AtPhantom's forum posts

#1 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

The majority of religions claim to be descended directly from a morally superior being, especially religions common in modern times. And no atheism does not leave very many possibilities for war and violence. Most atheists are not militant. But Christians or Muslims? They are (sometimes) the most militant of anyone. In some aspets they have literally declared war on those who stray away from their god and religion.

... You can't seriously believe that? The atheists being less militant, I mean. Like, you do realize that the wast majority of wars fought in history were not religious, right?

Lol man. Here is the definition of religion, courtesy of Google: religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Now belief is basically the trust/acceptance that something is true. And there is no evidence that a God exists. So, we know for a fact that these people hold belief in something without evidence. They think something is completely true without any supporting evidence. Religion is this principle just incorporated with worship.

Science involves the scientific method. The scientific method is essentially systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Guess what? If religion was held up to the light of the scientific method, it would melt away.

Again, religion involves belief in a god. Belief in a god is unsupported by any evidence. Things unsupported by evidence are unscientific. So, religion is unscientific.

That's great, except it has literally nothing to do with my point. Religion deals with what cannot be scientifically tested. If you apply science to religion, yes, it melts, but you can't do that because the two fields do no intersect in any way. Religion is not a rejection of science and science is not a rejection of religion, and frankly I'm tired of people claiming one or the other like they've stumbled onto some big truth in the world.

For your information those monks might have developed the scientific method, but that does not mean that they applied it to their religion. If they did apply the scientific method to their religion they would no longer be monks. The fact that scientists are deeply religious means nothing. It only proves that those scientists keep their work completely separate from their religion.

Again religious people hold their religion far away from science lol :D. -MB

The point is that those scientists, those men who literally built the modern world, didn't see any problem with their religion while staying true to the scientific principles. What you're criticizing them for isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's supposed to be like that and it doesn't make them any less scientists or any less believers.

@pooty said:

I don't know where you get that from. If you break any law you are worthy of death. Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit. Sodomites were gay. Baal worshipers sacrificed children. ANY sin is deserving of death. That is why Jesus had to die because anything less then perfection was worthy of death.

I didn't say the Bible was cut and dry. I said the laws and punishments are simple. I said the issue of sin is not complex. I was not talking about any other aspect of the Bible. Only sin, punishment and death. Those religions disagree on many things. But all Christian religions agree that if you sin, then you die and you need Jesus to atone for your sins.

I honestly didn't think it was needed to go into detail. Every Christian religion believes the same thing regarding sin and death. That is one thing they can agree on. With a few exceptions the bible is very clear about what is "good" and "bad" and the punishment of doing bad.

That is... amazingly wrong. Literally no Christian actually believes that. It is one of the cornerstones of Christianity and Judaism before it is that we are all sinners. That sin cannot be avoided and that everyone will sin at some point in their lives. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that... They all offer numerous avenues for redemption and salvation. They would be completely theologically bankrupt otherwise. Never in history has it ever been a practice that any violation of a religious law was punishable by death. That just doesn't happen.

@pooty said:

I honestly didn't think it was needed to go into detail. Every Christian religion believes the same thing regarding sin and death. That is one thing they can agree on. With a few exceptions the bible is very clear about what is "good" and "bad" and the punishment of doing bad.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

James 2:10 says: "For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

Proverbs 11:19

Truly the righteous attain life, but whoever pursues evil finds death.

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

So again, i was not speaking about the bible as a whole being clear. But, for the most part, it's laws, punishments, death and forgiveness through Jesus Christ are straight forward. Christians know exactly how they should act. They have no excuse. They can't blame it on "the bible being to complex"

I was not speaking of Bible as a whole either. But if you want to discuss the Book, it's important to know the context and interpretation of what the passage says. For example, Romans 5:12 clearly speaks of the original sin and explains why people die in the first place. It has nothing to do with sinning in general or breaking God's law. Proverbs 11:9 likewise has nothing to do with punishment, but is a simple observation that bad people will come to a bad end. Both of these interpretations are right in the links you've provided, and you can find such on literally every passage in the Bible. It is said that one should not even attempt to read the Bible without either commentary or an actual theologian to provide context and explanation of what you've read, because doing so can lead to terrible misunderstandings, or even worse, creationism.

@pooty said:

Even a year ago i was losing the faith. I was arguing hard to convince myself that Christianity right when I knew it wasn't. All my life I was told the "Good" of the Bible. There are 7 billion people on earth. but less then half believe the Bible. I wanted to know why. I researched it. Now I understand why.

That's cool. My personal opinion is that religion cannot really be forced. Either it makes sense to you, personally, and provides you with comfort and the desire to improve yourself, or it doesn't, in which case f@$k all that noise. :)

#2 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty: Also, weren't you religious a year ago? May I ask what happened to change your mind?

#3 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

The fact that such a "foundation of peace" has been the direct cause of any wars should show you exactly why I defend my position. Religion claims to be descended (mostly) from peaceful, benevolent beings, such as gods. Yet, it's shown to be the cause of violence and hatred, even stretching to modern times. Atheists have always been met with hatred, again, even in modern times. For the most religion has always been dominant and at the position of power.

And when the roles were reversed, the same thing happened all over again. It's almost as if religion is a human construct and as such an expression of the people's thought processes, rather than a foundation for them.

In point of fact, religions do not claim to be descended from "peaceful benevolent beings, such as gods (I seriously have no idea where pulled that sentence out, it's amazingly strange). They leave open possibilities for violence and war under certain circumstances, just like any other ideology)

Yes, belief without evidence which, as you know, is a huge part of religion, is the polar opposite of science, quite undeniably. A religious person practicing the scientific method will almost never look to their religion with such interest in validity. They will apply science to anything but their religion, because they know that, once skepticism is applied, their religion wont make sense. Those Christian "scientists" didn't look at their "god: in the same light that they look at most other things. It's the special treatment fallacy. -MB

Yeah, you completely don't know what you're talking about. Religion is not belief without evidence because religion deals with things for which evidence cannot exist. In other words, the metaphysical. Science and religion are not in conflict because you intrinsically cannot apply science to religion. Anyone who does is doing one or both of those wrong (pay attention creationists, this especially goes for you). There are just as many religious scientists as there are atheist and their religion has no bearing on their scientific studies.

FYI, the scientific method evolved from the scholarship of Catholic monks. Many of the greatest scientists, including Newton and Einstein, the guys who made modern physics, Lavoisier, the father of chemistry, and many other noted scientists that helped shape the modern world were deeply religious.

@pooty said:

If we are talking about the Bible, then I kinda agree with MarvelBoy. The issue of sin is not complex. Most of The rules in the Bible are stated plainly and breaking ANY OF THEM are worthy of death. If I murder 50 kids and you lie on your taxes, according to the Bible we are both worthy of death. James 2:10 says: "For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws." Now if you are saying religion and churches cause confusion then I agree with that. many are called Christian but they have hundreds of denominations because they can't agree on anything. Religion also has it's hands in many attrocities. some directly and indirectly. And I do think religious people are more immoral. Discrimination against women, gays, minorities, extreme nationalistic views and extreme discrimination against unbelievers can all be linked to religious text. Religion influences politics also. If religion never existed you could say that these things would still exist. but i doubt they would exist to the extent they do now.

I don't care nearly enough to discuss the intricacies of Bible law with you now, so I'll just note that that is how laws work. Yes, you break any law and you're guilty of breaking the law, big shocker. That has nothing to do with what I said, that there are just as much complexities, tiers and loopholes in Biblical law as any other law. The Bible is not a cut and dry, simple and straightforward thing. The reason why there are something like fifty thousand different Christian denominations is because they all disagree on how to interpret the Bible. Hell, there's isn't even a complete consensus on what makes the Bible, not to mention how to follow it.

Another note - You can't do this. You can't just yank one line out of the book without including the narrative, historical and cultural context of it. Doing so makes you no better than the people who cling to every word unquestioningly. If you're going to quote the Bible, at least take the time to google what actual theologians have said about it. I assure you they've said a lot. Contrary to what we may think, the Bible has endured 3000 years of unending questioning and analysis. They probably have probably covered whatever questions we, as amateurs on the interwebs, could ask them.

#4 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

Then your doubts are unsupported by history. Atheism never caused a war, or the spread of a deadly disease. Religion on the other hand has caused countless deaths, while things like reason and science work to prevent them. Interestingly enough reason and science are the exact opposite of religion, that is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. -MB

That's again an amazingly simplistic view of history. Moreover, it's not entirely accurate either. Religious people have been persecuted by non-religious just as the other way around. As for all the wars caused by religion, all I can say is yes, but look at all the other wars not caused by religion. I think you'll find them to be the wast majority.

And no, science and reason are not the opposite of religion. Christianity is the very reason why we have modern science. If you believe that, you're no better than the creationist idiots who believe the Earth is 5,000 years old.

#5 Edited by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes humans in general are immoral creatures. But humans, in general are also religious. And we should all see the correlation. Religion is the mask that immorality holds to it's face. -MB

That's a rather terrible generalization of religion. I doubt atheists are any less immoral on average than religious people.

#6 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@marvel_boy2241 said:

Nope. People know exactly what their book says. Take lying, for example. Pretty much every Christian claims that all lies are bad and that it is a sin to lie, right? Yet everyone lies here and there. same thing with divorce. Most Christians would agree that divorce is a no-no. Yet the divorce rate among Christians isn't very different from the rest of the world. In fact I can't name something immoral that Christians don't do.

The fact is doing good and bad have nothing to do with holy texts or religion, even if people hide behind it. I'm so tired of all these hypocrites that don't even follow their own books---books that are, apparently, the proper moral standards for everyone lol. -MB

It's not that simple. The issue of sin is incredibly complex, with various levels, tiers, ranks, pardons, loopholes, inconsistencies between different books and so on. Various churches, for example, do allow divorce, and find the basis for it in the Bible. Point being that you can't just point to the Bible and say "FOLLOW IT" and expect it to mean anything. That leads to bad thing.

On the other hand you'll receive no argument from me that most Christians are bad Christians. But that's not a primarily Christian thing. Humans in general are terrible at any sort of self-consistency.

#7 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

People can be such hypocrites sometimes. It saddens me. If you love your "god", why don't you follow what he says in the book that "He" pretty much wrote lol? -MB

Because, like, the book says a whole ton of different things. Few people actually think they go against the word of their God. They all just interpret the bible in different ways. And there's plenty of room for interpretation. There are something like three thousand years of historical, cultural and linguistic context you need to know in order to really understand the Bible.

#8 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

We have been banging our heads against 'Peace in the Middle East' for decades now. Nothing has worked. There is nothing in the future that promises more success either.

Maybe we need to stop trying to make them get along and just pick a side because what we're doing now has never worked and does not seem like it will.

Picking a side isn't going to work any better. It's only going to escalate thing and lead to even more bloodshed. If that's the alternative, I'd rather have the status quo, honestly.

#9 Edited by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

For what it's wort, GravesGun's ultimate point - that Batman doesn't make sense in the larger DC universe - is entirely correct. He doesn't. Any crossover that has Batman in it will inevitably run into the question of why a few dozen planet shaking superheroes don't swoop down into Gotham and clean it up in one afternoon and then lock the villains up on the Moon or something. This is either glossed over in any crossover that features him, or handled by upping his villains to ridiculous levels to the point that, for example, Poison Ivy can take down Green Lantern. There's a good reason why every new Justice League comic has to have a scene in it where they try to explain (To varying degrees of success) just what the hell Batman is doing there.

The only way you can get an internally consistent Batman story is to isolate him in his own little world away from all the cosmic level stuff happening around it. That's what every movie so far did, that's what the original TAS did, that's what the Arkham games did, and it's part of the reason why they were all massive successes.

#10 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio
@armiv2 said:

These are brilliant. There any more?

That's all I found.