Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Vandeekree    

Rank #8735 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:10/02/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8735
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3814 total,  5620 ,  1806
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 92% (92/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1678
FJ Points:3518

latest user's comments

#185 - Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?  [+] (11 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#182 - By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theo…  [+] (8 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #186 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#179 - Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of h…  [+] (13 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#171 - On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in commo…  [+] (15 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #175 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

#170 - That's mostly opinion. And while opinion is fine. We were talk…  [+] (10 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #178 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Well that's funny, because in my opinion Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) are extremely arrogant when they preach the idea that THEIR religion is the only true one.

I am simply applying an age-old thought process, backed up by Occam's Razor:
"Either all of it is OK, or none of it is" - meaning either all religions and gods are real, or none of them are.

And Occam's Razor comes in when comparing the 2 situations, one in which you would take for granted each creationist story from every religion on the planet and try to give each and every religions as much credit as the other...
or apply the simplest obvious solution, that religion is solely a man-made concept, created out of fear of the unknown.
User avatar #182 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theory was correct when others disagreed was being arrogant. Darwin was arrogant to push evolution. Mendel was arrogant to push his ideas of genetics. That makes no sense.

Speaking of making no sense, your point about all or nothing is very flawed. If two things contradict one another then they can't both be true. But how did you come to the conclusion that if two things contradict BOTH must be false?

And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense. This all or nothing stuff is scheiße.
User avatar #186 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#30 - Interdasting 03/03/2014 on Do feel what I feel? 0
#20 - What worries me most about this is that a pokeball, the thing …  [+] (2 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Do feel what I feel? 0
User avatar #29 - Seanxone (03/03/2014) [-]
Damaged pokeballs release the pokemon inside with seemingly no damage done to them. There was an episode where Ash's pokeball for snorlax cracked and he needed to use logs to roll it to the pokemon center so that they could fix the ball.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Interdasting
#131 - It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means th…  [+] (8 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts +1
User avatar #226 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat shit insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#115 - Interesting. I wonder how much of it is true. But yes…  [+] (17 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts +1
User avatar #223 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
This is a reply to this comment: www.funnyjunk.com/Truth+hurts/funny-pictures/5039471/204#204
Couldn't reply on it for some reason so I replied here instead.

So are you saying that the bible is "absolute source for moral law that we could turn to be sure"?
User avatar #230 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that way to me in accordance to the religions I have so far studied. But my point was actually not that Christianity is right, but that an all knowing deity is needed for there to be absolute morality.

Otherwise there is only relative morality. Meaning that nothing is truly right and wrong, you just kind of make it up on the spot and it varies for different people. An example would be pirates in the colonial era. A British pirate raiding French ships is called a hero by the British and a criminal by the French.
User avatar #231 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
User avatar #123 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I meant that they did not have the belief in God written in their hearts. Morality will be encoded in their DNA rather than their hearts, it's really just an over glorified pumping system, now I sound like a pretentious slut, nevermind no ones really listening but you.

Actually no, something can be true without a valid reason to believe it. Imagine an ancient person said "in the future we will fly" the ancient person didn't have a valid reason or justification for their claim but the claim was possible and true because we have helicopters. Even if God exists there isn't a valid reason to believe in him that I know of.
User avatar #131 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means their head heart, not the actual blood pumping organ. If I say 'listen to your heart' are you seriously going to reply with 'wtf does puhpump puhpump mean?"

If you don't think there is a reason to believe then you clearly haven't studied the bible. But that's an entire different discussion right there.
User avatar #226 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat shit insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#102 - While I wouldn't mind reading about that story(if you have a l…  [+] (36 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts +2
User avatar #166 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Funny that you mention about something being "written in their hearts"... I guess the Aztecs were DEEPLY searching for Jehova, weren't they?...

In other words: kind of hard for Christians to explain how different religions/mythologies all over the world have NOTHING in common with the Jewish/Christian god. Doesn't make any sense if you were to believe in ONE all mighty creator.
User avatar #171 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in common. Some held on to the miraculous events, some held on to the moral law, and some had a combination of both. But throughout all civilization morality has been there. And, like with those who have the bible, that internal morality can be rejected or followed. Just because those peoples don't know the name of the god of morality they follow, they recognize there is one.

So I would argue the opposite, it supports rather than contradicts the idea of one single god.
User avatar #175 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

User avatar #110 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It was a radio segment, that's how I heard it Daniel Everett on The Atheist Tribe The Pirahã

These tribesmen did not have belief in God written on their hearts, the Buddhists who account for a very large proportion of humanity didn't have it written in their hearts.

These aren't the two options, there are many atheists who don't believe but want to believe so they search, these are the people who I'm talking about. These are people who don't believe but are searching.

I don't consider this as working, I'm interested in these subjects and quite confident in my position on this matter. I can't be sure about God because I can not test for his existence, but there isn't a valid reason to believe in him.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.

But yes, those tribesmen and the Buddhists do have it written on their hearts. You will find that every single society has some form of morality. But again, jsut because they have it written on their hearts doesn't mean they are bound by it, they can choose to reject or embrace it just like you or I.

And in saying "there isn't a valid reason" you are closing the possibility he exists.
User avatar #223 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
This is a reply to this comment: www.funnyjunk.com/Truth+hurts/funny-pictures/5039471/204#204
Couldn't reply on it for some reason so I replied here instead.

So are you saying that the bible is "absolute source for moral law that we could turn to be sure"?
User avatar #230 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that way to me in accordance to the religions I have so far studied. But my point was actually not that Christianity is right, but that an all knowing deity is needed for there to be absolute morality.

Otherwise there is only relative morality. Meaning that nothing is truly right and wrong, you just kind of make it up on the spot and it varies for different people. An example would be pirates in the colonial era. A British pirate raiding French ships is called a hero by the British and a criminal by the French.
User avatar #231 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
User avatar #123 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I meant that they did not have the belief in God written in their hearts. Morality will be encoded in their DNA rather than their hearts, it's really just an over glorified pumping system, now I sound like a pretentious slut, nevermind no ones really listening but you.

Actually no, something can be true without a valid reason to believe it. Imagine an ancient person said "in the future we will fly" the ancient person didn't have a valid reason or justification for their claim but the claim was possible and true because we have helicopters. Even if God exists there isn't a valid reason to believe in him that I know of.
User avatar #131 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means their head heart, not the actual blood pumping organ. If I say 'listen to your heart' are you seriously going to reply with 'wtf does puhpump puhpump mean?"

If you don't think there is a reason to believe then you clearly haven't studied the bible. But that's an entire different discussion right there.
User avatar #226 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat shit insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#85 - Sorry but what? 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#73 - But even in a community with a single religion there is still …  [+] (39 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts +2
User avatar #77 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I know of a tribe which doesn't even have one religion, it's an atheist tribe which over the thousands of years, never had any creation myths. Although recently a missionary did go to them but they politely told him to stop, he eventually became an atheist himself. A lot of cultures like the Eskimos are very secluded and they only have one religion. What I mean though is that there are many people who have never heard the gospel story or know who Jesus is, so they never rejected, refused to search or ignored Christianity they just never heard of it.

Most atheists, myself and Richard Dawkins, say that God might be there and it is a possibility. We aren't sure he isn't there. We believe that we could believe in God in the future or we might see God after we died. But we don't believe it. Saying "I am going to see if there is any good evidence for God or any reason to believe in God" is not just closer to disbelief it IS disbelief because you don't believe in God you're just searching for evidence.
User avatar #102 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
While I wouldn't mind reading about that story(if you have a link), that gets into some rather opinion based things. If you don't believe in God then yes, that clearly looks like a case where these people are blameless sense they weren't exposed to Christianity. But The bible has an explanation for it in Romans 1:19-20. That even without exposure to the bible, they have it "written in their hearts" that there is a right and wrong and what that right and wrong is. Right, of course, including the belief in God.

As for searching, I'm not talking about allowing for the possibility that God is real. the difference is your mindset. Do you believe in God but don't know for sure and are searching to find proof or do you not believe and are searching to find a way to prove he's not real?
If you are searching to find God, you believe. But if you are searching for the lack of God then you don't believe.

Though I definitely see that you believe in the possibility of God, why else would you work so hard to find out for sure.
User avatar #166 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Funny that you mention about something being "written in their hearts"... I guess the Aztecs were DEEPLY searching for Jehova, weren't they?...

In other words: kind of hard for Christians to explain how different religions/mythologies all over the world have NOTHING in common with the Jewish/Christian god. Doesn't make any sense if you were to believe in ONE all mighty creator.
User avatar #171 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in common. Some held on to the miraculous events, some held on to the moral law, and some had a combination of both. But throughout all civilization morality has been there. And, like with those who have the bible, that internal morality can be rejected or followed. Just because those peoples don't know the name of the god of morality they follow, they recognize there is one.

So I would argue the opposite, it supports rather than contradicts the idea of one single god.
User avatar #175 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

User avatar #110 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It was a radio segment, that's how I heard it Daniel Everett on The Atheist Tribe The Pirahã

These tribesmen did not have belief in God written on their hearts, the Buddhists who account for a very large proportion of humanity didn't have it written in their hearts.

These aren't the two options, there are many atheists who don't believe but want to believe so they search, these are the people who I'm talking about. These are people who don't believe but are searching.

I don't consider this as working, I'm interested in these subjects and quite confident in my position on this matter. I can't be sure about God because I can not test for his existence, but there isn't a valid reason to believe in him.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.

But yes, those tribesmen and the Buddhists do have it written on their hearts. You will find that every single society has some form of morality. But again, jsut because they have it written on their hearts doesn't mean they are bound by it, they can choose to reject or embrace it just like you or I.

And in saying "there isn't a valid reason" you are closing the possibility he exists.
User avatar #223 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
This is a reply to this comment: www.funnyjunk.com/Truth+hurts/funny-pictures/5039471/204#204
Couldn't reply on it for some reason so I replied here instead.

So are you saying that the bible is "absolute source for moral law that we could turn to be sure"?
User avatar #230 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that way to me in accordance to the religions I have so far studied. But my point was actually not that Christianity is right, but that an all knowing deity is needed for there to be absolute morality.

Otherwise there is only relative morality. Meaning that nothing is truly right and wrong, you just kind of make it up on the spot and it varies for different people. An example would be pirates in the colonial era. A British pirate raiding French ships is called a hero by the British and a criminal by the French.
User avatar #231 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
User avatar #123 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I meant that they did not have the belief in God written in their hearts. Morality will be encoded in their DNA rather than their hearts, it's really just an over glorified pumping system, now I sound like a pretentious slut, nevermind no ones really listening but you.

Actually no, something can be true without a valid reason to believe it. Imagine an ancient person said "in the future we will fly" the ancient person didn't have a valid reason or justification for their claim but the claim was possible and true because we have helicopters. Even if God exists there isn't a valid reason to believe in him that I know of.
User avatar #131 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means their head heart, not the actual blood pumping organ. If I say 'listen to your heart' are you seriously going to reply with 'wtf does puhpump puhpump mean?"

If you don't think there is a reason to believe then you clearly haven't studied the bible. But that's an entire different discussion right there.
User avatar #226 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat shit insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#76 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
#71 - Not true. You can reject a notion.  [+] (16 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts +1
User avatar #84 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
You can select the motion.
User avatar #86 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
You can perfect the lotion
User avatar #88 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
dude stop nobody cares go to the debate /religion/ bored...not here, you're being a little fagger.
User avatar #90 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Fuck the religion board, it's too antisemetic
User avatar #143 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
I thought that was only two guys.
User avatar #227 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
There's only about 5 guys on the religion board excluding myself so it makes a big difference.
User avatar #238 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
Maybe I should get active on there again to help a little.
User avatar #95 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
antisemetic use big words are like being asshat, stop that too, only asking as a friend and chill out..
User avatar #98 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
"Only asking as a friend' you called me a fag and down thumbed my comments.
User avatar #106 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
cause you're being little moldy pickle and I'll thumb you if you stop it plus, it's the internet everybody is a fag and you're being a fag...
#96 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar #87 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
You can elect the potion.
User avatar #89 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
We can erect the...fuck
User avatar #92 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
We can effect the... Duck
#93 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar #85 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sorry but what?
#67 - That's because they do. There's not much difference between ac…  [+] (53 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #165 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Dude, let me put it this way:

Rejecting the idea of "God" or "Gods" is the same for me as all people past the age of 7 reject the idea of an actual "Santa Claus" (which is a bit ironic, since Santa is essentially a Bible character...) being real. In my eyes, any god from any religion has as many chances to be real as Santa. Both the gods and Santa Claus are made up by the human mind.

Also, if I were to accept the notion of gods that are real, I do not see any reason why the Christian mythology should be given any priority or special attention than any other mythology known to man. Christianity is just ONE religion amongst the thousands of religions in the world.
THIS is a concept I would like to see Christians pondering about more. Most of them tend to have a very egocentric outlook on the whole thing.
User avatar #170 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That's mostly opinion. And while opinion is fine. We were talking about definitions of a word here while you seem to have commented simply to say "well in my opinion God's not real so there."

And I'm not sure how many or which Christians you've talk to, but we, or at leas I, ponder such things. You have to study other religions or else how do you know which is the right one?

I have to say your words seem rather arrogant.
User avatar #178 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Well that's funny, because in my opinion Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) are extremely arrogant when they preach the idea that THEIR religion is the only true one.

I am simply applying an age-old thought process, backed up by Occam's Razor:
"Either all of it is OK, or none of it is" - meaning either all religions and gods are real, or none of them are.

And Occam's Razor comes in when comparing the 2 situations, one in which you would take for granted each creationist story from every religion on the planet and try to give each and every religions as much credit as the other...
or apply the simplest obvious solution, that religion is solely a man-made concept, created out of fear of the unknown.
User avatar #182 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theory was correct when others disagreed was being arrogant. Darwin was arrogant to push evolution. Mendel was arrogant to push his ideas of genetics. That makes no sense.

Speaking of making no sense, your point about all or nothing is very flawed. If two things contradict one another then they can't both be true. But how did you come to the conclusion that if two things contradict BOTH must be false?

And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense. This all or nothing stuff is scheiße.
User avatar #186 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
User avatar #72 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Again, they didn't put it out of their mind because it was never in their mind, the majority of people weren't raised in Christian culture. There may not have been more religions in their communities because many cultures are very secluded. Choosing not to search for more religions is pretty normal, I expect you have done it.

Well if you don't believe in God but are searching for him, you still don't believe in God.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But even in a community with a single religion there is still the duality of choosing to believe that religion or be an atheist. Now are there people out there who simply never even think there could be anything besides their one religion through their whole lives? I find that hard to believe. Every person is a thinking human being. Thus, it would make sense that everyone has encountered the question of 'if what I believe really true?'

Also, if you are searching for God then you have to believe he might be there. That means you think he is even though you're not sure. That is a lot closer to belief than disbelief. Why look for something you don't believe you're going to find?
User avatar #77 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I know of a tribe which doesn't even have one religion, it's an atheist tribe which over the thousands of years, never had any creation myths. Although recently a missionary did go to them but they politely told him to stop, he eventually became an atheist himself. A lot of cultures like the Eskimos are very secluded and they only have one religion. What I mean though is that there are many people who have never heard the gospel story or know who Jesus is, so they never rejected, refused to search or ignored Christianity they just never heard of it.

Most atheists, myself and Richard Dawkins, say that God might be there and it is a possibility. We aren't sure he isn't there. We believe that we could believe in God in the future or we might see God after we died. But we don't believe it. Saying "I am going to see if there is any good evidence for God or any reason to believe in God" is not just closer to disbelief it IS disbelief because you don't believe in God you're just searching for evidence.
User avatar #102 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
While I wouldn't mind reading about that story(if you have a link), that gets into some rather opinion based things. If you don't believe in God then yes, that clearly looks like a case where these people are blameless sense they weren't exposed to Christianity. But The bible has an explanation for it in Romans 1:19-20. That even without exposure to the bible, they have it "written in their hearts" that there is a right and wrong and what that right and wrong is. Right, of course, including the belief in God.

As for searching, I'm not talking about allowing for the possibility that God is real. the difference is your mindset. Do you believe in God but don't know for sure and are searching to find proof or do you not believe and are searching to find a way to prove he's not real?
If you are searching to find God, you believe. But if you are searching for the lack of God then you don't believe.

Though I definitely see that you believe in the possibility of God, why else would you work so hard to find out for sure.
User avatar #166 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Funny that you mention about something being "written in their hearts"... I guess the Aztecs were DEEPLY searching for Jehova, weren't they?...

In other words: kind of hard for Christians to explain how different religions/mythologies all over the world have NOTHING in common with the Jewish/Christian god. Doesn't make any sense if you were to believe in ONE all mighty creator.
User avatar #171 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in common. Some held on to the miraculous events, some held on to the moral law, and some had a combination of both. But throughout all civilization morality has been there. And, like with those who have the bible, that internal morality can be rejected or followed. Just because those peoples don't know the name of the god of morality they follow, they recognize there is one.

So I would argue the opposite, it supports rather than contradicts the idea of one single god.
User avatar #175 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

User avatar #110 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It was a radio segment, that's how I heard it Daniel Everett on The Atheist Tribe The Pirahã

These tribesmen did not have belief in God written on their hearts, the Buddhists who account for a very large proportion of humanity didn't have it written in their hearts.

These aren't the two options, there are many atheists who don't believe but want to believe so they search, these are the people who I'm talking about. These are people who don't believe but are searching.

I don't consider this as working, I'm interested in these subjects and quite confident in my position on this matter. I can't be sure about God because I can not test for his existence, but there isn't a valid reason to believe in him.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.

But yes, those tribesmen and the Buddhists do have it written on their hearts. You will find that every single society has some form of morality. But again, jsut because they have it written on their hearts doesn't mean they are bound by it, they can choose to reject or embrace it just like you or I.

And in saying "there isn't a valid reason" you are closing the possibility he exists.
User avatar #223 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
This is a reply to this comment: www.funnyjunk.com/Truth+hurts/funny-pictures/5039471/204#204
Couldn't reply on it for some reason so I replied here instead.

So are you saying that the bible is "absolute source for moral law that we could turn to be sure"?
User avatar #230 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that way to me in accordance to the religions I have so far studied. But my point was actually not that Christianity is right, but that an all knowing deity is needed for there to be absolute morality.

Otherwise there is only relative morality. Meaning that nothing is truly right and wrong, you just kind of make it up on the spot and it varies for different people. An example would be pirates in the colonial era. A British pirate raiding French ships is called a hero by the British and a criminal by the French.
User avatar #231 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
User avatar #123 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I meant that they did not have the belief in God written in their hearts. Morality will be encoded in their DNA rather than their hearts, it's really just an over glorified pumping system, now I sound like a pretentious slut, nevermind no ones really listening but you.

Actually no, something can be true without a valid reason to believe it. Imagine an ancient person said "in the future we will fly" the ancient person didn't have a valid reason or justification for their claim but the claim was possible and true because we have helicopters. Even if God exists there isn't a valid reason to believe in him that I know of.
User avatar #131 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means their head heart, not the actual blood pumping organ. If I say 'listen to your heart' are you seriously going to reply with 'wtf does puhpump puhpump mean?"

If you don't think there is a reason to believe then you clearly haven't studied the bible. But that's an entire different discussion right there.
User avatar #226 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat shit insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#76 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
#62 - I actually do completely understand all of that and know what …  [+] (73 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#70 - xcoreyx (03/03/2014) [-]
If you fully understood atheism then you wouldn't say that we "reject god." Because you can't reject something that simply doesn't exist.
User avatar #71 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Not true. You can reject a notion.
User avatar #84 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
You can select the motion.
User avatar #86 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
You can perfect the lotion
User avatar #88 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
dude stop nobody cares go to the debate /religion/ bored...not here, you're being a little fagger.
User avatar #90 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Fuck the religion board, it's too antisemetic
User avatar #143 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
I thought that was only two guys.
User avatar #227 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
There's only about 5 guys on the religion board excluding myself so it makes a big difference.
User avatar #238 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
Maybe I should get active on there again to help a little.
User avatar #95 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
antisemetic use big words are like being asshat, stop that too, only asking as a friend and chill out..
User avatar #98 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
"Only asking as a friend' you called me a fag and down thumbed my comments.
User avatar #106 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
cause you're being little moldy pickle and I'll thumb you if you stop it plus, it's the internet everybody is a fag and you're being a fag...
#96 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar #87 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
You can elect the potion.
User avatar #89 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
We can erect the...fuck
User avatar #92 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
We can effect the... Duck
#93 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar #85 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sorry but what?
User avatar #66 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's just the language you used made it sound like all atheists actively reject religious ideas rather than a very large majority who live in Buddhist or tribal culture who never even heard of the Christian God and so could not have rejected an idea which they did not have.
User avatar #67 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That's because they do. There's not much difference between actively rejecting something and passively rejecting it. To reject it is to dismiss it and put it out of your mind. In that way, those who don't know about Christianity put the idea that there could be other religions out of their minds. They choose not to search for more.
As for people who are searching for God but haven't found him yet. I wouldn't call those atheists sense they aren't disbelieving or else they wouldn't be searching.
User avatar #165 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Dude, let me put it this way:

Rejecting the idea of "God" or "Gods" is the same for me as all people past the age of 7 reject the idea of an actual "Santa Claus" (which is a bit ironic, since Santa is essentially a Bible character...) being real. In my eyes, any god from any religion has as many chances to be real as Santa. Both the gods and Santa Claus are made up by the human mind.

Also, if I were to accept the notion of gods that are real, I do not see any reason why the Christian mythology should be given any priority or special attention than any other mythology known to man. Christianity is just ONE religion amongst the thousands of religions in the world.
THIS is a concept I would like to see Christians pondering about more. Most of them tend to have a very egocentric outlook on the whole thing.
User avatar #170 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That's mostly opinion. And while opinion is fine. We were talking about definitions of a word here while you seem to have commented simply to say "well in my opinion God's not real so there."

And I'm not sure how many or which Christians you've talk to, but we, or at leas I, ponder such things. You have to study other religions or else how do you know which is the right one?

I have to say your words seem rather arrogant.
User avatar #178 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Well that's funny, because in my opinion Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) are extremely arrogant when they preach the idea that THEIR religion is the only true one.

I am simply applying an age-old thought process, backed up by Occam's Razor:
"Either all of it is OK, or none of it is" - meaning either all religions and gods are real, or none of them are.

And Occam's Razor comes in when comparing the 2 situations, one in which you would take for granted each creationist story from every religion on the planet and try to give each and every religions as much credit as the other...
or apply the simplest obvious solution, that religion is solely a man-made concept, created out of fear of the unknown.
User avatar #182 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theory was correct when others disagreed was being arrogant. Darwin was arrogant to push evolution. Mendel was arrogant to push his ideas of genetics. That makes no sense.

Speaking of making no sense, your point about all or nothing is very flawed. If two things contradict one another then they can't both be true. But how did you come to the conclusion that if two things contradict BOTH must be false?

And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense. This all or nothing stuff is scheiße.
User avatar #186 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
User avatar #72 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Again, they didn't put it out of their mind because it was never in their mind, the majority of people weren't raised in Christian culture. There may not have been more religions in their communities because many cultures are very secluded. Choosing not to search for more religions is pretty normal, I expect you have done it.

Well if you don't believe in God but are searching for him, you still don't believe in God.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But even in a community with a single religion there is still the duality of choosing to believe that religion or be an atheist. Now are there people out there who simply never even think there could be anything besides their one religion through their whole lives? I find that hard to believe. Every person is a thinking human being. Thus, it would make sense that everyone has encountered the question of 'if what I believe really true?'

Also, if you are searching for God then you have to believe he might be there. That means you think he is even though you're not sure. That is a lot closer to belief than disbelief. Why look for something you don't believe you're going to find?
User avatar #77 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I know of a tribe which doesn't even have one religion, it's an atheist tribe which over the thousands of years, never had any creation myths. Although recently a missionary did go to them but they politely told him to stop, he eventually became an atheist himself. A lot of cultures like the Eskimos are very secluded and they only have one religion. What I mean though is that there are many people who have never heard the gospel story or know who Jesus is, so they never rejected, refused to search or ignored Christianity they just never heard of it.

Most atheists, myself and Richard Dawkins, say that God might be there and it is a possibility. We aren't sure he isn't there. We believe that we could believe in God in the future or we might see God after we died. But we don't believe it. Saying "I am going to see if there is any good evidence for God or any reason to believe in God" is not just closer to disbelief it IS disbelief because you don't believe in God you're just searching for evidence.
User avatar #102 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
While I wouldn't mind reading about that story(if you have a link), that gets into some rather opinion based things. If you don't believe in God then yes, that clearly looks like a case where these people are blameless sense they weren't exposed to Christianity. But The bible has an explanation for it in Romans 1:19-20. That even without exposure to the bible, they have it "written in their hearts" that there is a right and wrong and what that right and wrong is. Right, of course, including the belief in God.

As for searching, I'm not talking about allowing for the possibility that God is real. the difference is your mindset. Do you believe in God but don't know for sure and are searching to find proof or do you not believe and are searching to find a way to prove he's not real?
If you are searching to find God, you believe. But if you are searching for the lack of God then you don't believe.

Though I definitely see that you believe in the possibility of God, why else would you work so hard to find out for sure.
User avatar #166 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Funny that you mention about something being "written in their hearts"... I guess the Aztecs were DEEPLY searching for Jehova, weren't they?...

In other words: kind of hard for Christians to explain how different religions/mythologies all over the world have NOTHING in common with the Jewish/Christian god. Doesn't make any sense if you were to believe in ONE all mighty creator.
User avatar #171 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in common. Some held on to the miraculous events, some held on to the moral law, and some had a combination of both. But throughout all civilization morality has been there. And, like with those who have the bible, that internal morality can be rejected or followed. Just because those peoples don't know the name of the god of morality they follow, they recognize there is one.

So I would argue the opposite, it supports rather than contradicts the idea of one single god.
User avatar #175 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

User avatar #110 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It was a radio segment, that's how I heard it Daniel Everett on The Atheist Tribe The Pirahã

These tribesmen did not have belief in God written on their hearts, the Buddhists who account for a very large proportion of humanity didn't have it written in their hearts.

These aren't the two options, there are many atheists who don't believe but want to believe so they search, these are the people who I'm talking about. These are people who don't believe but are searching.

I don't consider this as working, I'm interested in these subjects and quite confident in my position on this matter. I can't be sure about God because I can not test for his existence, but there isn't a valid reason to believe in him.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.

But yes, those tribesmen and the Buddhists do have it written on their hearts. You will find that every single society has some form of morality. But again, jsut because they have it written on their hearts doesn't mean they are bound by it, they can choose to reject or embrace it just like you or I.

And in saying "there isn't a valid reason" you are closing the possibility he exists.
User avatar #223 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
This is a reply to this comment: www.funnyjunk.com/Truth+hurts/funny-pictures/5039471/204#204
Couldn't reply on it for some reason so I replied here instead.

So are you saying that the bible is "absolute source for moral law that we could turn to be sure"?
User avatar #230 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that way to me in accordance to the religions I have so far studied. But my point was actually not that Christianity is right, but that an all knowing deity is needed for there to be absolute morality.

Otherwise there is only relative morality. Meaning that nothing is truly right and wrong, you just kind of make it up on the spot and it varies for different people. An example would be pirates in the colonial era. A British pirate raiding French ships is called a hero by the British and a criminal by the French.
User avatar #231 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
User avatar #123 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I meant that they did not have the belief in God written in their hearts. Morality will be encoded in their DNA rather than their hearts, it's really just an over glorified pumping system, now I sound like a pretentious slut, nevermind no ones really listening but you.

Actually no, something can be true without a valid reason to believe it. Imagine an ancient person said "in the future we will fly" the ancient person didn't have a valid reason or justification for their claim but the claim was possible and true because we have helicopters. Even if God exists there isn't a valid reason to believe in him that I know of.
User avatar #131 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means their head heart, not the actual blood pumping organ. If I say 'listen to your heart' are you seriously going to reply with 'wtf does puhpump puhpump mean?"

If you don't think there is a reason to believe then you clearly haven't studied the bible. But that's an entire different discussion right there.
User avatar #226 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat shit insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#76 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
#55 - I don't think this is quite right. Hating someone is a sin…  [+] (75 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts +5
User avatar #57 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you have a good understanding of atheism. Many atheists live in foreign countries like China where the majority of people are Buddhist, so if you're in Buddhist culture the Christian God isn't a big deal or even on the plains of consciousness. They don't think "I refuse the Christian God and refuse to search him out" it's that these ideas don't even reach their consciousness just like you don't say "I refuse the Hindu God Ganesh and refuse to search for Ganesh" you just never thought Ganesh was relevant or even knew who Ganesh was.

Furthermore many atheists do want to believe in God but just don't think it is a justified belief like Ricky Gervais or the person in the song Johnny Hoax - Obsolete . So they are searching and they want to embrace the idea of God but they can't find him.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I actually do completely understand all of that and know what an atheist is. And I chose my words thusly. That is how it works when you choose any religion, or lack there of, you are choosing to reject all other schools of belief. Including the ones you don't know about. But you do know that there are religions out there you don't know of or understand and you choose not to pursue that knowledge.
So no, I have never thought "I reject Ganesh" but i have thought "I accept Christianity" which, by default, is to say "I reject everything that contradicts it."
#70 - xcoreyx (03/03/2014) [-]
If you fully understood atheism then you wouldn't say that we "reject god." Because you can't reject something that simply doesn't exist.
User avatar #71 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Not true. You can reject a notion.
User avatar #84 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
You can select the motion.
User avatar #86 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
You can perfect the lotion
User avatar #88 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
dude stop nobody cares go to the debate /religion/ bored...not here, you're being a little fagger.
User avatar #90 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Fuck the religion board, it's too antisemetic
User avatar #143 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
I thought that was only two guys.
User avatar #227 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
There's only about 5 guys on the religion board excluding myself so it makes a big difference.
User avatar #238 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
Maybe I should get active on there again to help a little.
User avatar #95 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
antisemetic use big words are like being asshat, stop that too, only asking as a friend and chill out..
User avatar #98 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
"Only asking as a friend' you called me a fag and down thumbed my comments.
User avatar #106 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
cause you're being little moldy pickle and I'll thumb you if you stop it plus, it's the internet everybody is a fag and you're being a fag...
#96 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar #87 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
You can elect the potion.
User avatar #89 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
We can erect the...fuck
User avatar #92 - chewiewhatawookie (03/03/2014) [-]
We can effect the... Duck
#93 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar #85 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sorry but what?
User avatar #66 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's just the language you used made it sound like all atheists actively reject religious ideas rather than a very large majority who live in Buddhist or tribal culture who never even heard of the Christian God and so could not have rejected an idea which they did not have.
User avatar #67 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That's because they do. There's not much difference between actively rejecting something and passively rejecting it. To reject it is to dismiss it and put it out of your mind. In that way, those who don't know about Christianity put the idea that there could be other religions out of their minds. They choose not to search for more.
As for people who are searching for God but haven't found him yet. I wouldn't call those atheists sense they aren't disbelieving or else they wouldn't be searching.
User avatar #165 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Dude, let me put it this way:

Rejecting the idea of "God" or "Gods" is the same for me as all people past the age of 7 reject the idea of an actual "Santa Claus" (which is a bit ironic, since Santa is essentially a Bible character...) being real. In my eyes, any god from any religion has as many chances to be real as Santa. Both the gods and Santa Claus are made up by the human mind.

Also, if I were to accept the notion of gods that are real, I do not see any reason why the Christian mythology should be given any priority or special attention than any other mythology known to man. Christianity is just ONE religion amongst the thousands of religions in the world.
THIS is a concept I would like to see Christians pondering about more. Most of them tend to have a very egocentric outlook on the whole thing.
User avatar #170 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That's mostly opinion. And while opinion is fine. We were talking about definitions of a word here while you seem to have commented simply to say "well in my opinion God's not real so there."

And I'm not sure how many or which Christians you've talk to, but we, or at leas I, ponder such things. You have to study other religions or else how do you know which is the right one?

I have to say your words seem rather arrogant.
User avatar #178 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Well that's funny, because in my opinion Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) are extremely arrogant when they preach the idea that THEIR religion is the only true one.

I am simply applying an age-old thought process, backed up by Occam's Razor:
"Either all of it is OK, or none of it is" - meaning either all religions and gods are real, or none of them are.

And Occam's Razor comes in when comparing the 2 situations, one in which you would take for granted each creationist story from every religion on the planet and try to give each and every religions as much credit as the other...
or apply the simplest obvious solution, that religion is solely a man-made concept, created out of fear of the unknown.
User avatar #182 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theory was correct when others disagreed was being arrogant. Darwin was arrogant to push evolution. Mendel was arrogant to push his ideas of genetics. That makes no sense.

Speaking of making no sense, your point about all or nothing is very flawed. If two things contradict one another then they can't both be true. But how did you come to the conclusion that if two things contradict BOTH must be false?

And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense. This all or nothing stuff is scheiße.
User avatar #186 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
User avatar #72 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Again, they didn't put it out of their mind because it was never in their mind, the majority of people weren't raised in Christian culture. There may not have been more religions in their communities because many cultures are very secluded. Choosing not to search for more religions is pretty normal, I expect you have done it.

Well if you don't believe in God but are searching for him, you still don't believe in God.
User avatar #73 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But even in a community with a single religion there is still the duality of choosing to believe that religion or be an atheist. Now are there people out there who simply never even think there could be anything besides their one religion through their whole lives? I find that hard to believe. Every person is a thinking human being. Thus, it would make sense that everyone has encountered the question of 'if what I believe really true?'

Also, if you are searching for God then you have to believe he might be there. That means you think he is even though you're not sure. That is a lot closer to belief than disbelief. Why look for something you don't believe you're going to find?
User avatar #77 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I know of a tribe which doesn't even have one religion, it's an atheist tribe which over the thousands of years, never had any creation myths. Although recently a missionary did go to them but they politely told him to stop, he eventually became an atheist himself. A lot of cultures like the Eskimos are very secluded and they only have one religion. What I mean though is that there are many people who have never heard the gospel story or know who Jesus is, so they never rejected, refused to search or ignored Christianity they just never heard of it.

Most atheists, myself and Richard Dawkins, say that God might be there and it is a possibility. We aren't sure he isn't there. We believe that we could believe in God in the future or we might see God after we died. But we don't believe it. Saying "I am going to see if there is any good evidence for God or any reason to believe in God" is not just closer to disbelief it IS disbelief because you don't believe in God you're just searching for evidence.
User avatar #102 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
While I wouldn't mind reading about that story(if you have a link), that gets into some rather opinion based things. If you don't believe in God then yes, that clearly looks like a case where these people are blameless sense they weren't exposed to Christianity. But The bible has an explanation for it in Romans 1:19-20. That even without exposure to the bible, they have it "written in their hearts" that there is a right and wrong and what that right and wrong is. Right, of course, including the belief in God.

As for searching, I'm not talking about allowing for the possibility that God is real. the difference is your mindset. Do you believe in God but don't know for sure and are searching to find proof or do you not believe and are searching to find a way to prove he's not real?
If you are searching to find God, you believe. But if you are searching for the lack of God then you don't believe.

Though I definitely see that you believe in the possibility of God, why else would you work so hard to find out for sure.
User avatar #166 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Funny that you mention about something being "written in their hearts"... I guess the Aztecs were DEEPLY searching for Jehova, weren't they?...

In other words: kind of hard for Christians to explain how different religions/mythologies all over the world have NOTHING in common with the Jewish/Christian god. Doesn't make any sense if you were to believe in ONE all mighty creator.
User avatar #171 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in common. Some held on to the miraculous events, some held on to the moral law, and some had a combination of both. But throughout all civilization morality has been there. And, like with those who have the bible, that internal morality can be rejected or followed. Just because those peoples don't know the name of the god of morality they follow, they recognize there is one.

So I would argue the opposite, it supports rather than contradicts the idea of one single god.
User avatar #175 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 shits number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you shitting me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 - tkfourtwoone (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

User avatar #110 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It was a radio segment, that's how I heard it Daniel Everett on The Atheist Tribe The Pirahã

These tribesmen did not have belief in God written on their hearts, the Buddhists who account for a very large proportion of humanity didn't have it written in their hearts.

These aren't the two options, there are many atheists who don't believe but want to believe so they search, these are the people who I'm talking about. These are people who don't believe but are searching.

I don't consider this as working, I'm interested in these subjects and quite confident in my position on this matter. I can't be sure about God because I can not test for his existence, but there isn't a valid reason to believe in him.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.

But yes, those tribesmen and the Buddhists do have it written on their hearts. You will find that every single society has some form of morality. But again, jsut because they have it written on their hearts doesn't mean they are bound by it, they can choose to reject or embrace it just like you or I.

And in saying "there isn't a valid reason" you are closing the possibility he exists.
User avatar #223 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
This is a reply to this comment: www.funnyjunk.com/Truth+hurts/funny-pictures/5039471/204#204
Couldn't reply on it for some reason so I replied here instead.

So are you saying that the bible is "absolute source for moral law that we could turn to be sure"?
User avatar #230 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that way to me in accordance to the religions I have so far studied. But my point was actually not that Christianity is right, but that an all knowing deity is needed for there to be absolute morality.

Otherwise there is only relative morality. Meaning that nothing is truly right and wrong, you just kind of make it up on the spot and it varies for different people. An example would be pirates in the colonial era. A British pirate raiding French ships is called a hero by the British and a criminal by the French.
User avatar #231 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
User avatar #123 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I meant that they did not have the belief in God written in their hearts. Morality will be encoded in their DNA rather than their hearts, it's really just an over glorified pumping system, now I sound like a pretentious slut, nevermind no ones really listening but you.

Actually no, something can be true without a valid reason to believe it. Imagine an ancient person said "in the future we will fly" the ancient person didn't have a valid reason or justification for their claim but the claim was possible and true because we have helicopters. Even if God exists there isn't a valid reason to believe in him that I know of.
User avatar #131 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means their head heart, not the actual blood pumping organ. If I say 'listen to your heart' are you seriously going to reply with 'wtf does puhpump puhpump mean?"

If you don't think there is a reason to believe then you clearly haven't studied the bible. But that's an entire different discussion right there.
User avatar #226 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat shit insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this shit?

User avatar #237 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#76 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment.
#54 - Those are sinners, not atheists. 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#41 - I think it's a bit of a leap to call this time travel. The… 02/27/2014 on Let it be 0
#1 - I'm not your budday, pal  [+] (27 new replies) 02/23/2014 on Is this the canadian... +10
User avatar #2 - furrysheaperd (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your pal, guy
User avatar #3 - thatirishdude (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your guy, budday
User avatar #27 - listerthepessimist (02/23/2014) [-]
i'm not your buddy, friend
#5 - memenoob has deleted their comment.
#4 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'n not your budday, friend
#6 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your friend, acquaintance.
#7 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'n not your acquaintance, amigo
#8 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your amigo, compadre._
#9 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your compadre, copain
#10 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your copain, bro.
#11 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your bro, comrade
#12 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your comrade, fellow.
#13 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your fellow, chief
#14 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your chief, mate.
#15 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your mate, partner
#16 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your partner, chum.
#17 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your chum, bestie
#18 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your bestie, dog.
#19 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your dog, homeboy
#20 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your homeboy, dude.
#23 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your main man, boss
#25 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
Fucking god damn it. Caught in my own web. Well played.
#24 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your bo-... You know what? I am your boss. Get back to work!
#21 - inmatedred (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your dude, ese
User avatar #28 - thatirishdude (02/23/2014) [-]
Well this got out of hand quickly.....
User avatar #26 - deesdee (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your peanut butter, jelly.
#22 - memenoob (02/23/2014) [-]
I'm not your ese, my main man.
#273 - What is over a cubit off? Look at the math I did. It's .03 feet off. 02/17/2014 on Because the Bible tells me so 0
#270 - But it's not 15 feet in diameter. It's 15 - 1/3 = 14.33333333 …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/17/2014 on Because the Bible tells me so 0
User avatar #272 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
it's over a cubit off. Why didn't they just say 31 cubits? Or just give one of the measurements and let us figure out the other with the "handy phoenecian rule of thumb" ?
User avatar #273 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
What is over a cubit off? Look at the math I did. It's .03 feet off.
#264 - Yes. Both were measured using arms and hands. A relatively imp…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/17/2014 on Because the Bible tells me so 0
User avatar #266 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
but any amount of rounding has to account for the same error on both ends or you're just saying they measured it wrong. It's 15 feet across and 45 feet around. Pi is still 3.
User avatar #270 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
But it's not 15 feet in diameter. It's 15 - 1/3 = 14.33333333
And 14.33333*pi = 45.0294947013
Once again, a tiny margin.
It distinctly says the bowl is two hand breadths thick, when that is take into account and the bowl isn't treated like a circle with only one rim then it fits together perfectly. Without that addition of the 8 inches then yes, I would agree, but there's a reason it was included.
User avatar #272 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
it's over a cubit off. Why didn't they just say 31 cubits? Or just give one of the measurements and let us figure out the other with the "handy phoenecian rule of thumb" ?
User avatar #273 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
What is over a cubit off? Look at the math I did. It's .03 feet off.
#238 - That's not at all what I'm saying. You should deconstruct it. …  [+] (6 new replies) 02/17/2014 on Because the Bible tells me so 0
User avatar #241 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
A margin of error doesn't help. Both measurements need to have different margins of error each to justify altering the 3:1 ration that makes this incorrect. This is like when you have a triangle whose lengths and angles make three connecting points impossible and you're telling me I just need to make one of the sides slightly longer and it'll work and the guys who described it just measured kinda wrong that one side.
User avatar #264 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
Yes. Both were measured using arms and hands. A relatively imprecise but workable system.
Look at the math.
The diameter is said to be 10 cubits. That's 180 inches.(1 cubit = 18 inches)
The circumference is 30 cubits. That's 540 inches.
It says the rim is two hand breadths. One handbreadth = about 4 inches so the thickness of the bowl's rim is about 8 inches.
Subtract the thickness of the bowl from the diameter to get the inside of the bowl. 180 -8=172 inches
Then multiply it by pi to get the circumference. 172*pi = 540.353936417approximately.
Note the original circumference they wrote in the bible. 540
Is that close enough? Well you really have to decide that. But to me it seems like they were well within limits. Give or take a finger.
User avatar #266 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
but any amount of rounding has to account for the same error on both ends or you're just saying they measured it wrong. It's 15 feet across and 45 feet around. Pi is still 3.
User avatar #270 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
But it's not 15 feet in diameter. It's 15 - 1/3 = 14.33333333
And 14.33333*pi = 45.0294947013
Once again, a tiny margin.
It distinctly says the bowl is two hand breadths thick, when that is take into account and the bowl isn't treated like a circle with only one rim then it fits together perfectly. Without that addition of the 8 inches then yes, I would agree, but there's a reason it was included.
User avatar #272 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
it's over a cubit off. Why didn't they just say 31 cubits? Or just give one of the measurements and let us figure out the other with the "handy phoenecian rule of thumb" ?
User avatar #273 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
What is over a cubit off? Look at the math I did. It's .03 feet off.
#225 - Yes, but they never mentioned pi in the bible. hey simply gave…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/17/2014 on Because the Bible tells me so 0
User avatar #231 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
And people trying to disprove grasp ever tightly. It's not like the veracity of the Bible hinges by any means upon a passage in Kings describing the magnitude of a bowl for reasons only to describe the grandeur of a palace. But that's my point. It's not literal truth. It has nothing to do with science or math or whatever and however you slice it the numbers they give are wrong. It can be an approximation, an estimate, a best guess, a mistake, a rounding error, a lack of modern fundamental mathematical knowledge, whatever, but for that bowl to make any kind of actual real-world sense the passage has to be open to some level of interpretation, analysis, and finagling. If it's OK for that part of the bible, it has to be ok for all of them. If you claim the bible is literal truth that doesn't need deconstructing then that has to be true for all passages. If it's a case-by-case basis that is context dependent you need to be able to specify which is which in advance.
User avatar #238 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
That's not at all what I'm saying. You should deconstruct it. All of it. But when you do make sure you are looking at everything, not just the cold hard math.
Ask any chemist, margin of error is half of chemistry. You want steel? It's a percentage of iron and carbon. How much? Well there's a margin of error. They don't calculate it down as far as they possibly can every time for practical reasons. Science if full of margin of error like this. And if you are going to scrutinize something then you have to take that into account or else you're not dissecting the whole thing.

So then everything is to be taken literally. But make sure you understand the context. The bowl was exactly 10 by 30....within the margin they measured it with.
User avatar #241 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
A margin of error doesn't help. Both measurements need to have different margins of error each to justify altering the 3:1 ration that makes this incorrect. This is like when you have a triangle whose lengths and angles make three connecting points impossible and you're telling me I just need to make one of the sides slightly longer and it'll work and the guys who described it just measured kinda wrong that one side.
User avatar #264 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
Yes. Both were measured using arms and hands. A relatively imprecise but workable system.
Look at the math.
The diameter is said to be 10 cubits. That's 180 inches.(1 cubit = 18 inches)
The circumference is 30 cubits. That's 540 inches.
It says the rim is two hand breadths. One handbreadth = about 4 inches so the thickness of the bowl's rim is about 8 inches.
Subtract the thickness of the bowl from the diameter to get the inside of the bowl. 180 -8=172 inches
Then multiply it by pi to get the circumference. 172*pi = 540.353936417approximately.
Note the original circumference they wrote in the bible. 540
Is that close enough? Well you really have to decide that. But to me it seems like they were well within limits. Give or take a finger.
User avatar #266 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
but any amount of rounding has to account for the same error on both ends or you're just saying they measured it wrong. It's 15 feet across and 45 feet around. Pi is still 3.
User avatar #270 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
But it's not 15 feet in diameter. It's 15 - 1/3 = 14.33333333
And 14.33333*pi = 45.0294947013
Once again, a tiny margin.
It distinctly says the bowl is two hand breadths thick, when that is take into account and the bowl isn't treated like a circle with only one rim then it fits together perfectly. Without that addition of the 8 inches then yes, I would agree, but there's a reason it was included.
User avatar #272 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
it's over a cubit off. Why didn't they just say 31 cubits? Or just give one of the measurements and let us figure out the other with the "handy phoenecian rule of thumb" ?
User avatar #273 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
What is over a cubit off? Look at the math I did. It's .03 feet off.
#219 - Yes, it is impossible if you take it as an exact value. But it…  [+] (10 new replies) 02/17/2014 on Because the Bible tells me so 0
User avatar #222 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
You just said they had the technology to be more precise and decided not to. The bible listing Pi would have been silly because it's infinite and non-repeating and with a perfect value calculation whichever decimal you choose to stop at is arbitrary. They could have used numbers that when calculated with modern methods yield something close to Pi without resorting to high mathematics in 50 BC. approximately 3 is good-enough for bronze-age humans writing stories but it's not good enough for Jesus the Christ if you're trying to justify a literal bible.
User avatar #225 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
Yes, but they never mentioned pi in the bible. hey simply gave demolitions for a massive bowl that came close, but did not perfectly match up to the pi ratio.
It would be like if I wrote you a letter that included my circular swimming pool and said "it's 10 by 30 feet" and you you wrote back "What!?! That's impossible! You could write it so much more precisely!"
They could, but they didn't for obvious reasons. It's not necessary. If a battle takes place between 2,000 troops and 30,000 troops would you come up and call me a liar if you found out it was actually 2,004 vs 29,890?

It's like people trying to disprove the bible grasp at any tiny thing.
User avatar #231 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
And people trying to disprove grasp ever tightly. It's not like the veracity of the Bible hinges by any means upon a passage in Kings describing the magnitude of a bowl for reasons only to describe the grandeur of a palace. But that's my point. It's not literal truth. It has nothing to do with science or math or whatever and however you slice it the numbers they give are wrong. It can be an approximation, an estimate, a best guess, a mistake, a rounding error, a lack of modern fundamental mathematical knowledge, whatever, but for that bowl to make any kind of actual real-world sense the passage has to be open to some level of interpretation, analysis, and finagling. If it's OK for that part of the bible, it has to be ok for all of them. If you claim the bible is literal truth that doesn't need deconstructing then that has to be true for all passages. If it's a case-by-case basis that is context dependent you need to be able to specify which is which in advance.
User avatar #238 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
That's not at all what I'm saying. You should deconstruct it. All of it. But when you do make sure you are looking at everything, not just the cold hard math.
Ask any chemist, margin of error is half of chemistry. You want steel? It's a percentage of iron and carbon. How much? Well there's a margin of error. They don't calculate it down as far as they possibly can every time for practical reasons. Science if full of margin of error like this. And if you are going to scrutinize something then you have to take that into account or else you're not dissecting the whole thing.

So then everything is to be taken literally. But make sure you understand the context. The bowl was exactly 10 by 30....within the margin they measured it with.
User avatar #241 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
A margin of error doesn't help. Both measurements need to have different margins of error each to justify altering the 3:1 ration that makes this incorrect. This is like when you have a triangle whose lengths and angles make three connecting points impossible and you're telling me I just need to make one of the sides slightly longer and it'll work and the guys who described it just measured kinda wrong that one side.
User avatar #264 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
Yes. Both were measured using arms and hands. A relatively imprecise but workable system.
Look at the math.
The diameter is said to be 10 cubits. That's 180 inches.(1 cubit = 18 inches)
The circumference is 30 cubits. That's 540 inches.
It says the rim is two hand breadths. One handbreadth = about 4 inches so the thickness of the bowl's rim is about 8 inches.
Subtract the thickness of the bowl from the diameter to get the inside of the bowl. 180 -8=172 inches
Then multiply it by pi to get the circumference. 172*pi = 540.353936417approximately.
Note the original circumference they wrote in the bible. 540
Is that close enough? Well you really have to decide that. But to me it seems like they were well within limits. Give or take a finger.
User avatar #266 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
but any amount of rounding has to account for the same error on both ends or you're just saying they measured it wrong. It's 15 feet across and 45 feet around. Pi is still 3.
User avatar #270 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
But it's not 15 feet in diameter. It's 15 - 1/3 = 14.33333333
And 14.33333*pi = 45.0294947013
Once again, a tiny margin.
It distinctly says the bowl is two hand breadths thick, when that is take into account and the bowl isn't treated like a circle with only one rim then it fits together perfectly. Without that addition of the 8 inches then yes, I would agree, but there's a reason it was included.
User avatar #272 - monswine (02/17/2014) [-]
it's over a cubit off. Why didn't they just say 31 cubits? Or just give one of the measurements and let us figure out the other with the "handy phoenecian rule of thumb" ?
User avatar #273 - Vandeekree (02/17/2014) [-]
What is over a cubit off? Look at the math I did. It's .03 feet off.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - mr skeltal (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)