the vast majority of the population is religious isn't impacted by the difference. It seems equally ridiculous to claim that a majority is proof of something -- I'm sure that Christian and Atheist alike can site a majority opinion either now or in the past that we consider incorrect.


And to sum up what we've heard outside of these points:

1. Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well. Which I happen to agree with.
2. But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

For all of the times you've bashed people for lacking logic or evidence, where is it when you make these assertions? You've read what Jesus did/said and can comment specifically how he is full of crap then?


Although it has been interesting to watch the comments go back and forth on this and to jump in from time to time, I find the following quotation by Elbert Hubbard appropriate, "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." As this string of comments (along with hundreds like it scattered about the internet) shows, God is not going to be proved or disproved by logical arguments alone.

Whoever acts morally only because of a fear of hell or a hope of reward in heaven should be ashamed of himself. It's an insult to the Jews to believe they got as far as mount Sinai believing that murder, stealing, and lying were OK. Ethics do not require god. The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil. A morality based only on alleged declarations of an invisible being is weak and hollow not only because of a lack of evidence, but because the adherent may not feel the need to discover the qualities of some actions that have caused God to declare them evil. Someone who does not believe in a god can be as good as any other person. Why would a god infinitely torture an otherwise good person for the "crime" of following his own reason to the conclusion that there probably is not a god? And yet it is official dogma of many mainstream Christian and Muslim denominations that whoever does not believe in God will go to hell.

If there is such a thing as eternal and infinite torture imposed by a god on someone, then, no matter that god's reason, that god is malevolent. But fortunately, there is not a shred of credible forensic evidence for the existence of any kind of god or its influence upon any part of the Bible.

World history and standardized test histograms show that it is and always has been the case that the majority of the world's population is misinformed, ignorant, stupid, or all of the above. The silver lining, and the reason I've noticed that, is that mankind is rapidly improving.

http://www.evilbible.com/ has enough to prove that the bible is not the work of a beneficent being.

"Ethics do not require god. The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil." The ends justifies the means? So rape is OK sometimes, but not other times? Who gets to determine whether the circumstances or effects are justifiable? The "majority"? Someone really "smart"? Maybe some really smart, minority group like atheists since, "World history and standardized test histograms show that it is and always has been the case that the majority of the world's population is misinformed, ignorant, stupid, or all of the above."

"...mankind is rapidly improving." I must have missed the memo. I'm sure the past 100 years of history out of human history are a good sample. Let's see, WWI, WWII, Cold War. OK, maybe just the past 5 years -- Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine.

From the about page, "EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism...". It contains some interesting stuff. Let's see "God Burns Little Ones" refers to Zechariah 13:7-9 which says "And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried." A careful reading shows that this reference isn't saying that children should be burned, but that their character will be tested and refined. Another reference on EvilBible says "Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven" referring to Matthew 19:12, but fails to take verse 19:11 in account where it is indicated that it may be better to not marry. Jesus is stating that choosing not to marry for religious reasons is a viable option (and he makes clear it isn't for everyone), not that castration is specifically the way to go. I could continue, but it is clear that this site attempts to misquote and misrepresent in order to bolster the Atheist's claims. Guess the "logical ethics system" allows trying to mislead as long as it brings people to your point of view.

Finally, I should accept "on faith" the atheist presupposition that logic or forensic evidence explains everything and that any other form of knowledge is either inferior or invalid? Godel's incompleteness theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem) shows that a system (in his case, mathematics) cannot be proved or disproved based on the system itself. Why should I grant that (1) logic is the only available path to knowledge, (2) it is within logic's abilities to prove/disprove the existence of a God and (3) there isn't another, higher system that supercedes the system of logic?

I guess if I accepted your presupposition that logic explains everything, then your arguments make sense:

- The ends justifies the means (logic doesn't come with an ethical basis, so this one is as good as the next)

- Most people are idiots (assuming atheists are correct, logically the vast majority of the world must be stupid)

- Mankind is improving (I guess that since atheism has been held as the official state position of several large nations over the past century, things must be getting better?)

- Misrepresentation is OK to try and discredit another point of view (since "The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil.", the atheist is free to do whatever they want as long as they think the circumstances and effect are in their favor).

Back to my original quote "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." My prejudice is simple -- Jesus was made radical statements about himself, God, religion, society, etc. that makes him unique from anyone else who ever lived. A simple cartoon and the ensuing logic argument attempt to ignore this altogether and avoid discussing the real issue -- what did Jesus do/say and what does that have to do with me?

I don't see why logic is upheld as the ultimate truth for atheists. There are many things in this life that do not make logical sense. Human actions do not always make logical sense. For an atheist to make uphold his position they would need to be completely logical. And seeing the comments of some atheists on this thread suggests that they themselves are illogical. Especially in their arguments. Anger and insults have no logical reasoning behind them. So why are they resorted too?

In celebration of the pagan holiday known as Christmas- a decidedly UN-christian festivity, I offer a *promote-ion to this funny little comedic video.

Video cannot be promoted by therealblankman because therealblankman promoted a post less than 7 days ago.

Old monotheistic dogma paints the universe as the ultimate totalitarian regime, where whatever God does is right by definition, and anyone who disagrees with him is sent to hell for eternal torture. Not even Stalin could torture you after death.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, August 19th, 2007 3:10pm PDT - promote requested by Farhad2000.

This thread is an enjoyable read.