Dear Clans:
I mean it's fine to not believe and maybe have a dislike towards religion, but is it really necessary to go out and spout unnecessary crap which only makes you seem immature, even more hated, and unintelligent? Nobody will listen to you if you present your beliefs and thoughts in such ways, it'll only make you retarded. And sure you can say that there's religious people out there who are very intolerant of atheists, bash them, and make you cringe, but if you do the same thing back, you're no better; you're simply stooping to their level.
Very well said. And yes Sael, I believe this was directed towards you, along with Hercanic and maybe O)lt.church (and if it wasn't it should have been).
Care to explain why you feel that was directed at me? I don't feel anything he said applied to me, but if you think otherwise please elaborate.
Dear MillenniumArmy:
Quote from MillenniumArmy
…making pictures that make fun of religion or jesus, calling red states "Jesusland" in a derogative way with an indirect message saying that religious people are stupid, …
Can you verify that atheism is their belief, or are you assuming based on their words? Calling red states 'Jesusland' does not clarify their beliefs.
Quote from MillenniumArmy
And sure you can say that there's religious people out there who are very intolerant of atheists, bash them, and make you cringe,
Atheists are merely individuals. There is no organization, no hierarchy, "members" belong to. Their words are theirs alone. Unless you are referring to the members of this forum, speaking out with anecdotal evidence about atheists you've met in the past is unnecessary. Apply yourself to the arguments at hand, otherwise you're just preaching to the choir. (No pun intended.)
Now, atheists actually do have something to be pissed off about when it comes to these religions. While atheists are independent individuals, if you're a Christian you ascribe to the Bible, if you're a Mormon you believe in the words of the Book of Mormon, and if you're Muslim you follow the Koran. In all these books, there's something that deals with unbelievers and atheists. For the most part, it isn't good.
The Bible, for instance, says we atheists should be shunned and killed:
How should nonbelievers be treated? What about non-Christians? Is it OK to marry (or stay married to) unbelievers? Is it OK to touch them or be friends with them?The Book of Mormon has that delightful tale of Korihor, a so-called "Anti-Christ." He makes plenty of valid arguments against religion, and is subsequently arrested. Nevermind that
preceding passages had just mentioned everyone was free to believe or disbelieve. The high priest Alma asks why Korihor won’t believe, so Korihor asks for just one sign to convince him. Keep in mind this story supposedly takes place in Biblical times around the same point as the Old Testament, which is chalk full of God proving himself to others when asked or challenged (Job notwithstanding). By Joseph Smith's time, however, it was plain that such stories only created discrepancies as to why God no longer smites people on a whim, or wrestles people for kicks. So surprise surprise when the priest refuses to give a sign, and instead says: "Thou hast had signs enough." To quote SAB: "Alma refuses, saying that Korihor has signs enough. Others believe in God, so he should too. There is the bible, and the earth and its motions, and the planets. (Of course none of this is evidence for the existence of a God.)"
A class in creative writing will teach you that to make a persuasive argument, you have to address your opposition's best arguments. That is precisely what the story of Korihor represents. So what happens in the end? What is Joseph Smith's great rebuttal to all the age-old arguments against religion? Nothing. Instead, Korihor is cursed by the priest and struck dumb (if they were willing to do that, why not just give a less prickish sign and be done with it?). Then Korihor conveniently confesses that the devil, disguised as an angel, told him to say all the things he did.
Of course! Them "rational" arguments are the work of the Devil! Makes sense, right? Any way, Korihor then pleads that he believes and ask that the curse be lifted. The priest basically says "screw you, no forgiveness here because you'll probably still continue blaspheming God", and Korihor is forced to beg in the streets for food. Then he is trampled until he dies. The priest warns that anyone who listens to Korihor's words will meet the same fate. Well, isn't that just chummy? The old ways really knew how to settle debates, didn't they?
So, what's the moral of the Mormon's Korihor story? Well, for one it seems to cater only to believers. Korihor states that the messiah will never come. That's clever of Joseph Smith to work in, who is writing with the benefit of hindsight. A church member, who already believes in Christ, can now easily dismiss Korihor's arguments, because clearly the messiah did come, and once you're wrong about one thing people become resistant to any other arguments without regard to each one's individual validity. Korihor is branded as an "Anti-Christ", another reinforcement to perceive everything he says as false. And just in case it wasn’t totally obvious to the audience, Korihor, as a puppet for Joseph Smith, then confesses to the devil having told him exactly what to say. What better way to undermine logic and discredit dissenters than a fictional world where you have full autonomy? Finally, we have an appeal to force and fear. The message: Don't listen to nonbelievers! Don't think! Don't question! If you do, you'll be struck dumb, be forced to beg for your food, and finally will be trampled and killed.
Sorry Mormons, but that story alone proves to me that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a thin veil of fiction created by a man of his time, not a divine manuscript. The story of Korihor is little more than a flimsy facade for libel against atheists.
Finally, we have the Koran. If any of the three books is more against unbelievers, it's the Koran. Paraphrased: "A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. - 2:24" or "Disbelief is the greatest evil. - 7:37" Plenty more of that can be found
here. (Everything is hyperlinked, so nothing is out of context if you're capable of clicking your left mouse button.)
Then you have uplifting people like the
Westboro Baptist Church. Speaking of them,
this is rather interesting, especially the beginning about the mistranslations of Hebrew on homosexuality in the Bible.
So, in the end, we have the anecdotal evidence of MillenniumArmy against a few atheists he's known (if the Internet teaches us anything, it's that morons do in fact exist), versus the sacred texts of three religions sanctifying the very type of actions MillenniumArmy detests (mockery is a form of shunning, for instance). Is it any surprise, then, that some people have reacted negatively toward these religions when the very books themselves contain such venom?
For every foulmouthed "atheist" you've witnessed, I've seen the same behavior exhibited by persons of faith. We'll get nowhere with that. As I said before, unless you are addressing someone here in this debate who has committed what you claim, your position is only that of an unrelated rant. If you have a point, tie it in to what is relevant in this thread.
Quote from MillenniumArmy
I have seen atheist websites that present their views in an orderly and mature manner. This website, the skeptics annotated Bible, unfortunately is not one of them.
How so? C'mon, after that entire spiel, you end on that note without even bothering to back it up? You and Falkoner both keep making claims against the site without supporting evidence. Show me that your opinion is more than a dismissal of the uncomfortable, simply because the site doesn't praise the Bible, BOM, or Koran. Had you given the site a chance, you might have noticed
the good stuff category.
"What the ____ says about..." is also very interesting.
-
Bible-
Book of Mormon-
Koran
Dear Falkoner:
Does it matter? What kind of moral, literal or figurative, are we supposed to derive from that? That god believes sodomy is worse than gang rape and murder? It really just shows how the authors of the book were sexist, as I'm sure all people were back in those times.
I think people
should be sexist in many cases, yes, it's wrong not to allow women some things, but we sure as heck are not equal, men and women have differences, and don't try to act like we don't.
Not
equal, huh? Yes, there are differences. Chromosome differences, hormone differences, and physical differences. So what? For the most part, there is little difference where it matters most -- between brains. Males have a larger brain, which was abused in the early 1900 to claim men were smarter than women. However, men and women have the same number of neurons. The male brain is bigger only because their body is bigger (to emphasize, the sperm whale has the largest and heaviest brain, 15lbs to our 3lbs). The female brain is simply more compact, with no discernable difference in intelligence.
In 1992 a report in
Time magazine brought to attention that the corpus callosum is larger in female brains. The corpus callosum is what connects the two hemispheres of the brain. It was believed that the larger size allowed for greater cross-talk between the halves, allowing women to multitask far better than men, whereas men have a single-task orientation. Even these findings are still under debate in the scientific community.
Ultimately, studies are showing gender differences to be superficial. Women can do and achieve anything a man can, where it counts (science, mathematics, literature, business, economics, politics, leadership, athletics, sports, even today's button/trigger military). When a society allows, you will find a successful woman for every successful man.
Sexism derives stereotypes. When a society embraces sexism, it only serves to hinder potential. Gender differences are an interesting subject, but don't dare make hasty generalizations or assumptions. Traditions have an expiration date. Throw them out when they spoil, lest your home stink and blind you.
On another note, no reply to
my post to you? I took the time to address every single one of your points to me.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 16 2008, 8:40 pm by Hercanic.