The Amazing Atheist - YouTube debater about religion and other stuff

[repiV]

I think I'm too much of a "doing" person to be a politician, but I've certainly thought about it.

 

[Max35]

You've got my respect RepiV, which doesn't mean much. But you have it nonetheless.

 

[repiV]

You've got my respect RepiV, which doesn't mean much. But you have it nonetheless.

Thanks all of ya...it's nice not to be bashed for a change.

 

[Max35]

Thanks all of ya...it's nice not to be bashed for a change.

Well, you seemed to know what you were talking about. Although I suspect the debate isn't over just yet. Or is it?....

 

[repiV]

The troubling thing is, I don't think I said anything particularly insightful. All that is required for anyone to draw the same conclusion is to actually look at the world around them, instead of constructing a fake reality.

 

[Max35]

Looks like people need to read things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

'Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities.

Various dictionaries give a range of definitions for disbelief, from "lack of belief" to "doubt" and "withholding of belief" to "rejection of belief", "refusal to believe", and "denial".'

Atheism is a wide range of different philosophies characterized by, at minimum, a basic doubt concerning the existence of ghost-men.

You know, I read the bible to make sure I had no misconceptions.
Right now, it's like you're calling all christians catholics.
It's a dumb thing to do, especially when you're bragging about how not-ignorant you are.

Okay, after this, I'm done for the day.

Different sources for the definition of Atheism

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
the belief that God does not exist

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=atheism&matchtype=exact
the belief that there is no God.

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=atheism&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG
the belief that there is no god.

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Atheism
ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O?6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God

Now, I'm not saying I was right. But, I wasn't necessarily wrong, either. Not all dictionaries or sources will agree on the exact definition (but basic concept is the same), and wiki is not the "ultimate source" for any body of knowledge. So, it's hard to say which one is the correct one, but it doesn't really matter.

 

[Geogaddi]

The troubling thing is, I don't think I said anything particularly insightful. All that is required for anyone to draw the same conclusion is to actually look at the world around them, instead of constructing a fake reality.

Are you saying that Mecha is constructing a fake reality? Unlike the above posters I don't think your rebuttal was very strong. All you really did was quote him, say "That's incorrect", and follow up with a set of assumptions.

 

[Solaris]

Are you saying that Mecha is constructing a fake reality? Unlike the above posters I don't think your rebuttal was very strong. All you really did was quote him, say "That's incorrect", and follow up with a set of assumptions.

Here Here.

And it could definitely be argued America is very theocratic but I'll argue that tomorrow.

 

[Max35]

That's a nice inspirational pro-religious quote from the egyptians.

The eqyptians who enslaved whole populations to build vast, useless monuments to the gods and buried all their fabulous riches in holes so that they could carry them the underworld.

Those egyptians.

I think you are wrong about that fact, and not just me either. (okay, I lied about being done for the day). Ask any eminent egyptogist or archeologist. The notion of egyptians enslaving "whole populations" is ludicrous and based on myth. It was originated by Herodotus (historian), who simply guessed that.

Any current (read: relevant) research on egyptology has founded the egyptians didn't "enslave" anyone for their monuments, anyway. The peasants that did the work were paid, as were the architects that oversaw the building those damned monuments. Pretty out-dated material your spouting.

Bascically, you're assuming that just because they held certain beliefs, they lacked the ability to be insightful. While that might be true in some cases, that does not mean that on the whole this should be regarded as a rule. Also, you're simply assuming the quote has a religious undertone. While that might be, you can't prove that. To me, it was saying trust your "gut feeling" (which could be religious, but not necessarily). I suppose you could say I posted it in a pro-religious manner (more of an agnostic view, but okay) just simply meant that cold, human, fallible, logic isn't always the answer. Agnosticism was the motivator for that quote, for me.

 

[Stigmata]

Oh god, you couldn't be more wrong on this! (okay, I lied about being done for the day). Ask any eminent egyptogist or archeologist. The notion of egyptians enslaving "whole populations" is ludicrous and based on myth. It was originated by Napoleon's historians, who simply guessed that!

Any current (read: relevant) research on egyptology has founded the egyptians didn't "enslave" anyone. The peasants that did the work were paid, as were the architects that oversaw the building those damned monuments. Pretty out-dated material your spouting.

Bascically, you're assuming that just because they held certain beliefs, they lacked the ability to be insightful. While that might be true in some cases, that does not mean that on the whole this should be regarded as a rule. Also, you're simply assuming the quote has a religious undertone. While that might be, you can't prove that. To me, it was saying trust your "gut feeling" (which could be religious, but not necessarily). I suppose you could say I posted it in a pro-religious manner (more of an agnostic view, but okay) just simply meant that cold, human, fallible, logic isn't always the answer. Agnosticism was the motivator for that quote, for me.

1) He was hyperbolizing. Like you said, the notion of Egyptians literally enslaving entire populations is ludicrous.

2) Not to be rude, but unless the quote you're bringing in has a clearly-defined meaning, don't bring it in at all. This debate is difficult enough without having to argue semantics and subjective interpretations of mostly irrelevant anecdotes

 

[Max35]

1) He was hyperbolizing. Like you said, the notion of Egyptians literally enslaving entire populations is ludicrous.

2) Not to be rude, but unless the quote you're bringing in has a clearly-defined meaning, don't bring it in at all. This debate is difficult enough without having to argue semantics and subjective interpretations of mostly irrelevant anecdotes

According to current research, the Egyptians didn't enslave *anyone* to build the monuments (they had slaves otherwise). I don't care if he was exaggerating. It was still a statement based on not-knowing-the-material. Find me any (relatively current) material stating otherwise and I will consider it.

On the second point, you have a good suggestion. But, I felt the quote was meaningful at the time.

 

[Solaris]

They didn't enslave anyone to build the pyramids?

Well that goes against every documentary I've ever watched on the pyramids. Source please.

 

[that1zombie]

Well I'm glad you answered on his behalf, as he conviniently avoided answering for himself...as expected.



Sorry, but Christians generally are a lot more reasonable than Muslims. The vast majority of Christians hold their beliefs for little more than comfort, tradition or community and are, for the most part, indistinguishable from the rest of the population unless you actually hold a discussion about religion.
QUOTE]

MMM how could i not see that now, OK you really said that wow you are just a freaking dumb ass. You don't know a single thing about Muslims, saying that Christina's are more reasonable yeah right so that is why you bomb abortion clinics. and just to tell you the media mainly reports on only the radical Muslims.

 

[Max35]

They didn't enslave anyone to build the pyramids?

Well that goes against every documentary I've ever watched on the pyramids. Source please.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html

http://www.zohery.com/newsletter5.htm

I also read a book that dealt extensively with the subject, and have emailed specialists in the field. I suppose there isn't "ultimate evidence" to that fact, but modern logic seems to dictate otherwise.

 

[Tagaziel]

The Egyptians bit is true. It isn't rare that modern science and archeology debunk theories made in the past.

 

[repiV]

MMM how could i not see that now, OK you really said that wow you are just a freaking dumb ass. You don't know a single thing about Muslims, saying that Christina's are more reasonable yeah right so that is why you bomb abortion clinics. and just to tell you the media mainly reports on only the radical Muslims.

"You"?
First of all, I'm not religious. Secondly, there isn't a global jihad against abortion clinics. Stop being a hysterical idiot.

 

[repiV]

Are you saying that Mecha is constructing a fake reality? Unlike the above posters I don't think your rebuttal was very strong. All you really did was quote him, say "That's incorrect", and follow up with a set of assumptions.

So assumptions and facts are interchangable now? Interesting.

Here Here.

And it could definitely be argued America is very theocratic but I'll argue that tomorrow.

It "could definitely be argued", but it would definitely be bullshit.

 

[NeptuneUK]

MMM how could i not see that now, OK you really said that wow you are just a freaking dumb ass. You don't know a single thing about Muslims, saying that Christina's are more reasonable yeah right so that is why you bomb abortion clinics. and just to tell you the media mainly reports on only the radical Muslims.

Looks like someone needs to read Mecha's "Logical Fallacy and You (AKA how to tell when you aren't making sense)" sticky.

Take note of the 'how to tell when you aren't making sense' part, as this specifically applies to you.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yet there are no Christian theocracies on the planet. Many, if not most, Muslim countries are theocracies. Islam is the only religion that is also used as a form of government. Doesn't that speak volumes?

We no, it doesn't. Islam might be more successful at taking over governments overtly, but the underlying philosophies are the same.
What you're basically saying is that an attempted murderer is superior to a convicted murderer, but when we're talking about ideology, they aren't really different.
The motives are the same, one just didn't get caught.
Remember, christianity got a head start on the whole theocracy thing with the middle-ages. They were a theocracy until the humanism of the renaissance proved so wildly popular that christianity as a whole latched onto the trend. If it hadn't it would have died out.
Science crippled christianity at that point, and it hasn't yet fully recovered - despite constant attempts to.

Not to mention, Jesus was actually a pretty cool guy, regardless of his followers. Mohammed, on the other hand, was a thief, a murderer, a terrorist, a rapist and a pedophile. Islam loses from its very outset.

That virulence is not a sound argument; that's irrelevant to the discussion, as mohammed is long dead. We are talking about the contemporary religion. I don't even know where you're getting that from, but as long as it doesn't say "thou shalt rape and steal and whatever" in the Qua'ran, I don't see the relevance even if that is true. I'm fairly sure those activities are punished harshly in contemporary islamic theocracies, so what's the point?

Anywho, minimum marriage age for girls in christ's time was something like twelve or thirteen. That's a historical condition of the time, not a black eye on christianity.
What is a black eye against christianity is that absolutely nowhere in the bible does it say that pedophilia is bad.
See the difference? One is relevant to the modern incarnation of the religion and one is not.

Speaking about the relevant origins of the religion, which cool Jesus are we talking about, the one who said that following the old testament was mandatory for eternity (Matt. 17-19), or the peaceful hippie that Paul spun him into?

It's relevant that the meaning of the bible was extensively edited by Paul, but I'm not going to try and character-assassinate jesus as a means of decrying all christians.

Yet none of those beliefs are in themselves harmful.

They very damn well are harmful. Preventing condom use, abortion and stem cell research are deeply irresponsible activities. There is no non-religious reason against any of those procedures.
Fear of "hell" fuels those campaigns and cause psychological harm to, say, christian homosexuals by keeping them in the closet or under some other repression. That's psychological harm according to psychiatrists worldwide.
It's really child abuse to tell your children that the supernatural is real in the same way it would be child abuse to teach your kids that the earth is square.

Over 90% of Americans are Christians, and Christianity is a much more powerful force in the US than in any other country in the world, yet the USA is not a theocracy. More people still want to live in the US than in any other country in the world. Still hardly anyone wants to live in the Middle East. Why do you think that is? It's not a coincidence.

Actually, it's because the united states is kept from becoming too much a theocracy because of its adherence to the secular (one could say atheistic) live-and-let-live philosophy of the declaration of independance and consititution that has created an extremely secular framework for the government.
Like I said in my last post, I'd (generously, I feel) estimate that 70% of christians are secular first and and christians second. They're like Murray, too lazy to save souls.
One could argue that they don't truly believe anymore, or at least not enough to take immediate action against secularism - because they are secular.

I've never spoken to anyone, ever, who thought Fred Phelps was anything but a complete scumbag. And I speak to a lot of American conservatives.
But even an old friend of mine who I didn't even consider particularly religious, totally ordinary guy and very, VERY English in his behaviour and personality, is now an Islamic extremist - in spirit and possibly in deed. I had to report him to MI5, and I wouldn't hesitate to kill him if I knew he was a threat. He's not the same person I used to know. I don't know of any other mainstream force that can twist ordinary people into evil lunatics with such ease.

Anecdotes are fun and all, but your personal experiences do not an argument make. My best friend back when I lived in another province seemed like an okay dude. I even went to his regular church club or whatever it was called, despite not believing in it. He was cool until he started going on about how dinosaurs weren't real.
That story doesn't support this argument at all, although it is sad.

I haven't met an al Quaeda operative, but I know they are real thnks to facts.
I've never met Fred Phelps, but I know that he exists.
Phelps might have few supporters, but he is certainly not the only anti-gay christian in america. In recent elections, gay marriage was shot down in most states with an around 60% majority.
Survey says most of americans are christian and most among them are homophobic. That's why I'm being generous in etimating that only half of that majority are homophobic as a direct result of their faith. They don't wave placards, but then if they did, you wouldn't be able to say you can't see them.

If Christians were as extreme as you say, the US would be a theocracy and it wouldn't be a scientific and technological pioneer and world leader in all fields.

The US is scientific leader because of science, and because it is secular be design. That does not mean, however, that the system actually is fully secular. Over two billion dollars are being spent on faith-based initiatives by the current administration.
That money goes pretty much directly to christian organizations, but there is basically no regulation. No one is keeping track on how that money is actually being spent. There is no concern for the results.
That's just one of the bigger, sadder examples.

Muslim nations contribute ****ing nothing to this world at all. The entire Middle East could go up in flames tomorrow and the only thing the rest of the world would miss is the oil.
Christian or historically Christian nations, on the other hand, lead the world in every field.
The evidence for Christians being just as unreasonable or backwards as Muslims is just not there at all.

Let's try this again, with fixes:

"Christianity contributes ****ing nothing to this world at all. The entire Religion could go up in flames tomorrow and the only thing the rest of the world would miss is the Billions of Dead.
Scientists or historically Industrial nations, on the other hand, lead the world in every field.
The evidence for Scientists being just as unreasonable or backwards as Christians is just not there at all."

See, that makes more sense. Scientists cause science and industrialization causes industrialization. The fact that christians are clustered in areas with a history of industrialization stems beasically from the fact that those countries had a renaissance that actively contradicted christianity's theocratic ambitions.

Also, your foamy rant conveniently ignores the whole "billions of dead" angle.

Totalitarian "ambitions". "Ideologically" extremist. The proof is in the fact that you have to qualify every accusation you make that equates Christianity with Islam. Christianity is centuries ahead of Islam, that is the simple and undeniable truth, whatever "ambitions" you may say Christians have. If the majority, or even a large minority, of Christians believed as you say they do, the US would undoubtedly be a theocracy.

I'm sorry that I'm not saying stupid things to weaken my argument for you.

We are supposed to be talking about religion, but you are talking about material worth. Christian nations are more industrial, but industrialization is the enemy of christianity. Christ chased money lenders out of the temple, not into it. He actively despised material value, telling people to give away all their belongings so that they might live in faith.

It's easier for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, he said.
the entire purpose of him coming down to earth in the first place was to prevent secularization. the constant theme of his teachings is that you can't just live good; faith must enter all aspects of your life.
The material world was a distraction from faith.

So, science is the enemy of faith. Science tends to disprove mythology.
Thanks to science, christianity is weakened, but the actual religion, the thing we are talking about, is not any more intelligent than islam.
America is ahead because christianity is behind. Science, humanism and secularism are winning.
Islam is winning because secularism is behind in their domain.
But the religions remain equally dumb.

Yet it's not a reality. It hasn't been a reality since the Middle Ages, and even then it wasn't even approaching the extent of Islamic theocracy even today. I deal in realities, not hypotheticals.

Obviously you deal in realities and not hypotheticals when your entire argument is about industrialization and basically ignores christianity itself.

Christianity does not have a theocracy, but christianity is a theocratic religion. See the difference there?

You're vastly overstating their numbers. Their influence, perhaps not, but a small number of people can certainly have a huge influence over a much larger number.

Small number of extremists in power + general complacency in their power base = not good.

You don't have to be a Christian extremist to vote for George Bush.

...but it helps.

Now I really would rather not go into this partisanship thing. It hasn't been relevant since 2004.
That's why people outside the US are always a little bemused when folks pull out Kerry's horse-faced corpse even two years later, for something to beat.

You know, you've got a perfectly good, awful current administration right there to criticise, but no, let's make fun of kerry some more.
I guess it's somehow a comforting fantasy to imagine an apocalypse started by a democrat. A "in my imagination, democrats cause more harm that george bush" sort of fantasy.

That's cool, you gotta polish this turd somehow. Turn turds into turdonade and whatnot. I'm just saying maybe get some new material.

 

[nutcrackr]

I'm an atheist but I don't think his points or arguments are very effective or logical.

 

[Geogaddi]

I'm an atheist but I don't think his points or arguments are very effective or logical.

I assume you mean the guy from the youtube video?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Bascically, you're assuming that just because they held certain beliefs, they lacked the ability to be insightful. [...] Also, you're simply assuming the quote has a religious undertone. [...] I suppose you could say I posted it in a pro-religious manner (more of an agnostic view, but okay) just simply meant that cold, human, fallible, logic isn't always the answer. Agnosticism was the motivator for that quote, for me.

Oh, thanks for telling me what I assume! I didn't know I thought that.

That's either a religious quote or a stupid quote. Possibly religious and stupid.
The message is that you can't be wrong as long as you believe in yourself and never give up. Of course, that's bullshit.

Stalin believed in himself. Kim Jong keeps reaching for that rainbow with every new taipodong (sic) missle.
Osama bin Laden sure as hell keeps "hanging in there".

That kitten is a terrorist.

Also, those definitions of atheism that call it a belief are either inaccurate or outdated. One of them is from 1911!
Someone who belives there is no god is an atheist, but not all atheists beleive there is no god.
Agnosticsim is a branch of atheism. Atheism is chracterised by a lack of belief, and can occasionally verge into total disbelief.

The probability of there being a relevant god is so horrifically low, you'd have to be retarded to gamble millions of lives and manhours on it.
That's why I am a "strong" atheist, of the traditional sort. Theism is more stupid, scientifically speaking, than planning to win one thousand lottery tickets simultaneously. Or, more specifically, planning to pay for you children's college fund with the winnings.

And yes, the egyptian slave thing was hyperbole. Instead, they just got the populace to enter what was apparently mandatory service spending decades building worthless monuments to the gods.

It doesn't have the same ring, but that's what you bastards get. :O

 

[Max35]

*sigh* why do I even enter these debates. Probably the lack of anything better to do.

Anyway, as far as arguing that quote, yes, I suppose you're right. Although *sometimes* I believe going with your conviction is better than simple reasoning. Detective work, for instance, is the only example I can think of at the moment. Also, human conviction and reason are both flawed, I'm a prime example

About my Atheism definitions being outdated, or inaccurate. Besides the one from 1911, how are they inaccurate? Care to scrounge up some proof for that? Generally, definitions can vary from dictionary to dictionary. I'm not seeing how they are inaccurate. Although, I will say that the definition you cited is much more commonly presented then mine.

Thing is with egyptian slavery, is that they treated them the most humanely out of all the ancient cultures. They could own and admininstrate temple properties, marry, etc. And they had no concept of slavery until an Asiatic invader presented the idea to them. Not saying this justifies slavery, but they (egyptians) were the most evolved out of the ancient cultures.

The monuments, if nothing else, were a powerful stimulus to the economy, and provided farmers work during the offseason. While there were undoubtably other ways to do this, it was nonetheless effective.

One more thing, was this geared towards me

You know, I read the bible to make sure I had no misconceptions.
Right now, it's like you're calling all christians catholics.
It's a dumb thing to do, especially when you're bragging about how not-ignorant you are.

I don't remember saying that, but it was probably geared towards someone else, just wanted to make sure (it was in the same post as your quoting of my post and someone else's).

 

[NeptuneUK]

FFS Athiesm is the lack of belief in a God. Stop debating it. Nit picking at wordings doesn't make your God any more real.

 

[repiV]

I really can't be bothered to answer your extremely long post, so instead I shall link to this article: The Truth about Muhammad

It seems to me you spend far too much time reading books and sitting in a darkened room thinking about abstract notions than actually understanding what's going on around you.

You can talk all you want about how Christianity is just like Islam, it doesn't make it the truth. The state of the world makes this quite self-evident. Reading your post is like reading a conspiracy theory put together by an intelligent person who has nevertheless lost the plot.

By the way, there are plenty of arguments against abortion that have nothing to do with religion. Understandably enough, some people have a problem with women having the right to kill their unborn babies without requiring any justification at all.

Our entire culture is shaped by Christianity and the Christian outlook, whether you like it or not. You consider the historical religion of a nation to be a separate entity from the culture and economy, but all are very much interlinked. Just as religion is an ever-changing entity, defined by its followers, not a static one defined by its scriptures.

We no, it doesn't. Islam might be more successful at taking over governments overtly, but the underlying philosophies are the same.
What you're basically saying is that an attempted murderer is superior to a convicted murderer, but when we're talking about ideology, they aren't really different.
The motives are the same, one just didn't get caught.
Remember, christianity got a head start on the whole theocracy thing with the middle-ages. They were a theocracy until the humanism of the renaissance proved so wildly popular that christianity as a whole latched onto the trend. If it hadn't it would have died out.
Science crippled christianity at that point, and it hasn't yet fully recovered - despite constant attempts to.


That virulence is not a sound argument; that's irrelevant to the discussion, as mohammed is long dead. We are talking about the contemporary religion. I don't even know where you're getting that from, but as long as it doesn't say "thou shalt rape and steal and whatever" in the Qua'ran, I don't see the relevance even if that is true. I'm fairly sure those activities are punished harshly in contemporary islamic theocracies, so what's the point?

Anywho, minimum marriage age for girls in christ's time was something like twelve or thirteen. That's a historical condition of the time, not a black eye on christianity.
What is a black eye against christianity is that absolutely nowhere in the bible does it say that pedophilia is bad.
See the difference? One is relevant to the modern incarnation of the religion and one is not.

Speaking about the relevant origins of the religion, which cool Jesus are we talking about, the one who said that following the old testament was mandatory for eternity (Matt. 17-19), or the peaceful hippie that Paul spun him into?

It's relevant that the meaning of the bible was extensively edited by Paul, but I'm not going to try and character-assassinate jesus as a means of decrying all christians.


They very damn well are harmful. Preventing condom use, abortion and stem cell research are deeply irresponsible activities. There is no non-religious reason against any of those procedures.
Fear of "hell" fuels those campaigns and cause psychological harm to, say, christian homosexuals by keeping them in the closet or under some other repression. That's psychological harm according to psychiatrists worldwide.
It's really child abuse to tell your children that the supernatural is real in the same way it would be child abuse to teach your kids that the earth is square.


Actually, it's because the united states is kept from becoming too much a theocracy because of its adherence to the secular (one could say atheistic) live-and-let-live philosophy of the declaration of independance and consititution that has created an extremely secular framework for the government.
Like I said in my last post, I'd (generously, I feel) estimate that 70% of christians are secular first and and christians second. They're like Murray, too lazy to save souls.
One could argue that they don't truly believe anymore, or at least not enough to take immediate action against secularism - because they are secular.


Anecdotes are fun and all, but your personal experiences do not an argument make. My best friend back when I lived in another province seemed like an okay dude. I even went to his regular church club or whatever it was called, despite not believing in it. He was cool until he started going on about how dinosaurs weren't real.
That story doesn't support this argument at all, although it is sad.

I haven't met an al Quaeda operative, but I know they are real thnks to facts.
I've never met Fred Phelps, but I know that he exists.
Phelps might have few supporters, but he is certainly not the only anti-gay christian in america. In recent elections, gay marriage was shot down in most states with an around 60% majority.
Survey says most of americans are christian and most among them are homophobic. That's why I'm being generous in etimating that only half of that majority are homophobic as a direct result of their faith. They don't wave placards, but then if they did, you wouldn't be able to say you can't see them.


The US is scientific leader because of science, and because it is secular be design. That does not mean, however, that the system actually is fully secular. Over two billion dollars are being spent on faith-based initiatives by the current administration.
That money goes pretty much directly to christian organizations, but there is basically no regulation. No one is keeping track on how that money is actually being spent. There is no concern for the results.
That's just one of the bigger, sadder examples.


Let's try this again, with fixes:

"Christianity contributes ****ing nothing to this world at all. The entire Religion could go up in flames tomorrow and the only thing the rest of the world would miss is the Billions of Dead.
Scientists or historically Industrial nations, on the other hand, lead the world in every field.
The evidence for Scientists being just as unreasonable or backwards as Christians is just not there at all."

See, that makes more sense. Scientists cause science and industrialization causes industrialization. The fact that christians are clustered in areas with a history of industrialization stems beasically from the fact that those countries had a renaissance that actively contradicted christianity's theocratic ambitions.

Also, your foamy rant conveniently ignores the whole "billions of dead" angle.


I'm sorry that I'm not saying stupid things to weaken my argument for you.

We are supposed to be talking about religion, but you are talking about material worth. Christian nations are more industrial, but industrialization is the enemy of christianity. Christ chased money lenders out of the temple, not into it. He actively despised material value, telling people to give away all their belongings so that they might live in faith.

It's easier for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, he said.
the entire purpose of him coming down to earth in the first place was to prevent secularization. the constant theme of his teachings is that you can't just live good; faith must enter all aspects of your life.
The material world was a distraction from faith.

So, science is the enemy of faith. Science tends to disprove mythology.
Thanks to science, christianity is weakened, but the actual religion, the thing we are talking about, is not any more intelligent than islam.
America is ahead because christianity is behind. Science, humanism and secularism are winning.
Islam is winning because secularism is behind in their domain.
But the religions remain equally dumb.


Obviously you deal in realities and not hypotheticals when your entire argument is about industrialization and basically ignores christianity itself.

Christianity does not have a theocracy, but christianity is a theocratic religion. See the difference there?


Small number of extremists in power + general complacency in their power base = not good.


...but it helps.

Now I really would rather not go into this partisanship thing. It hasn't been relevant since 2004.
That's why people outside the US are always a little bemused when folks pull out Kerry's horse-faced corpse even two years later, for something to beat.

You know, you've got a perfectly good, awful current administration right there to criticise, but no, let's make fun of kerry some more.
I guess it's somehow a comforting fantasy to imagine an apocalypse started by a democrat. A "in my imagination, democrats cause more harm that george bush" sort of fantasy.

That's cool, you gotta polish this turd somehow. Turn turds into turdonade and whatnot. I'm just saying maybe get some new material.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I really can't be bothered to answer your extremely long post, so instead I shall link to this article: The Truth about Muhammad

It seems to me you spend far too much time reading books and sitting in a darkened room thinking about abstract notions than actually understanding what's going on around you.

You can talk all you want about how Christianity is just like Islam, it doesn't make it the truth. The state of the world makes this quite self-evident. Reading your post is like reading a conspiracy theory put together by an intelligent person who has nevertheless lost the plot.

By the way, there are plenty of arguments against abortion that have nothing to do with religion. Understandably enough, some people have a problem with women having the right to kill their unborn babies without requiring any justification at all.

Our entire culture is shaped by Christianity and the Christian outlook, whether you like it or not. You consider the historical religion of a nation to be a separate entity from the culture and economy, but all are very much interlinked. Just as religion is an ever-changing entity, defined by its followers, not a static one defined by its scriptures.

Wow, lots of ad-hominems there. I guess the more you insult me, the more right you are?

I'm very sorry that I am focussing on a qualitative analysis of the actual content of the religion's current doctrine.
I'm also sorry that I don't see your unsupported link between love of Jesus and innovation in Science & Industry.
Here is a "self-evident" chart just like your argument:

Do you see what I've been getting at here?
:imu: :imu: CORRELATION AND CAUSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. :imu: :imu:

The rise of humanism, skepticism and their combination to form modern empirical science during and proceeding the european renaissance is not a "conspiracy theory". It's basic history.

People change, but the bible does not. It hasn't been re-written for at least four centuries now, barring the slight variations between translations and the additions of minor sects.
So if the religion changes to the whim of the people, what stops it from being nothing more than politics' retarded little brother?
Shouldn't christianity be based on, y'know, christ - and not a vote?
I'm sorry that you don't actually believe in christ's teachings enough to listen when he says flat-out that they're mandatory, but not all christians think his word is that frivolous.

Also, this is not an abortion thread, but I must point out the relevant fact that it is a religious belief that abortion kills "babies."
Until some modicum of consciousness or even sensation is physically possible (about halfway through gestation), there is no truly relevant difference between a fetus and the millions of sperm you ejaculate to their doom on a regular basis. Murderer...?

Now, I'm sure you'll protest that, so that's why I'll ask you in advance to prove the difference, and to prove that christianity is the direct or indirect cause of scientific and industrial progress for that matter.
Or at least provide a strong argument.

You can't just make highly controversial claims and then call them self-evident. That's silly.

 

[repiV]

Wow, lots of ad-hominems there. I guess the more you insult me, the more right you are?

I'm very sorry that I am focussing on a qualitative analysis of the actual content of the religion's current doctrine.
I'm also sorry that I don't see your unsupported link between love of Jesus and innovation in Science & Industry.
Here is a "self-evident" chart just like your argument:

What the bible actually says is only relevant insofar as it affects the behaviour of followers today. The ONLY relevant factors are the ones that actually influence the world around us. How can you possibly come to any kind of reasonable conclusion about modern Christianity by doing nothing other than analysing a 2000 year old book? Material without context is totally meaningless.
While you may be somewhat correct about the literal teachings of the bible, they are not the issue at all.

Do you see what I've been getting at here?
:imu: :imu: CORRELATION AND CAUSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. :imu: :imu:

The rise of humanism, skepticism and their combination to form modern empirical science during and proceeding the european renaissance is not a "conspiracy theory". It's basic history.

This modern empirical science existed alongside Christianity, and continues to. There are scientists who are Christians, and indeed the founding fathers of the USA, created as a strictly secular nation, were Christian too. If they wanted a theocracy, they would have created one. Why don't you ask the many Christians on this forum if they would prefer to live in a Christian theocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy, and see what responses you get?

People change, but the bible does not. It hasn't been re-written for at least four centuries now, barring the slight variations between translations and the additions of minor sects. And if the religon changes to the whim of the people, then what stops it from being politic's retarded little brother?
Shouldn't christianity be based on christ, and not a vote?
I'm sorry that you don't actually believe in christ's teachings enough to listen when he says flat-out that they're mandatory, but not all christians think his word was that frivolous.

That's exactly the point. Religion does change to the whim of the people, and as it stands, Christianity has evolved to the point where it is, in most countries, very much a personal thing that does not conflict with the greater society at all.
Your concerns are only really relevant to the USA - the south, at that.

Also, this is not an abortion thread, but I must point out the relevant fact that it is a religious belief that abortion kills "babies."
Until some modicum of consciousness or even sensation is physically possible (about halfway through gestation), there is no truly relevant difference between a fetus and the millions of sperm you ejaculate to their doom on a regular basis. Murderer...?

I was playing devil's advocate. Neither you nor I can possibly know the ultimate result of having an abortion, since neither you nor I, nor anyone else on this planet understands the process of life and death and how it relates to consciousness. So don't make such arrogant assumptions.
Personally, I believe that abortion is wrong but that also doesn't give me , or the government for that matter, the right to make a woman's decision for her. But I shouldn't have to pay the bill for it.
Why can't they just have the damn baby and give it up for adoption?
The point is that you are making an enormous, and incorrect, assumption by claiming that opposition to abortion is a purely religious issue.

Now, I'm sure you'll protest that, so that's why I'll ask you in advance to prove the difference, and to prove that christianity is the direct cause of scientific and industrial progress for that matter.
Or at least provide a strong argument.

I didn't say Christianity is the "direct cause". I said nothing of the sort. We don't have Christianity to thank for progress, but we don't have it to blame for keeping us down as a primitive society either.
Nonetheless, you cannot separate Christianity from Western culture. I'm not nearly well versed enough to be able to state the extent of that tie, and neither are you - but rest assured, it's there.
Christianity is more than the bible, it's a sum of the communities and movements and beliefs that have gone along with it - and they are extremely wide ranging and diverse. You can't simply put all Christians in the same category, nor can you say that Christianity is as strong a retrograde force as Islam.
One's faith influences their views on everything in life, and so Western culture is largely the result of the Christian mindset, which has evolved considerably over the centuries. Unlike the Islamic mindset.

You can't just make highly controversial claims and then call them self-evident. That's silly.

What highly controversial claim? That Christianity is superior to Islam?
Hardly "highly controversial".

 

[Solaris]

Hardly "highly controversial".

Au Contriar.

 

[repiV]

Au Contriar.

You're really not very well placed to be judging controversy.

 

[Max35]

FFS Athiesm is the lack of belief in a God. Stop debating it. Nit picking at wordings doesn't make your God any more real.

When did I say I believed in God?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What the bible actually says is only relevant insofar as it affects the behaviour of followers today. The ONLY relevant factors are the ones that actually influence the world around us. How can you possibly come to any kind of reasonable conclusion about modern Christianity by doing nothing other than analysing a 2000 year old book? Material without context is totally meaningless.
While you may be somewhat correct about the literal teachings of the bible, they are not the issue at all.

No, you've got what I am doing all backwards.
I read the bible and then I use that as the context to explain world events.
I am not ignoring world events(!); I am only ignoring the ones that have no visible link to religion, because correlation is not cause.

Banning gay marriage is directly inspired by the bible, in spite of secularism.
Modern science is directly inspired by secularism, in spite of the bible.

Both are modern events, but only one can be legitimately attributed to religious thinking.

This modern empirical science existed alongside Christianity, and continues to. There are scientists who are Christians, and indeed the founding fathers of the USA, created as a strictly secular nation, were Christian too.

Incorrect:
They ranged from athiests to deists. I haven't heard of any being christians (although I honestly haven't cared to research it) but if any were, they were all strict secularists.

Secularism and christianity are antithetical, because secularism is nothing more than institutional atheism.
This does not mean that christians cannot be secular. It means that the founding fathers drew a sharp line between progress and religion. Religion happens on the weekend, they basically said. Secularism is where the work happens.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
[James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785.]


"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
[John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.]


"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
[Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.]


"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
[Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728.]

If a scientists said that Jesus caused his test results, he'd probably be fired. Science is secular, regardless of the scientist's religion.

If they wanted a theocracy, they would have created one. Why don't you ask the many Christians on this forum if they would prefer to live in a Christian theocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy, and see what responses you get?

That's a straw man argument. I never claimed the founding fathers wanted a theocracy. In fact, I claimed the exact opposite.

I already told you that (most) christians don't want to have a theocracy because thanks to the humanistic renaissance and the resulting vast increases in quality of life, they enjoy an intensely positive secular lifestyle in the secular united states.

Christianity still exists in the united states, and attempts to corrupt its secularism (with stem-cell research bans and so on), but it is not secularism. Secularism and christianity are mutually exclusive. Secularism is the action of caging christianity and containing it so that it can do no harm.

That's exactly the point. Religion does change to the whim of the people, and as it stands, Christianity has evolved to the point where it is, in most countries, very much a personal thing that does not conflict with the greater society at all.
Your concerns are only really relevant to the USA - the south, at that.

Wrong, secularism changes with the will of the people. People have chosen to repress their religion with a secular lifestyle.
The bible hasn't changed, but the amount of people ignoring the bible has, along with the amount of content that they choose to ignore.
Folks like Murray, as an example, consider it sufficient to simply believe in Jesus. That deliberately contradicts well over half of what the bible says.
Why does he do it? Because he'd alienate his frinds and go to jail of he didn't. Plus he says he's lazy. He prefers the material comforts of just chilling out instead of running out in the street with a sword and saving souls.
He's a christian, but secularism has neutralized his faith.

America is probably the least secular country, but you can't legitimately claim that extremists don't exist there and elsewheres.
"Extremism" is what happens when secularism breaks down.
Fred Phelps doesn't care about the huge material costs of traveling from place to place and building signs, and he doesn't care about alienating himself from society and making others unhappy. All he cares about is the bible.
He's immune to secularism. When he first worked as a lawyer, he abused the system to attempt to attack "sinners," and got disbarred (check his wiki entry).
Fred Phelps is the direct result of christianity overtaking secularism, and there are untold millions of people who act in very similar ways.
The secular institution of the kansas public school board broke down and they re-defined science to include ghostbusting.

The secular institution of law bans pot for absolutely no non-religious reason, even in most of "not relevant" europe.

Neither you nor I can possibly know the ultimate result of having an abortion, since neither you nor I, nor anyone else on this planet understands the process of life and death and how it relates to consciousness. So don't make such arrogant assumptions.

I'm not making any such arrogant assumption. It is plain impossible for a first-trimester fetus to be conscious.
It is literally no more an individual than your tonsils.
Does god consider tonsilectomy to be murder? Who knows?
That's a pointless question anyways, because it's not even an issue in the bible. God even flew down at one point and performed a mass-abortion the pregnant wives of his enemies.
If fetuses are innocent humans despite their unconsciousness, god doesn't think so.

Why can't they just have the damn baby and give it up for adoption?
The point is that you are making an enormous, and incorrect, assumption by claiming that opposition to abortion is a purely religious issue.

Right, so let's have mandatory pregancy for the purposes of giving the resulting children to the government. No problems there, except that it's institutionalized sex-slavery.

Being anti-abortion is just like that egyptian quote. Either it's religious or it's stupid, but most likely it's both.

Nonetheless, you cannot separate Christianity from Western culture. I'm not nearly well versed enough to be able to state the extent of that tie, and neither are you - but rest assured, it's there.

Speak for yourself, because I've done so repeatedly.
You might have no argument, but that's no fault of mine.
And no, I won't rest assured that your self-admittedly unfounded opinion is valid.

"I'm not nearly well versed enough to be able to state the extent of the reptillian invasion, and neither are you - but rest assured, it's there."

Christianity is more than the bible, it's a sum of the communities and movements and beliefs that have gone along with it - and they are extremely wide ranging and diverse. You can't simply put all Christians in the same category, nor can you say that Christianity is as strong a retrograde force as Islam.
One's faith influences their views on everything in life, and so Western culture is largely the result of the Christian mindset, which has evolved considerably over the centuries. Unlike the Islamic mindset.

First off, you are confusing the religion Christianity with its followers, the Christians. Christianity is an ideology, recorded in the bible. Christians are humans who either succeed or fail at following that ideology.
The fact that most, if not all, christians fail at following that ideology (because they prefer secularism) has no effect on the ideology itself.

I'm not going to claim that stalinism is good because there aren't any more people practicing stalinism.
That's duplicitous.

What highly controversial claim? That Christianity is superior to Islam?
Hardly "highly controversial".

No, the highly controversial thing is your still-unfounded claim that christianity is (in)directly responsible for scientific progress.

Still, you have presented absolutely no evidence that christianity the religion is superior to islam the religion.
All you've unintentionally proven is that secularism is better than both.

I refuse to just take your word for it unless you provide some logical basis for your argument.

 

[Max35]

Okay, I put my money back on Mecha now.

 

[Steel.Inferno]

/popcorn.

I've watched a few of his vids, and while he makes good points, he also turns to plain insults far too often. Yes his "opponents" do as well, and this is the internets, but childish insulting has no place in true debate.

 

[repiV]

No, you've got what I am doing all backwards.
I read the bible and then I use that as the context to explain world events.
I am not ignoring world events(!); I am only ignoring the ones that have no visible link to religion, because correlation is not cause.

Banning gay marriage is directly inspired by the bible, in spite of secularism.
Modern science is directly inspired by secularism, in spite of the bible.

Both are modern events, but only one can be legitimately attributed to religious thinking.


Incorrect:
They ranged from athiests to deists. I haven't heard of any being christians (although I honestly haven't cared to research it) but if any were, they were all strict secularists.

Secularism and christianity are antithetical, because secularism is nothing more than institutional atheism.
This does not mean that christians cannot be secular. It means that the founding fathers drew a sharp line between progress and religion. Religion happens on the weekend, they basically said. Secularism is where the work happens.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
[James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785.]


"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
[John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.]


"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
[Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.]


"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
[Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728.]

If a scientists said that Jesus caused his test results, he'd probably be fired. Science is secular, regardless of the scientist's religion.



That's a straw man argument. I never claimed the founding fathers wanted a theocracy. In fact, I claimed the exact opposite.

I already told you that (most) christians don't want to have a theocracy because thanks to the humanistic renaissance and the resulting vast increases in quality of life, they enjoy an intensely positive secular lifestyle in the secular united states.

Christianity still exists in the united states, and attempts to corrupt its secularism (with stem-cell research bans and so on), but it is not secularism. Secularism and christianity are mutually exclusive. Secularism is the action of caging christianity and containing it so that it can do no harm.



Wrong, secularism changes with the will of the people. People have chosen to repress their religion with a secular lifestyle.
The bible hasn't changed, but the amount of people ignoring the bible has, along with the amount of content that they choose to ignore.
Folks like Murray, as an example, consider it sufficient to simply believe in Jesus. That deliberately contradicts well over half of what the bible says.
Why does he do it? Because he'd alienate his frinds and go to jail of he didn't. Plus he says he's lazy. He prefers the material comforts of just chilling out instead of running out in the street with a sword and saving souls.
He's a christian, but secularism has neutralized his faith.

America is probably the least secular country, but you can't legitimately claim that extremists don't exist there and elsewheres.
"Extremism" is what happens when secularism breaks down.
Fred Phelps doesn't care about the huge material costs of traveling from place to place and building signs, and he doesn't care about alienating himself from society and making others unhappy. All he cares about is the bible.
He's immune to secularism. When he first worked as a lawyer, he abused the system to attempt to attack "sinners," and got disbarred (check his wiki entry).
Fred Phelps is the direct result of christianity overtaking secularism, and there are untold millions of people who act in very similar ways.
The secular institution of the kansas public school board broke down and they re-defined science to include ghostbusting.

The secular institution of law bans pot for absolutely no non-religious reason, even in most of "not relevant" europe.


I'm not making any such arrogant assumption. It is plain impossible for a first-trimester fetus to be conscious.
It is literally no more an individual than your tonsils.
Does god consider tonsilectomy to be murder? Who knows?
That's a pointless question anyways, because it's not even an issue in the bible. God even flew down at one point and performed a mass-abortion the pregnant wives of his enemies.
If fetuses are innocent humans despite their unconsciousness, god doesn't think so.


Right, so let's have mandatory pregancy for the purposes of giving the resulting children to the government. No problems there, except that it's institutionalized sex-slavery.

Being anti-abortion is just like that egyptian quote. Either it's religious or it's stupid, but most likely it's both.


Speak for yourself, because I've done so repeatedly.
You might have no argument, but that's no fault of mine.
And no, I won't rest assured that your self-admittedly unfounded opinion is valid.

"I'm not nearly well versed enough to be able to state the extent of the reptillian invasion, and neither are you - but rest assured, it's there."



First off, you are confusing the religion Christianity with its followers, the Christians. Christianity is an ideology, recorded in the bible. Christians are humans who either succeed or fail at following that ideology.
The fact that most, if not all, christians fail at following that ideology (because they prefer secularism) has no effect on the ideology itself.

I'm not going to claim that stalinism is good because there aren't any more people practicing stalinism.
That's duplicitous.



No, the highly controversial thing is your still-unfounded claim that christianity is (in)directly responsible for scientific progress.

Still, you have presented absolutely no evidence that christianity the religion is superior to islam the religion.
All you've unintentionally proven is that secularism is better than both.

I refuse to just take your word for it unless you provide some logical basis for your argument.

OK, I'm not going to go through every single point you make because we're basically arguing over definitions. I think this is a pointless argument - the only reason we disagree is because our definitions of Christianity and religion are different.
All I am concerned with is the current state of affairs, and of course the likely future. To me, the actual words contained in the bible, or the qu'ran for that matter, are by themselves irrelevant - what matters is the popular movement of Christianity, or Islam.
For comparison, would you base your opinion of the USA based on the constitution and the declaration of independence? By its original ideology, the USA is surely the most noble and righteous nation in history. In fact, I think that's what drives American arrogance in world affairs - they believe their righteousness gives them the right to impose their way upon others. But I digress.
Unfortunately, reality has interfered with the ideals set out in those documents and the vision as forseen by the founding fathers.
The same applies to religious texts. The ideologies evolve with the people who carry them from generation to generation, they don't remain as originally proscribed.
I completely despise Islam, but I think Turkey is a pretty cool country - their version of Islam is very different to Saudi Arabia's version of Islam, or Iran's version of Islam. It's little different to Christianity in the UK. I would welcome them into the EU.
Of course, you surely realise that there are many different denominations of Christianity and most of them don't interpret the bible literally. So are you just going to say they're not actually Christians, because you decide how people should interpret the bible?
So long as we are arguing different points and calling them the same thing, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

Although, to address a couple of your points. I didn't say there were no Christian extremists, I said they are very few, largely ignored and irrelevant. They had their chance to seize power with George Bush at the helm, but they will only become increasingly irrelevant.
Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are much greater in number and are heroes, martyrs and leaders to many - even within our own borders. Big difference.
We don't even know what consciousness is or why it happens. It's entirely plausible that the brain is a receptor for consciousness, not a producer of it - as the substantial evidence for out of body experiences would support. This also makes it entirely possible that consciousness continues after we die, or equally that each consciousness is marked for a particular body at conception. The simple fact is that we do not understand consciousness even slightly, and you're just making assumptions. No doubt we will soon find out, when we are able to create living things from DNA.
Furthermore, by having an abortion, you are in one way or another depriving someone of a life they would otherwise have had. And I'm sure they'd rather be adopted than never live. Abortion is a completely selfish act, and the no-questions-asked and taxpayer-funded approach to dealing with it is just a free ticket for people to be irresponsible ****wits. Anyone with a conscience would at least have the baby and then give it up for adoption. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.
Believe it or not, it's quite possible to be a Christian and a secularist at the same time. Unless something changed and I wasn't aware of it, virtually all Christians in the UK at least are secularists.
While you are correct that the current motivation for banning gay marriage stems from religion, again, there are perfectly rational arguments for disallowing it. They are not arguments I agree with, but again, you can't just write off the issue by saying it's nothing more than religious nuts interfering.
The institution of marriage in modern society exists in order to create a stable environment for bringing up children. Homosexuals don't produce any children, essentially they are a genetic dead end - so why should they receive the rewards of marriage such as tax breaks, which are designed not for partners but for families - without giving anything back?
Again, that's not an argument I particularly agree with, but it's a perfectly rational one.
I never said Christianity was responsible for scientific progress, I said that Christian nations are. At any rate, the Christians and the institutions they have in this world ARE Christianity. Just like liberals today are very different to the liberals of the 1900s.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So basically you've put forwards the shocking point that Islamic Terrorism Isn't Good.
...?


I do base my view of the US on the founding documents. That is how, by virtue of comparison, I can tell that christianity is hurting america by supporting and causing distinctively unconstitutional actions (pot ban, gay marriage ban) and thus detracting from that ideal.

How exactly does "reality" interfere with the basic idea that all people are allowed life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, so long as they do not conflict with the rights of others?
Reality is the acknowledgement of that last point: that things inevitably interfere with freedom, and it is thus the duty of society to minimize these factors to the greatest possible degree.

I don't decide how people read the bible. The bible does.
If you read the bible, it contains explicit directions on how to follow the commands of the bible. Nothing in the bible is left to interpretation, because interpretations are not concrete. Anyone interpreting wrong goes to hell, thus interpretation is to be avoided.

They spend a whole chapter describing how, precisely, to slaughter animals as blood offerings to god. It describes precisely what clothes you must wear, what parts of the kill you are allowed to eat and which not to, and then what to do if you eat the wrong part. Absolutely nothing was left to chance.
But you don't see many animal sacrifices happening today, do you? I wonder why?

The concept of biblical interpretation rose alongside the concept of empirical science. It is an extremely recent concept, as far as the majority of christians are concerned, catching on only a few centuries ago.
Before the printing press and the eventual production of inexpensive books, society was acheiropoietical, which is to say that the concept of interpretation (as we use it today) did not actually exist yet.
The higher powers of the bible and the church authority were seen as infallible, and life was judged around those absolutes. Hence the geocentric universe: if a new planet was discovered, they decided that it was a "heavenly sphere", literally a sphere caught in the thin "firmament" between heaven and earth. Because god obstensibly built earth and the firmament, as described in the bible, this was the only possible explanation.

To put it in perspective, all of europe was creationist in exactly the same way as those dudes who say the world is 6000 years old and dinosaurs co-existed with man. Everyone was a biblical literalist.

Science, when it began to rise with the renaissance, is the opposite of acheiropoieticism. It says facts are absolute, not conclusions. Rather suddenly, the bible wasn't infallible anymore. That firmament stuff was suddenly stupid.
So, how do christians cope? Why, by saying it's all a metaphor!
The firmament is just a metaphor for outer space, see?
The bible can't be wrong if it's a metaphorical book not designed to be taken literally, even though that's exactly how it was used for around two millenia.
The concept of biblical interpretation is a distinctively humanistic idea, caused by the rise of secularism.
It is the direct result of people putting secular science ahead of their religion, and in spite of it.

Everything positive you have to say about christianity is the result of it being corrupted by the encroachement of secularism.
There is no two ways around that.


"Substantial evidence of out-of-body experiences"? Are you joking? Or, more specifically, are you the Clarky?
Yeah, I'm sure that our brains are just robotic suits for body thetans in another dimension. That's a good a reason as any to ban abortion, I suppose.
How stupid I was to so arrogantly assume that consciousness requires a functional nervous system!

And, uh, I said it's possible to be christian and a secularist at the same time. You should read the words again.

Furthermore, I had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA that it's impossible for a gay couple to adopt a child.
Wait, weren't you just pimping the great benefits of adoption for the last page or so?

Genetic dead end indeed.

As for your last point about scientific progress:
Japan and Communist China.
Think about it.

Liberals are always adjusting their game plan to improve it. No-one changes the bible.

 

[Qonfused]

Jesus Christ.

 

[Que-Ever]

Jesus Christ

loves me!

I think he's pretty cool.

 

[Qonfused]

Who doesn't love a man in a beard?

 

[Que-Ever]

I'd go with Charles Manson, but I'd be thinking of JNightshade's ex.

 

[WhiteZero]

GUy cant hold an "argument' without insulting the other party?
He looses just based on that..
and thats comming from an agnostic.