Forums / Discussion / General

@Blue Screen

I apologize for my hostility, but it is frustrating when someone refuses to even look at one's comments and then use flawed argumentation to poke at me. If he doesn't want to be neutral and objective in this discussion, there is little holding me back from doing the same. I will tone it.

On the subject of the crusades.

The Crusades were not entirely blood filled zealous doom stomps across the middle east. In a short history, the Byzantium asked their Christian fellows in the west to help secure their borders from many Muslim invaders whom had been picking at the southern Byzantium for years which led to the First Crusade to reclaim the Holy Land. In a respect for the Crusaders, there are many good and bad things that came out from the First crusade, including the foundation of powerful holy orders. While the Crusader treatment of Muslims by modern terms would be considered unacceptable, from what I have read on them, they were sort of tolerant and quite noble as the crusades were mostly enacted to protect pilgrims from more hostile raiders (The relationship between medieval Muslims and Christians were more friendly then people let on, as the Muslims did like to have rich Pilgrims buying and trading).

I wouldn't exactly say statistics are exactly on the side of atheists Blue. Populations expanded far from the Medieval ages which is going to crunch numbers. More then just Stalin had brought a bad light to atheism through communist revolution, which Mao and Pol Pot and the FrencH Revolution have all had extreme secular stuff that went on. A lot more people died from culture purges, religion often being a target, then what happened then the many of the religious wars in the Baltic region, crusades, and Inquisition combined.

I feel like, given that we've had so much debate over the subject, it would be in the best interest for someone who identifies as a Christian to lay out what they believe, since it hasn't been done yet. Keep in mind that this is a short summary of what I believe, so it may not seem complete, and others may differ in opinion.

1. God created the heavens and the Earth. Basically, everything that exists in the physical was made by God, whether directly or indirectly. He did this to glorify Himself, similar to the way artists show off their works in a gallery, or a Know Your Meme user writes a really clever comment to get karma. Whether he did this in 7 solar days or several hundred million years is, to me, unimportant; what matters is He did so.

2. God created man and gave them the choice of perfection or sin. They chose sin. We've all heard the Adam and Eve story, I assume, so I won't rehash the nitty gritty, but the point is that God created humans and said, "don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and thus sinned: not only did they directly disobey God, but they gained awareness of what evil is, which means they had the potential to sin again from that point on. This separated humanity from God, as evil is against God, and a God who is just cannot tolerate that which is against Him. And we're all guilty. We have an awareness of evil, which means we can choose it over God, and we all have. In fact, I gotta be honest, I feel like I'm the worst about it. Anyone who doesn't believe at least has the excuse of that; I talk all the time that I believe it, and I'm still hypocritical and judgemental towards others.

3. God sent His son, Jesus Christ, to take on the punishment our sin required that we may be forgiven through his death. From the get go in Genesis, God lets the world know that he has a plan to solve the issue of their sin. This plan came in the form of Jesus of Nazarene. By Christian beliefs, he was fully God and fully man, which means he could fulfill the need for perfection that God required. However, being perfect wasn't enough. Because he was perfect, he had no debt of his own to pay, and therefore could pay another's debt. "Another" in this case being the entirety of humanity from start to finish. He did so by being crucified on a cross, a Roman execution tool that caused death by wet suffocation, or the lungs filling up with blood and water. Not only that, but the cross was the ultimate humiliation, as passersby could everyone who had rebelled against Rome and failed.

4. Jesus rose again three days later. This is the part where things honestly get wild. Jesus was buried in a tomb by some of his followers after being wrapped in about 50 lbs. of burial gauze. To make sure that his body wasn't stolen, Roman soldiers were posted outside the tomb and a large stone was placed in front of the entrance, as the officials believed people would try to steal his body. And yet, three days later, the stone was rolled away, the soldiers were both rendered unconscious, and Jesus' body had disappeared. This is the most important part of the Christian faith, because if Jesus hadn't rose again, he wouldn't have overcome death, and damnation, which was the whole purpose of his death.

5. We are innocent in God's eyes through Jesus' death. When we believe that all this truly happened, and that God loved/loves/will love us enough to send his son to die and rise again for us, we're provided with salvation in Him and a relationship with Him. And there's nothing that take that away. Doesn't matter what you've done, are doing, will do, in Christ, there's payment for sins.

Hope that clears any issues up, guys.

@Chickenhound

The Crusades were not entirely blood filled zealous doom stomps across the middle east

True. While lots of people love to bring up the crusades as an example of "ebul crhistan intolerunce", in truth is it isn't that simple at all. The crusades had by far more political reasons for occurring than religious reasons. Anyone who does their research on the crusades and why it happened learn quickly that it is a poor argument for criticizing Christianity.

Yet all historical facts aside, you don't hear anybody blaming the crimes of the soviets on athiesm, but you almost certainly hear people blame the crimes of medieval Europe on Chistianity. It's clear who gets more guilt packed on their shoulders

The history behind cultural purges when it comes to it's connection with atheism and extreme secularism is kind of sad really, as people really wish to put the blame on solely the communists, or the dictator, or socialism, or whatever. I think the main problem is that the Vatican had played such major roles in the crusades and the demonization of older practices and holy conflicts between medieval christians and muslims, which makes them easier targets then say the broad spectrum that was the Boleshisk revolution in Russia (or however it is spelled) and later communist/secular uprisings.

@BSoD

@Chickenhound

as people really wish to put the blame on solely the communists, or the dictator, or socialism, or whatever.

But blame really should be solely placed on the dictator. The leaders of the soviet regime are accountable for their actions. Not communism, not socialism or athiesm.

My point is that in the same way that athiesm is not accountable for Stalins own actions… neither should Christianity be accountable for the Holy Roman Emperors own actions. But as far as many people are concerned, it is. Probably because people blame all wars on religion

A religion thread with 'no rules'?

[atheism intensifies]

I think this is what happens when you die: you become another life form in the universe.
Here's the catch: you don't remember anything when you go into a new life, because you have a new brain. So it feels like it's your first life every time!
Call me crazy, but I think that's a perfectly logical explanation.
Related: If people were immortal, would religion be less poular/obsolete?

Every religion that has an afterlife would definitely be obsolete. As far as religion in general, either it would be bordering on obsolescence or a new type a of religion will rise to prominence.

Okay, here's my two cents on the story of Adam and Eve. If God did not want them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and EEEEVIIIILLLLLLL, then why:

A: make the fruit reachable

B: Make it tempting

C: Even fucking put it there in the first place

If people were immortal, would religion be less poular/obsolete?

Oh there will always be religion…however religion will be redefined.

Since all major religions will no longer have strong basis on what happens in the afterlife. Religion will likely change it's focus more inward on matters on this plane of existence rather than anything beyond it. Perhaps even figuring ourselves to be deities.

Religions that focus on exo-universal beliefs and external deities will likely cease to exist.

New religions that focus on internal deities or who is the god among us may crop up.

Religions that have always been about introspection, morality, inner peace or exo-planetary beliefs will probably stay the same give or take a few omissions. EG: Buddhism might be the same but without the reincarnation.

God said "No touchy of fruit of knowledge, or bad shit happens." He gave them a choice in the matter of eternal paradise and they for the most part did not bother with the fruit. It was something of a snake which tempted them to come hither with the lie "You will be as great as he is". The free choice of listening and doing is implied and god gives the appropriate consequences for disobeying his word. If there was no choice in the matter, then the point of our existence to reverse our mistakes would be rather pointless.

Then again, I am not a great explainer.

I am certain a priest or theologian can explain The Fall of Man better then I can.

christians: 1
atheist: 0
Vazquez: -1
Supreme Leader: over 9000

This raises the question, if the Judeo-Christian God is all-knowing, shouldn't he have known that was going to happen? Why even go through all that? Either Yahweh isn't all-knowing or is a complete asshole.

The whole idea of God being omnipotent and all-knowing simply doesn't work at all in biblical context

The bible doesn't support that notion. In fact the bible clearly shows god not knowing what the future holds or the outcome of certain decisions

Now if only a majority of Christians would actually read the Bible.

Teh Brawler said:

He did this to glorify Himself, similar to the way artists show off their works in a gallery, or a Know Your Meme user writes a really clever comment to get karma.

I also agree completely with what you said.

I'm tired of my worship of Talos being persecuted.

If God is not the creator of all, then who created sin?

Furthermore, why would God curse the human race for the actions of two people? If he is such a benevolent deity, why did he not stop them from messing up? Why didn't God want them to know anyway? And didn't he already know they were going to disobey his instructions?

Since by biblical lore Adam and Eve are the first of man kind, their ultimate sin curses us all. God had presented them with the choice, and they chose poorly but regardless it was still a choice, to stop them would mean there was really not choice to begin with and their existence would be without meaning.

Maybe god knew full well, maybe he was just watching. No one is exactly sure what is usually happening in Genesis at times.

On a point of God being all knowing;

What we know about time, the Future doesn't exactly exist since it had not happened yet. We can predict the future very well, and we know full well the past, but even humanity finds it hard to figure out what our futures hold. I can't speak for God himself, but I can only really guess that God is all knowing in a sense that he is incredibly intelligent and knows all possibilities of what can possibly happens, and I imagine he cringes whenever the plan he sets for humanity suddenly turns by our will to not follow his.

I am not exactly a theologian.

@Mangy Black Sheep

You do realize many christians do read the bible, many folks assume we don't because we don't agree with their interpretations.

@Chickenhound the Cruel
Not that this really matters since the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient fairy tale anyway, but that's rubbish. Again, this story makes your god look incompetent, malevolent, or both. You mean to tell me the supposed most powerful being in the universe couldn't handle that any better? How and why let the supposed ultimate evil, Satan, sneak into the garden of Eden and persuade Adam and Eve to eat the apple, so much for 'free will', and why toy with them like that? You mean your god couldn't just let Adam and Eve, who only been alive for about a day, exercise their 'free will' on their own without the threat of such severe punishment? Why punish them at all, he's the one who made the damn tree to begin with. That would be like me leaving a bowl of food in front of a dog expecting him not to eat it and then punishing him for doing so.

To the next point, if your god has a 'plan', then what's the point of prayer and 'free will' that Christians keep crowing about? I have yet to get a decent answer from Christians who believe in 'God's Plan.

Lastly, are you admitting that Christians who actually read the Bible and stay Christian aren't reading it with a critical eye?

If atheists like yourself ever wonder why Christians tend to have a hard time tolerating you, it is because of what you are typing.

You consider my faith and my holy book rubbish and call my god incompetent. You are not exactly god yourself, so I do without prejudice doubt you could have 'done any better'. Free will is choice, temptation or not, it was not by force did Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden fruit. God, their creator and our creator, had told them not to eat from it and they dun goofed, and they were punished for their transactions. It is like leaving out a pot of cookies and telling a child "Don't you dun goof this up" and they do, and you imply the mother is to blame for even making the cookies to begin with? Humanity is much more intelligent then mammals the last time a checked, so your dog example is pretty. . .meaningless.

God has a plan for all, and we have a choice to follow that plans or we do not and yet he persists on keeping us on that righteous path. Prayer is communication to god, and it shows that we are willing to ask for his help or to give praise to his name.

I do like you are legitimately surprised that people out there can have beliefs which contradict your own, and that your stereotypes don't exactly exist. Oh what a shock it must be that christians read their holy book and that we do not jump around on flying churches, smiting non believers with our weather machines. I can confirm as a Christians that we do not have weather machines or flying churches. . . .yet.

"If atheists like yourself ever wonder why Christians tend to have a hard time tolerating you, it is because of what you are typing."

Rubbish, a lot of you Christians 'have a hard time tolerating' atheists because you're just simply intolerant. Coming out as an atheist here in the US will almost certainly make you a social outcast in your own community. People who put up atheist billboards are often met with scorn and DEATH THREATS. Meanwhile billboards like this, no harm, no foul:

So please spare me the "atheists are mean" bullshit.

"You consider my faith and my holy book rubbish and call my god incompetent."

Even though I do consider your religion and holy book to be a load of bollocks, that not what I said in my previous post. I only said the Adam and Eve story is an ancient fairy tale, WHICH IT IS. As for your god, I never said he was incompetent, I said the Adam and Eve story made him LOOK incompetent. You can blame your holy book for that. I don't consider you god incompetent, I consider him non-existent.

"I do without prejudice doubt you could have ‘done any better’."

If I was in the same position, I most certainly would have. Re-read my previous post.

"Humanity is much more intelligent then mammals the last time a checked, so your dog example is pretty. . .meaningless."

First off, humans ARE mammals. Secondly, considering that we're talking a deity and two people who are completely ignorant of the world around them, I would say my example is on point.

On to the so-called plan, are you saying that your god's divine plan can be altered by the mere actions and requests of humans? That doesn't sound like much of a plan, by any standard let alone divine.

As for your last paragraph, huh?

Now for another round of 'What is wrong with these Paragraphs' by Slagar the Cruel;

(1) Your accusations of Christians of being naturally intolerant is baseless. In fact, your stereotyping of christians is intolerant technically.
(2) I have known atheists to bully christian kids and I've seen billboards of "All religions are Fairytales", so the intolerance is going both ways.
(3) You imply no atheist can't be 'mean'? Yet putting up shit like "are you admitting that Christians who actually read the Bible and stay Christian aren’t reading it with a critical eye?" is suppose to be a friendly poke? Try again.
(4) You finish up a entire entrance on the values of intolerance, and come back with the rebuttal "Your religion and holy book is a load of bollocks". Real fuckin nice mate.
(5) And I quote from your previous post; "Not that this really matters since the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient fairy tale anyway, but that’s rubbish. Again, this story makes your god look incompetent, malevolent, or both." So yes, you called a story in my holy book rubbish and called my god incompetent.
(6) I did re-read your post, and you made no position on what exactly you would've done better.
(7) Humanity is self-thinking and more capable then other mammals then you picky bastard. The Garden of Eden was Paradise on earth, your example implies that your dog is not surrounded by far more tasty shit. So no, your example is still out of place.
(8) The goal of God's plan is absolute, we just can diverge from that path. I did not mention requests.
(9) I was replying to your assumption christians did not read the bible and that your stereotypes of christians is nonexistent, it would be like being disappointed that a stereotype of my Christian kin flying around in floating churches with weather machines, smiting all non-believers.

@Mangy

So please spare me the “atheists are mean” bullshit.

If you want to make a point that atheists aren't mean…you aren't doing a very good job at that at all with your attitude. Yes stuff like that 'anti-american' sign are stupidly obnoxious and you are right to be pissed off about them, but promise me athiests never stoop to that low level.

Chickenhound isn't being the happiest person in the world right now either. But that's probably because people keep retorting to him with passive aggression

Civility people, please. Ease up on the rubbishing

A couple notes:

How and why let the supposed ultimate evil, Satan, sneak into the garden of Eden and persuade Adam and Eve to eat the apple

FYI: There's no mention of a satan in the original scripture. Just a "talking snake". Take that as you will. This creature somehow knew about that tree and was jealous of mankind so it told man about the tree just to get them in trouble (although the plan backfired on the creature when Eve snitched on it).

God apparently didn't see that one coming (like I said: no biblical evidence of omnipotence) and I disagree with Chickenhound that God couldn't have avoided that. It's fair to say that if God really didn't want that fruit eaten then probably could have used some stronger preventative measures than just obscuring information and giving an order, knowing his own creation could go against that order and totally walk up to that tree. He could have like, made it a shrub or something that doesn't make edible fruit. I guess even gods make mistakes too

But I wouldn't say he recklessly left the ultimate evil just hanging around there. I'm sure God was smart enough to figure that out

so much for ‘free will’

Looks to me like the story shows full support of free will. Adam and Eve acted on their own volition knowing fully well what was right and wrong. Hey maybe that explains it. Maybe Gods thinking was "okay I'll leave this tree here as a test to see how its free will works and if it does, mankind is ready to be independent…oh hey it worked!…okay out into the real world you go, have fun!". That's me coming up with crackpot theories again but I'm just as likely to be right so this is also a point why it's a waste of time using logical holes in a mythological tale to support an argument against God

Why punish them at all, he’s the one who made the damn tree to begin with. That would be like me leaving a bowl of food in front of a dog expecting him not to eat it and then punishing him for doing so.

Yea….that that analogy doesn't really work sorry. Gotta agree with Chickenhound on this one

"It is like leaving out a pot of cookies and telling a child “Don’t you dun goof this up” and they do"

Adam and Eve had one job and they blew it

First off, humans ARE mammals.

No, you're actually missing his point completely. Humans are SMART mammals. Dogs don't understand your commands not to eat a bowl of food in front of them. Adam and Eve definitely understood Gods command to them not to eat from one tree. There's no contest who's accountable for their actions. It's better to argue why God would react so strongly towards something that shouldn't have come as a surprise

But all of this is a moot argument like you said at the start. Even if Judaism is the one true religion, the Genisis story very likely didn't happen. Whether God is real or not, the story is a myth

It exists just so mankind could know one thing: there's a God and he made you all. The exact details of how he did that were unknown even to the guys who wrote the damn thing and the Genesis story details none of it. But the exact details didn't matter back then, neither do they matter now.

The story was also an attempt to try an explain why we are mortal. But the real reason is more likely the fact that if God wanted this planet to sustain a growing and multiplying population, he had to give its products a limitation

As for your last paragraph, huh?

He was being sarcastic

1. I did not make that accusation, quit misinterpreting what I say.
2. I never said otherwise, again you're putting words in my mouth. Then again, “All religions are Fairytales” doesn't really compare to "You're going to burn in Hell".
3. When did I imply that? Now you're just lying.
4. Disagreement does not equal intolerance. Try again.
5. I called the Adam and Eve story a fairy tale because it's not true. This isn't a matter of opinion, the story is in fact, fiction. Also, it's amazing that you quote the entire statement and STILL misinterpreted it.
6. "You mean your god couldn't just let Adam and Eve, who only been alive for about a day, exercise their ‘free will’ on their own without the threat of such severe punishment?"
7. Fine, let's make it a person, even if someone was in a paradise, especially when he or she was in Adam and Eve's position, when you tell that person to not do something, he or she is going to get curious. It's just human nature. So it doesn't make sense for your god to punish Adam and Eve so severely, ESPECIALLY WHEN HE'S THE CREATOR OF HUMANITY AND IS SUPPOSEDLY ALL-KNOWING. Why toy with them like that?
8. I was referring to prayers, that what I meant by requests. Anyway. would people 'diverging' from the 'path' be part of your god's plan?
9. Fair enough.

@BSoD
bq. If you want to make a point that atheists aren’t mean

I'm not.

FYI: There’s no mention of a satan in the original scripture. Just a “talking snake”.

True, true, I was going by the scripture that is commonly followed by Christians today,

Another note:

You mean your god couldn’t just let Adam and Eve, who only been alive for about a day, exercise their ‘free will’ on their own without the threat of such severe punishment?

It's not like the book of genesis is a literal transcription of every single thing that happened and most Christians will agree to that. There could have been a lifetime of events that happened in that same period that time never recorded. Only the important bits was covered and even those can only considered metaphorical at best.

For all we know, Adam and Eve mulled about for years practicing free will before anything happened. So the answer to your question would be yes.

But this is of course still going on the imaginative and playful pretend scenario that it actually happened…and matters

Mangy the Black Sheep said:

How and why let the supposed ultimate evil, Satan, sneak into the garden of Eden and persuade Adam and Eve to eat the apple, so much for ‘free will’, and why toy with them like that?

Fun fact: nowhere in the Bible does it ever say Satan was the snake. The two closest times you get would be God's punishment of the snake, which is seen as a direct foreshadowing of Jesus and the role He'd play in crushing Satan's plans, and Revelation's mentioning of Satan as "that old serpent," which could simply keep with the running theme of "snakes = bad" that is prevalent throughout history.

I still like the headcanon that the snake was just jelly of all the attention God had given mankind and decided to "take Adam down a peg" as it were.

You mean your god couldn’t just let Adam and Eve, who only been alive for about a day, exercise their ‘free will’ on their own without the threat of such severe punishment?

The Bible never mentions how long they were in the garden for. Given the fact that Adam had enough time to name every species, it was definitely longer than a day.

There was one rule: don't eat this fruit. God even lays out the punishment before hand (you eat it, and you'll die). They disobeyed God. This wasn't the modern "never comes down to visit" God. This was "he has lunch with them every day, talks to them, bonds with them" God. And they didn't believe him. They decided they knew better. They believed the snake: they'd become like God. Eating a simple fruit may not seem like a big deal now, but it showcased a running theme of humanity: our arrogance and pride. If they wouldn't follow that simple rule, why would God think they'd follow any others?

Why punish them at all, he’s the one who made the damn tree to begin with. That would be like me leaving a bowl of food in front of a dog expecting him not to eat it and then punishing him for doing so.

To give them a choice. Obey him, or don't. The only reason he made the tree was to allow humanity that choice. If he doesn't give them that choice then why bother to give them free will at all? Why didn't he create humans to love him unconditionally? It would rid the world of all its problems. Why? Because he wants us to love him of our own choice. He could have made us love him, but he wants us to chose to love him. If he only gave us one option, that's not really a choice, is it?

Your analogy's faulty. Dogs don't have free will. Dogs don't have intelligence. We didn't create dogs, then want them to willingly love us.

To the next point, if your god has a ‘plan’, then what’s the point of prayer and ‘free will’ that Christians keep crowing about?

Just because He's got a plan for everyone doesn't mean that plan's always going to be followed. God doesn't force people to follow the plan He has for them. That would make the whole Adam and Eve thing pointless.

Rubbish, a lot of you Christians ‘have a hard time tolerating’ atheists because you’re just simply intolerant.

On the contrary, I'm not "intolerant" toward atheists. I'm intolerant toward euphoric atheists. Those that use buzzwords like "sky god" and "fairy tales" to argue their points. Much like a troll, if you act like an asshole, I'm going to dismiss you as such (which isn't saying you are, more the /r/atheism folks).

I only said the Adam and Eve story is an ancient fairy tale, WHICH IT IS.

Webster's dictionary said:

1
a : a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) --called also fairy story
b : a story in which improbable events lead to a happy ending
2
: a made-up story usually designed to mislead

The Book of Genesis is hardly for children (the genealogies alone will make most beg for the sweet release of death). None of the "fairy tale" creatures are in the story of Adam and Eve, so that's out. The ending is the complete opposite of "happy" so there goes that.

And definition two puts you in the euphoric camp. So no, it isn't a "fairy tale." There are, however, numerous denominations that would agree with you that it's a metaphorical or allegorical story (I am not a member of one of them). But not a fairy tale.

Random Bible fact of the day: Judges has some of the coolest deaths of any book of the Bible. There are: King Eglon dying due to his fatness after a dagger was thrust into his bowels and couldn't be removed, Sisera getting a tent spike driven into his forehead, Abimelech being crushed by a millstone and having to commit seppuku, and, of course, the many antics of Samson (jawbone of an ass, the two pillar suicide, etc).

@Mangy

Quoting time;

"a lot of you Christians ‘have a hard time tolerating’ atheists because you’re just simply intolerant. "
As said, you implied a lot to a large sum are just naturally intolerant.

I wasn't even quoting you for the second one, so I I had no words to put in or quote.

And finally "So please spare me the “atheists are mean” bullshit.", and you haven't been at all friendly. So no, you cannot Strawman me, mister.

@Blue Screen

You bring light to a dark world. Never die, for the sake of humanity.

Your analogy’s faulty. Dogs don’t have free will. Dogs don’t have intelligence.

I'm quiet certain dogs wouldn't have been much use to us for thousands of years if they didn't have intelligence. Secondly, how do you know that dogs don't have 'free will'? How do you define 'free will'?

Just because He’s got a plan for everyone doesn’t mean that plan’s always going to be followed. God doesn’t force people to follow the plan He has for them. That would make the whole Adam and Eve thing pointless.

If your god is all-knowing, wouldn't that mean that everyone's following his supposed plan anyway?

I’m intolerant toward euphoric atheists.

Hey, what you got against happy atheists? :-p

Webster’s dictionary said:
1
a : a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) --called also fairy story
b : a story in which improbable events lead to a happy ending
2
: a made-up story usually designed to mislead
The Book of Genesis is hardly for children (the genealogies alone will make most beg for the sweet release of death). None of the “fairy tale” creatures are in the story of Adam and Eve, so that’s out. The ending is the complete opposite of “happy” so there goes that.

Irrelevant, but whatever.

Human beings in general are naturally intolerant to people and things that are different from them and their point of view, it can't be helped. If you're implying that I said that Christians are especially intolerant, I did not.

To the next point, you implied that atheists are 'mean' just merely disagreeing and putting up a few billboards all while turning a blind eye to the persecution we face on a daily basis by Christians proclaim themselves to be 'loving and caring'. Basically what I was saying was don't be a hypocrite.

Your disagreements are coming off as complete and barbaric mockery.

I am many things, but hypocrite is not one of them. I have never claimed that you are not poked at. Many of my kin are loving and caring, don't let some sour apples speak for us all. Know however, I meet atheist sour apples, most of them here in the internet. I don't let them sour your beliefs, and all I ask in return in some civility. Calling my beliefs 'fairytales' is what I consider mockery, and that is not disagreement.

This thread is making me

Personally I find it hard to bring the "choice" factor into all of it. He tells them not to eat the fruit, despite the fact that they currently had the moral capacity of a tomato. The entire human race is cursed because two lunkheads disobeyed God before they knew what disobedience was? In fact, the Bible says that humans are condemned to hell for sins they committed before they were even born. That brings the Calvinist point of view of God deciding everything before everything even starts. But even then, one would have to question if God is either all-powerful or all-benevolent, wondering if God creates people just so they can get toasted in hell.

Now that I'm back, this looks pretty interesting. Way less hostile than when I was here rustling all the jimmies. I see that Mangy Black Sheep has tsken my place, and is doing a good job of debating without being an asshole, something I could not do. Kudos to you for that! This is what I wanted this thread to be. I didn't want flame-wars, but I also didn't want total serenity. I like the current condition of this thread: relatively peaceful discussion.

Hey Christians, where are Heaven and Hell?

Watch it, give opinions

Also, I can't understand the logic behind "Believe in a God who is supposedly so powerful but chooses to talk to us through a 2000 year old book or suffer eternal punishment"

To the Christians: When and if you go to heaven, how will it feel to know that billions of people are burning in hell, most of which were innocent, normal people like you and me, for all eternity, for basically feeling normal human emotions.

Mangy Black Sheep said:

I’m quiet certain dogs wouldn’t have been much use to us for thousands of years if they didn’t have intelligence.

The wheat plant also has been invaluable to mankind for thousands of years. That doesn't mean it has intelligence. Dogs lack any sort of major intelligence, as the mirror test shows (the ability to have self-awareness).

Secondly, how do you know that dogs don’t have ‘free will’? How do you define ‘free will’?

Free will is the ability to make independent choices. Dogs lack the intelligence to make independent choices as they lack the mental capacity to do so. Your analogy was comparing God's relationship with us to our relationship with dogs--relationships which have little in common and so, do not make a good analogy.

Hey, what you got against happy atheists? :-p

If I'm miserable, than everyone else has to be as well.

Irrelevant, but whatever.

You said it was a fairy tale. I showed it failed to meet the definition of "fairy tale".

Most Honorabru Sensei Coorufasu said:

Hey Christians, where are Heaven and Hell?

In all likelihood, heaven and hell exist in some other dimension/plane of existence. But, the universe is a pretty big place.

Calkarot said:

When and if you go to heaven, how will it feel to know that billions of people are burning in hell, most of which were innocent, normal people like you and me, for all eternity, for basically feeling normal human emotions

As someone who has already had several family members die that didn't have the nonexpiring ticket out of hell, I can say it doesn't feel good. Quite depressive and sad as a matter of fact. The Bible even mentions it (kind of),

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
--Rev. 21:5

While the common thought of heaven is eternal joy and happiness. Getting reunited with loved ones long dead, free of the Earthly bodies with all their frailties. I also think there's going to be a lot of heartbreak. A lot of mourning. A lot of sadness over those who didn't make it--those you'll never see again. It's a deep sadness that'll hit everyone, and it's one that only God will be able to heal.

Nope! I am somewhat like an Atheist Agnostic meaning that i think god MIGHT exist but most of me does not.

Samuel Rodrigues wrote:

Now that I’m back, this looks pretty interesting. Way less hostile than when I was here rustling all the jimmies. I see that Mangy Black Sheep has tsken my place, and is doing a good job of debating without being an asshole, something I could not do. Kudos to you for that! This is what I wanted this thread to be. I didn’t want flame-wars, but I also didn’t want total serenity. I like the current condition of this thread: relatively peaceful discussion.

This doesn't look particularly peaceful to me. The last religion thread was peaceful, while this one seems to have degenerated into yet another Fedoras vs. The World 'debate' that would probably be more comfortable in a YouTube comments section. I'm kinda bummed out that the ones stirring up trouble and generally being intolerant and unpleasant are the atheists in this thread. You guys really aren't helping the stereotypes here.

I mean, take this example from Black Sheep:

This raises the question, if the Judeo-Christian God is all-knowing, shouldn’t he have known that was going to happen? Why even go through all that? Either Yahweh isn’t all-knowing or is a complete asshole.

The problem of omniscience conflicting with other traits commonly associated with God is a legitimate point to bring up. However, you'd made your point after the second question. Going on to call the God that billions of people worship an 'asshole' did not add anything to your argument, and only served to stir up trouble.

While I think that everyone should have the right to disagree with religious ideas, it's worth noting that 'disagreeing' isn't the same as saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're stupid because of it", which is the vibe I've been getting from a couple of the atheists here.

Then again, what was I expecting from a thread which set out to cause controversy in the first place?

As for my two cents on the Adam and Eve story, I personally don't believe in it. It's one of the few Biblical stories that seems to directly contradict our current scientific understanding. Within an evolutionary description of the origin of humanity, we can't be traced back to two 'first humans' – there was instead a gradual development from early hominid species to the human race in its current form. As for the moment at which evil came into existence, I tend to favour the idea that it was always there in some sense. You see basic 'moral' understanding in species of much lower intelligence; many animals seem to have some concept of thievery, and within social species it's common for individuals to be rejected for frequent violent behaviour. Our current understanding of morality, along with the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' is just an extension of that sort of behaviour which developed along with our increasing intelligence and greater reliance on complex social structures.

I'm also not too keen on a lot of the logic within the Adam and Eve story. I've heard of a bunch of potential problems, such as "If they hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, how could they understand that what they were doing was wrong?", and "Why would an all-knowing God create such a scenario in the first place, with the foreknowledge that the first humans would fail him? And if their failure was known beforehand, it was unavoidable, so is it fair to punish them for something they were powerless to stop?". I've yet to hear any explanation that adequately answers these problems, though I suppose the second question is easily answered if you take the stance that God's omniscience does not imply that the universe is a completely deterministic place, and that even God doesn't know exactly how the future will play out.

I would love to reply to you in proper, but I have the strangest feeling that Sammy is just down voting my Karma into oblivion without second thoughts.

But here's a try;

I wouldn't exactly say they were lunkheads, as the story presented in Genesis leaves out some things. Eve before being convinced by a talking snake to eat from the Tree of Knowledge had said;

"We may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden,” the woman answered, 3 “except the tree in the middle of it. God told us not to eat the fruit of that tree or even touch it; if we do, we will die.”

So it is known that they were smart enough to not wander to the tree and start eating it. The introduction of sin into humanity is what brings us away from god, and thus upon our deaths ultimate separation. God gives many ample opportunities to reverse their situations and through Christ he opens the doors of heaven much more easily as it were for humanity to be forgiven and enter through. . . .

Or as said, I am not particularly good at explaining, especially my own theology. I am better with history. I am certain the catholics could explain this better then I can.

Boner: -1

Something that I've noticed is that whenever someone tries to disprove God, they only try to disprove the gods and goddesses of existing religions. Especially the Abrahamic ones. Has anyone ever tried to disprove the idea of any entity existing? I'm not talking about the Abrahamic God or any other being from any other existing religions. I'm talking about the general idea of an entity. Science may clash with existing religions, but does it clash with the existence of a god at all? What if a god created evolution? What if a god created the Big Bang?

I may sound crazy, but what if our universe is extremely small, and it is just an experiment in a laboratory in a bigger universe? We could just be a big experiment, where our physical, mental, and emotional differences as humans are just controls and variables in an experiment set up by a greater scientist who's hypothesis was that people would fight if they were different, because in the greater universe, everyone is the same. Events like World War II could just be results of their experiments. When compared to chemistry, things like religions can just be catalysts in their experiments. What if religion was added to the experiment to see how it would react with the people? What if Christianity was added to the experiment to see how it would react with Judaism? What if Islam was added to the experiment to see how it would react to Christianity?

Or, I'm just high.

^This guy. He gets it.

@Chickenhound the Cruel
bq. Calling my beliefs ‘fairytales’ is what I consider mockery, and that is not disagreement.

Actually, that is disagreement.

@xTSGx
bq. The wheat plant also has been invaluable to mankind for thousands of years. That doesn’t mean it has intelligence.

That's a really bad comparison.

Free will is the ability to make independent choices. Dogs lack the intelligence to make independent choices as they lack the mental capacity to do so.

Practical any living thing in the Animal Kingdom is capable of making independent choices, including dogs. This is not unique to humans.

@Algernon
bq. Going on to call the God that billions of people worship an ‘asshole’ did not add anything to your argument, and only served to stir up trouble.

I wasn't trying to 'stir up trouble'. What it the best choice of word, no, but if people are going to get offended over THAT and start making blanket and strawman arguments, that's their own fault. Not everyone is going to agree with you.

“I’m right, you’re wrong, and you’re stupid because of it”, which is the vibe I’ve been getting from a couple of the atheists here.

Who? I'm not seeing that vibe from anyone, at least not on this page.

@Bionic Kraken
bq, What if a god created evolution?

Considering that evolution is mainly driven by reproduction and the environment, that wouldn't make sense.

Or, I’m just high.

I'm not the one downvoting your posts, I swear! I have given you a few negatives here and there depending on your attitude, but lately, I haven't been giving you bad karma. I don't know who, but someone has a serious grudge against you. Yes, I read through your whole post before giving a judgement. I don't usually give you good karma, but I also usually don't give you bad either.

As for the argument you're making, if God knew they were going to eat the fruit, was he setting the human race up for a massive trolling? That would mean he's not omni-benevolent. If he didn't know, then he isn't omniscient.

That's actually why most atheists (including myself) are in reality, agnostic atheists. There is a small possibility that a god could exist, and not necessarily one from an existing religion. However, we cannot prove any such entity yet, so we find it better to not believe in the idea since there is no proof yet if it exists at all and the chance of it is so minuscule.

That's what deists believe in. A god with no boundaries or restraining ideals that define it. They believe that it could be absolutely anything imaginable and that humans don't really know what it is yet.

Huh.

Alright.

As said before, I am not a great explainer. The Genesis story is kind of a big shrug I guess with most folk, as we don't exactly really know the purpose of god's plan with the tree of knowledge. It is literally kind of one of those things one would have to ask god himself.

@Mangy

No. Calling my beliefs fairy tales isn't a disagreeable opinion. . .it is fucking mockery. A disagreeable opinion would be "I don't believe in this because X", you are making a insulting statement.

Chickenhound, disagreements don't have to be courteous to be disagreements.

Sounds reasonable enough. Many Christians don't believe in Adam and Eve nowadays to begin with, so it could be excluded as an argument depending on what kind of Christian you're talking to.

True, I would wonder what would be going through a person's head as they were designing this whole thing. Why make a tree with fruit that you shouldn't eat from in the first place? What lesson does that teach? Not eat fruits? Well, it does symbolize obedience and submission to God, but why fruits on a tree? Shouldn't a priority be teaching humans the Ten Commandments?