Topic: Christianity is Poison - page 50. (Read 52639 times)

If God were truly a moral god... he would have said something like, "Slavery is bad, mkay?  If you could stop owning another human as property, that would be swell"

But, that's not what God said in the bible... God said slavery is good and moral... Every good Jew/christian should own a few slaves... God said it was kosher

It is also not a one-off... God condones slavery at least a dozen times in the bible (both OT & NT)

Slaves come from approximately two places:
1. Free people enslaving themselves to others for economic reasons;
2. People conquering other people and making slaves of them.

God forbids the stealing of people, in the Bible.

God regulates how slavery must work. Why? Because the stubbornness of mankind will always make slaves. God had a choice. Either destroy mankind, or regulate the slavery to a "dull roar." God didn't and doesn't want to destroy mankind. So he works with man's slavery-making-mode to make it better for both the slaves and their masters.

Objection - Assumes facts not in evidence
Objection - Lack of foundation
Objection - Improper characterization of evidence
Objection - Calls for speculation
Objection - Leading the witness

Bible slavery is God causing the stubbornness of mankind to limit slavery that was and would have been violently more disastrous for the slaves if it were not for Bible limitations on slavery.

And with all this trolling, you still refuse to pick a topic for debate...

As for scientific journals... I have no problem with a 10,000 word paper, so long as it sticks to a single topic... which they do... it often takes a lot of words to debate a single topic...

The problem is you jump all over the place, accusing me of this or that... if I don't respond to everything, you accuse me of cherry-picking... but, I cannot possibly fully refute a 3-page post, providing supporting evidence for every claim, without making my own 100-page-long post!

This is the situation I am avoiding... if you want to debate a single topic at a time, PICK A FUCKING TOPIC TO DEBATE WITH ME!



-------------------------------------------------------



If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible?


You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google?

Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide)

The part where a civilized human being, who happens to pride himself on following science, can't seem to read through a post that is 2 times shorter in word count (original, not content written by you, or stated in previous posts of similiar length) than a short high-school essay in a discussion, where scientific proof is required to present a credible statement. Anyway, here's a few fun facts:

• Scientific journals (meant for getting the full picture of a scientific or historical discovery, with it's nuances and possible errors) are from "3,000 to 10,000 words in length". Source: http://www.informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html
• Picking ideas up and using them at face value without any research is what fundamentalist Christians (as well as fundamentalists from other religions) do
• Discussing without providing at least credible sources makes your claims untrustworthy
• Ignoring the opposition's arguments in a discussion for being "too long" while praising science (full of nuance,small errors that do matter and countless reading hours of discussion on a single discovery) makes you look uneducated, pretentious, hypocritical and rather thick.

Need a tl;dr for this as well, bud?  

Our technology and education system may be well developed. It is not reflecting our thoughts because of our greed. Our greed acts like a religion. So, religion and the like are at the core of the problems, not technology and the education system.

Measure everyone based on his religion so that you know what to watch out for.

What part of tl;dr do you not understand?

If you limit your post to 1-2 paragraphs, I will read it... if you want to argue about 10 things at once, I will not...

You cannot possibly have a serious debate that is spread among so many different topics... it's turns the whole thread into a bunch of back and forth trolling/spam...


Since you cannot follow simple instructions, here is a video of christians saying stupid shit (evidence to support my claim that christianity is poison to your mind)

More Stupid Christians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZznlL7uG18

And as I mentioned in the post of mine you just quoted ("Also, the guy you were annoyed with changed the name of the topic BTW."), the OP changed the title to "Atheism and Health", as apparently his intent wasn't to attack Atheists.

---

I don't have any experience of such statues being put up on public space, so can't really comment on that except it seems to have been done by fundamental Christians which I don't really agree with on a lot of situations.

---

And as did I: I wanted to specifically debate on every topic brought up by you in your posts that I refuted in mine. If you don't want to debate on multiple topics, don't put out multiple claims.

---

Sigh, OK, let me go through it yet again (I'll ignore my answers which are open to theological and/or philosophical discussion as you can't really prove those by definition):

Evidence-less claims:

Just because I disagree and provide counterclaims to yours, doesn't mean I'm trolling. That's a discussion.

---

Your only view of religion seems to be in regards to, as I mentioned, "zealously religious fundamentalist nuts" who interpret the everything in the bible literally, force others to follow their religion, attempt to restrict freedom of speech, etc.. You seem to ignore the fact that there actually are rational/moderate religious people, who defend the right to freedom of speech, analyze and discuss on possible interpretations of  whatever religious document they have, discuss with the critics of religion rather than silence them and whose faith doesn't clash with science. An example would be my view as previously stated in one of the posts in this thread:

Empathetic one....nowadays our technology as well as education system is developed well. But it is not reflecting in our thoughts. My opinion is all are humans only. Try to change our view of life. Love each other and don't measure them based on their religion.

The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month...  If you read the OP you would know this...

It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh?



As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that...

Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking...

If you would like to debate a specific claim... let me know which one you most object to, and I will provide supporting evidence...

If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why?
If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen

Just as a side note, there's a pope for Catholics and Orthodox believers. I would not call myself either.

Yes, I see some parts of the bible, specifically from the Old Testament, as obsolete, written for a time that passed long ago (considering the Old Testament was meant as a prophecy (also known as gospel) for the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Testament is considered as the Christian bible by most) and quite a lot as just not meant for literal interpretation (both from the Old and the New Testament). Technically, I don't belong to any group/sect/branch of Christianity, though still consider myself Christian. I used to be a Roman Catholic (the most popular religion in my country) but due to quite a few ideological differences and the ever present stagnation as time goes by I decided to just roll on my own, with a somewhat similar ideological basis to the branch I believed in. I don't specifically know which groups/sects/branches consider the entire bible (both Testaments) to be infallible, but I think this quite well describes the core beliefs of Christianity, while everything else is up to interpretation:

Then it seems you lie on the agnosticism axis right in between theism and atheism. To be honest, that's better than any kind of gnosticism, be it religious or atheistic IMO.

Rather than "I believe" or "I know", my beliefs could be best described as "I don't care". That is: "Since an omnipotent god is by definition unprovable, I can't prove gods do or do not exist. However I have no interest in unfalsifiable propositions, and so do not care about/have no interest in gods and their religions".

That doesn't really fit into the two-axis belief system you've described, and I think generalising beliefs in such a way is likely to cause confusion by over-simplification.

All of this is very different from “the dream of God” as we encounter it in the major voices of the Bible and earliest Christianity. Of course, Christianity is about individuals and our relationship to God as individuals. But when it is most authentic, it is also about God’s dream for a world of fairness (justice) and peace. It is about “the common good” and not just my individual good.
 

On the "antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible" part, does this mean that to you the bible is not infallible? I know this varies from Christian group to group, (sect? not sure of correct terminology there, no offense meant) and I'm interested in which groups believe the bible is infallible and which do not.

A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat"

The fact that a Christian (be it a moderate one) happens to use actual reason and scientific (in this case historical) proof (with sources) to refute someones claims more than an Atheist does amaze me.

Cherry picking as in ignoring the claims I provided counter arguments to. Also, title:


"Good and bad", eh? Also, the guy you were annoyed with changed the name of the topic BTW.

Umm, the problem is I'm not saying the Christian bible is entirely good: it's a book written thousands of years ago. If it was completely undeniably "good", there wouldn't be as many branches of Christianity as today.

I have no objection in you picking out the antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible, I do however object calling the entire religion "poison" and as such provide counterclaims to what you say.

P.S. Your claims, in general, seem to reveal this "all or nothing" mentality which suggests that you are leaning towards gnostic atheism, which, taking all the old scientific theories debunked and replaced by new, currently more accurate ones, seems silly.

A chart for an easier explanation:

I just did a search through the whole Bible. I didn't find the word "cherry" even once.   

I try to avoid tl;dr posts...

If you have something in specific you would like to debate, please be specific and short... I will not debate 20 different topics each post... 1-2 tops

If I did not respond to something in your 3 page long post... it's probably because I didn't read most/any of it



As for cherry-picking... that's not me, that's the bible... it says both good and bad things... how is it cherry-picking if I point out a few bad things?

It's cherry-picking for someone to claim the bible is good/holy, because they ignore all the bad stuff it says...

I could easily point out 101 things that are immoral in the bible... yet people ignore all that immoral stuff, and call it a book of morals?

Atheism is a religion for this simple reason, if nothing else. Science and nature have proven that God exists. Atheism has not proven God does not exist. When atheism sets itself up against the facts in the light of having no facts to sustain itself, it is calling itself "God" in one way or another. Perhaps this would not be so if the point were not regarding God. This makes atheism a religion of non-religion, a self-contradictory religion.



Okay. The only thing that I was trying to prove is, that I am not trying to prove anything. Sounds like I might have proven it to you.