The Amazing Atheist - YouTube debater about religion and other stuff

[repiV]

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

No, that's quite obviously not the point I put forward. Also, Islam poses far more grave threats than mere terrorism.

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.

Yes, Christianity is hurting America. But not to anywhere near the extent that Islam is hurting the world.
What do drugs bans have to do with religion? Absolutely nothing. Cannabis is semi-illegal here, under a strictly secular government. On the basis that it's dangerous.

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.

It is Christians that define Christianity, not the bible. If the majority of Christians believe in a non-literal interpretation of the bible, as simply a guide for how to lead a good life, then that's what Christianity is. Your points are entirely technical and utterly irrelevant.

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?

Because it's irrelevant to modern times. But 2000 years ago, it was relevant. Maybe you should look at Christianity in China, which is distinctly different in that it has a Chinese slant. Like I said, religion is defined by the followers.

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.

Yes, fine - but so what? This "corrupted Christianity" is now the norm, and the vast majority of Christians are happy with their "corrupted" version as opposed to the literal version. So what's the issue?

"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!

Yes, you were. Now you're being just as dogmatic and ignorant in your thinking as religious people. There is absolutely no way for us to know what happens after death, and no way for us to understand the true nature of consciousness. Of course, it makes sense for us to assume there is no afterlife, because we lack the perspective to comprehend such a possibility. We are ignorant. Saying "there is no afterlife and that is a fact" is, well, idiotic. It's an assumption, nothing more.
Incidentally, my mum had a spiritual healer round a couple of days ago to work on her malignant brain tumour (when you have a terminal illness, you try everything). Cynical as I was, and still am, it's really helped out. She said her head felt all warm and she could feel it moving around inside, and now when she feels the pressure from the thing it's in different places in the head. She doesn't have constant headaches anymore, and her symptoms are a lot better than they were. She's not mixing her words up anywhere near as much, and she's not tired all the time.
I don't understand WTF is going on, but whatever he did had an effect. There is simply no denying this fact, and there is no other explanation.

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

Yet everything you say indicates otherwise. All Christians are plotting to create a theocracy, or so it would seem from listening to you.

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.

There's a reason that properly functional families have a mother and a father.

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

Modern Japan and China are as they are due to Western influence.

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

The bible does not define Christianity, so your comparison is incorrect. Christians change their "game plan" too.

 

[Absinthe]

The bible does not define Christianity, so your comparison is incorrect. Christians change their "game plan" too.

But the Bible should be what defines Christianity. And the problem with deviating from the Bible's laws and doctrines is that they are no longer Christian. Christians cannot change their game plan, otherwise they are no longer Christian.

If a racist begins accepting blacks and other minorities, he's not a racist changing his game plan. He's no longer racist. If a communist starts following capitalist ideas, he's not a communist changing his game plan. He's no longer a communist. You'll have to excuse my repetition/redundancy, but I'm cementing the point that liberal, interpretive Christianity is an oxymoron that only undermines the very faith it professes to believe in.

The word of God is clear and infallible, and when you start cherry-picking it or viewing it as a metaphor, you no longer subscribe to God's law.

 

[repiV]

And the problem with that is that by deviating from the Bible's laws and doctrines, they are no longer Christian. Christians cannot change their game plan, otherwise they are no longer Christian.

If a racist begins accepting blacks and other minorities, he's not a racist changing his game plan. He's no longer racist. If a communist starts following capitalist ideas, he's not a communist changing his game plan. He's no longer a communist. You'll have to excuse my repetition/redundancy, but I'm cementing the point that liberal, interpretive Christianity is an oxymoron that only undermines the very faith it professes to believe in.

The word of God is clear and infallible, and when you start cherry-picking it or viewing it as a metaphor, you no longer subscribe to God's law.

What gives you the right to define Christianity? Most Christians take the piss out of people who think the universe was created 6000 years ago. In any case, you are completely ignoring the fact that there are many different denominations of Christianity and most do not subscribe to the literal interpretation. Are you saying the churches are not really Christian? That's a rather pedantic and ultimately aimless argument.

 

[Absinthe]

I don't have the right to define Christianity, but God does. And it's been stated explicitly.

If you don't subscribe to the Bible and the word of Christ literally (there's no rationale supporting metaphorical interpretation), then you are not a true follower and you will go to Hell. Real Christians don't burn in Hell, so if one day you find yourself being tormented by eternal flames in the underworld, what do you think you are?

You may call it pedantic and aimless. I think it highlights the kind of ridiculous doublethink and retardation of religion today in Western civilization. A majority of so-called Christians that want to claim worship in God are, at the same time, being deviant hypocrites because secularism has battered out much of the bullshit fundamentalism. At least the suicide bombers in the Middle East understand full well that Allah likes fireworks.

 

[repiV]

I don't have the right to define Christianity, but God does. And it's been stated explicitly.

If you don't subscribe to the Bible and the word of Christ literally (there's no rationale supporting metaphorical interpretation), then you are not a true follower and you will go to Hell. Real Christians don't burn in Hell, so if one day you find yourself being tormented by eternal flames in the underworld, what do you think you are?

You may call it pedantic and aimless. I think it highlights the kind of ridiculous doublethink and retardation of religion today in Western civilization. A majority of so-called Christians that want to claim worship in God are, at the same time, being deviant hypocrites because secularism has battered out much of the bullshit fundamentalism. At least the suicide bombers in the Middle East understand full well that Allah likes fireworks.

God only defines Christianity if you accept the premise that the bible really is God's word. Otherwise, Christianity is a human creation, passed down by humans. Like all human creations, it has the capacity to be changed and altered over time.

 

[delusional]

If you don't subscribe to the Bible and the word of Christ literally (there's no rationale supporting metaphorical interpretation), then you are not a true follower and you will go to Hell. Christians don't burn in Hell, so if one day you find yourself being tormented by eternal flames in the underworld, what do you think you are?

From what I read of the bible, the concept of Heaven and Hell didnt arise until the Book of Daniel and before that everyone went to hell ( its called Sheol). But it wasnt meant for torture, you just went there with everyone else and existed at a much lower awareness and that you were seperated from God. The concept of Heaven and Hell came from zoroastrianism, the religion of the babylonians, who enslaved the jews for 70 years or something. After King Cyrus freed the Jews the book of Daniel was written. Of course though christian scholars date the book before the enslavement, but whatever. Oh, and Job 3 has a good description of sheol.