Many of you here are saying how parts of the bible are outdated. I wonder how the word of god can be considered outdated? If they are, god should have sent someone to write a newER testiment as he did for the new testiment when the old testiment became outdated.
Jesus came to die for our old sins, our old ways. It is true that he did not write the New Testament. The NT is a collection of different-oh. So this is how it is.
Why does every arguement I get into turn from the original point? I am not your preacher, nor can I magically make you see what you refuse to see.
He is the SON OF GOD. Part of the HOLY TRINITY, which is Father Son and Holy Spirit. They are one. He is encased in this.
Christians believe by belief. If that is a strange concept to you, I cannot make you understand it, and I would be a fool to try when you are not one that would be willing to except what I say concerning belief. I am not a preacher, I am only trying to shed some light on this, as well as defend my religion.
I think you can explain this believe by belief thing to me and I will try to understand this concept if you are willing. I cannot understand what you mean so you will need to explain. I was a Christian years ago and I have read and studied many Christian theological arguments and i am not familiar with this one.
In response to your answer including examples of violence in the OLD TESTAMENT:
No, I have not read the entire Bible yet. I'm slowly reading through it, starting with the New Testament. Once again though, you are focusing on the more barbaric past, rather than the way that was made for the future...
It was a test, in the olden times, before Christ. A test which God did not allow Abraham to carry out, so therefore this example does not work well here...
the example is applicable to today because if it is very good to be so pious that you will murder your own child because god tells you to, who's to say that you are not delusional and God said no such thing? how do you know for certain God says these things and not an imagination?
So did Jesus come to change the laws of the old testament? Jesus was a Jew who followed Judaism, he did not write the new testament, that was written long after his death and it is an account of his teachings among other things. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say he is God?
I don't think that you have actually read the bible. Perhaps you should read it through and and come back and edit some of this. You can start with numbers 25; 1-9, numbers 31: 1-54, judges 19: 22-29, Joshua 11: 19-20.
You simply shifted the definition of Christian to exclude any murderers, but that does not work even if we concede that point because the Christian bible includes numerous accounts of murder to include Moses encouraging the murder of women and children and Abraham attempting to murder his own child, just as a few examples among many.
The "Real Americans" comment does not work well as a comeback... America was founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but an American is one who lives in America, not one who follows a religion correctly. To me, a Christian is one who actually Acts like a follower of Christ. Plain and simple.
No, I am not trying to come off as threatening, though when one is defending their way of life... it's easy to get that way. As you've probably been seeing in the comments section of this video.
One more thing, Mister. You say "I don't speak for all Aethiests." Well, neither do I. But don't you dare speak for all Christians in a video like this.
One final thought to hang on to...-The killer is at fault, not the gun.- So much to say, ack. So, so much. These comment boxes are a little too small for my liking...
Christianity does not kill, rape, steal. Real Christians, true ones these days, do not kill, rape or steal. Anyone can call themself a Christian, and then it feeds surveys like that. Especially those who just say that they are a Christian in order to answer the question. Like those who say "Oh, I was raised Catholic, so I'm Catholic." Bull. You're a Christian if you act like one. Don't call those who don't follow the religion actual Christians.
I'm just really tired of trying to explain this to people. Most things in life vary in their ability of positivity and negativity based on how people utilize them.
Sex? Can turn into pleasure or rape.
Power? Can be used to control, corrupt or kill.
Science? Create or destroy
Religion...? You decide. It's what you do with it, but that doesn't fault religion in and of itself. People have faults, People abuse religion. Religion abuses no one, kills no one.
You can't force religious values into your marriage, nor sometimes your values and what shapes you as an individual.
The Bible says though shall not kill, steal, etc. It isn't the fault of the religion that people don't always follow it. Don't fault the false followers, fault the religion? Seems an unfair deal...
okay, i couldn't resist...i had to come see you, but i found this really great recipe for red herring. hopefully, i can cook it up for you when we get together in may. first, you take one part faith in atheism then mix it up with a little agonist theist uncertainty bake for a few hours over some heated sexual discussion and top with orgasm...viola...greatest red herring you will ever be served. come kiss me.
that is supposed to be agnostic theist, but agonist theist will work as a suitable substitute...it might leave a little more bitter and little less spicy taste in the mouth...no i think we should definitely stick with the original agnostic theist ingredient and correct the typo...sorry love, but the kids are underfoot screaming while i am trying to be witty and that can be slightly distracting.
Thank you for the debate. There is one Muslim in the world who I have great respect for, he is the legitimate living Ayatolla of Shiism, Ayatolla Ali Al Sistani, and he is adamantly for the Separation of Religion and State, in fact he could take Khomeini's position if he chose to, but it would be against his morals.
I think that's accurate. There are a number of factors, as I see it, religious groups have a degree more pressure to get married, particularly out of wed lock. There is also the blind faith that "God will make things right if we just love each other and love God."
Yasir, how do you feel about the separation of Church and state, or religion and state? Do you think that islamic parties should hold power in politics or should they be separate from secular politics?
it depends highly on the religion & ethical system, these decisions need to be done based on that religion and state etc...
overall if something is morally wrong today, it should be morally wrong tomorrow.
If i had to give an answer i would say im against separation of state / religion of Islam.
We need to know that the people ruling over us "should" be acting in our best interests as people, if a religious framework offers that then why separate the two?
How can you have your government following the New Testament etc knowing full well they don't have to be good to their people? bottom line is you don't.
Which goes back to the begining, if a religious framework overall provides a structure which "should" be helping the people then why seperate it?
Christianity as a whole, doesn't offer that, it offers only salvation in the afterlife, not this life.
Interestingly i would love to see more studies of how Islamic Ruling affects its people.
The U.S. government follows the New Testament because the Christian Right has real power to sway votes in the US. The Christian Right also believes that it has a shared destiny with the Jews in Israel, and there is a desire to bring about the end of times according to prophesies. This is similar to the followers of the 12th Imam and the belief of the kingdom of God coming to rule on Earth. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus, not just salvation.
I think you missed my point and you havent read the new testament clearly, as a previous christian i honestly do know.
The new testament as a whole is the teachings of Paul, who says himself, the old testament died on the cross. Feel free to correct me. Jesus says one thing, Paul another, you need only Buy a "red letter bible" to understand what i mean..
The old Testament is teaching you far more than the words of Jesus.
I respect The bible and its followers as i do everyone.
Yes, I am an apostate as well and Jesus said that he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it.
You are referring to scripture that says that you only need to believe, but look at the countless contradictory scriptures such as faith without works is dead, etc. I am not defending Christianity as a valid form of government.
Islam has proven to be extremely oppressive form of government, and was founded on warfare, discipline, and absolutism.
In theory, a pious person 'should' rule with equality and justice, in practice, this rarely happens. I can think of numerous occasions of rulers using religion to assume and wield unjust power and suppression. I cannot name a single secular, freedom of religion society that ruled its people with tyranny.
Even that does not because the Zionists think that their lives are more valuable than gentiles and Muslim's lives. In most previous cases, the Israelis would kill 10 Palestinians for every Jew that died. During the previous Gaza invasion, they bumped it up to 100 to one. This is why Hamas wants 100 prisoners freed in exchange for 1 Jew, because of this craziness.
"There is more to gain from a religious state than a non religious state, from my perspective in terms of living. "
You mean like Saudi Arabia, which squanders its oil wealth for religious education, but fails to teach morality to the Wahabist scourge? Or do you refer to Iranian Theocracy which has murdered 100x as many people as the Shah for political reasons and repressed its population with mafia tactics, dehumanized women and supported terrorist proxies?
No, I simply look at Atheists in a respectable position. Although, I don't actually believe in "the races of man." In no way was I attributing Atheists to Nazis, nor do I believe Hitler was Atheist.
We could start by establishing morality's existence.
I think it's important not to confuse science with Atheism as there are Christians that are scientists and Atheists that are not, and while the Theory of Evolution does explain some things, it does not explain how life began and science doesn't explain what happened prior to the big bang, if that is in fact the beginning of everything.
Ok good because it is evident that the religious types are attempting to cross over too far by preventing science from being taught in public schools, at least without tacking religion onto the curriculum. As well we have false science being taught as the genuine version. The scientific community does not have any debate about creationism or ID. Evolution is the accepted theory, unless you happen to be an Alabama grade school student or a home schooler.
Well, if them teaching evolution is the only science there is, then you are correct. However, what I've been taught has been claimed to be false by both skeptics and Christians, so it isn't honest science.
Well, if they're ignorant about the scientific theory of ID and evolution, then yes there wouldn't be any debate. Which so far, except for Ronald Numbers and a few others, I haven't met anyone willing to address its merits.
Scientists are skeptic by nature, and we 'should' be skeptical of all things scientific, but especially things non-scientific. ID does not logically debunk evolution because it draws unnecessary conclusions from gaps in information. Scientists would agree that there are gaps in the observations we have, although the ones we do have point to evolution. UN-scientific is when the gap itself is described as the result of the supernatural.
ID doesn't require the supernatural. ID is the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the function/information in living systems, as opposed to naturalistic causes.
ID isn't based on the Bible either. Although the CSC does have Protestant and Catholic scientists along w/ other Christians, it also has Agnostics and Jews. The CSC is mainly a secular thinktank.
Unless, of course, your defining intelligent causes as the supernatural, ID isn't creationism.
In William A.Dembski's article, "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about design" he states "...students need no longer feel intimidated by Darwinist bullying."
If one feels that religious beliefs are being bullied by evolution aspects, as I assume would be the primary reason for adopting ID, then I would propose that there are better ways to assert that you have religious beliefs that the scientific theory of evolution might contradict, than introducing a philosophy as science.
No, that's not it's main goal. Dembski was probably trying to communicate that evolution i.e. Darwin's theory isn't fact and is contreversial. Or that the "evidence" being used isn't really evidence at all, like in Jonathan Wells', Phd Phd book "Icons of Evolution." Or a # of other things.
ID, as I communicated earlier, is in no way religious and is in fact Agnostic in regards to the existence of Divine being or beings.
"Unless, of course, your defining intelligent causes as the supernatural, ID isn't creationism."
It is supernatural because there is no evidence of it. The only evidence provided is a philosophical belief that complex systems cannot arise in nature. Simply stating a philosophical belief is not evidence of anything.
Who, and how does one determine what constitutes CSI? If life was created by "Intelligence" then how was it done? Simply stating that something "can't occur by chance" does not explain 'how' life came to be, it only proves that the mechanism for this occurrence is not known. How is an unknown process evidence of intelligent creation?
For example, if a student's parent wishes the child to be exempted from biology class during instruction on evolution, I would adamantly oppose this, but I still think that religious freedom is important and people should have that right and teachers should be educated on these nuances in that regard.
Contrarily, I disagree that ID should be taught as science in public school. A religion and philosophy class might be appropriate, which would teach about ALL philosophies and religions.
That seems quite reasonable. Most Atheists I know of would probably disagree, but it's still reasonable.
Religious electives have been outlawed since 1954, if I remember correctly. According to the NCSE, no aspect of religion can be taught in public schools either. Which is part of the reason I think the whole "God is the driving force of evolution" is pretty ridiculous, both theologically and scientifically.
Yes, but it enables people to believe in God while also pursuing science. I think the conflict comes when people realize that they do not have to believe in God anymore, because scientifically, God cannot be proven. Some people are able to tell themselves that God is outside of the realm of science, but really, that equates to another argument that doesn't hold much water, so the logical conclusion is either to reject science or reject God.
"Wow, a bit self-righteous are we? I suppose you have the keys to all that is relevant and I know nothing because I lack belief in your 2000 year old imaginary friend."
We both lack something, if anything. But if you would like me to stop talking, I wouldn't mind too much with the attitude you've had so far.
You see, I wanted to have a civilized discussion about morality issues today, but I was matched with an obscure quote from Charles Darwin and an accusation hinting that Atheists somehow espouse the Third Reich. In other words you attempt a "reductio ad hitlerum" in this discussion which reduced it to senselessness. Now, we can stop here or we can look for legitimate morality issues to debate.
"That should be the Christian mantra, I bet you believe the rapture is near as well. Suffer through this life and do what the bible says and you'll be rewarded with eternal life, is that it? A bit self-centered in my opinion."
No, I was speaking of Hedonism. They're quite different. Although, I fail to see how doing what you believe is right and true is self-centered.
"Don't even attempt a ridiculous argument like that, I could easily lump you in with Nazi science book burning, Jews killed Jesus eh? Aryan? Are you kidding me, Aryan nation and Neo Nazis are adamantly Christian and burn crosses for Christian distortions. Wow, I bet you think blacks and Jews carry the "mark of Cain." Thanks, but that's not what any Atheist I know supports."
I simply got the quote from Darwin's works. Not from anything Nazi, unless that's what you consider Darwin.
No, you said you consider Atheists as Aryan stock. That's clearly an attempt compare Atheists to racist remarks made by someone in the past. Besides, I was only quoting the Aryan Nation and Neo-Nazis, which are Christian sects.
Christianity today has become a caricature of absurdity. Don't get me wrong, I am conservative on many issues and voted for Bush in 2001, but the Christian religion today is a hindrance to society, promoting right wing politics, attempting a blockade on scientific thought, promoting hate against various minorities, and preaching the end of times. The direction of the church today is dangerous in my opinion and could result in increased extremism.
The only definite thing all atheists share is their lack of belief in gods. Some atheists may believe in vegetarianism while others may not. "Atheism" describes what one doesn't believe in instead of what one does believe in.
The Authorised Version of the Bible in English, known far and wide as the King James Version, mentions unicorns. In fact, the word which is translated nine times as "unicorn" or "unicorns" is the Hebrew re'em. This Hebrew word is translated as "ox" or "wild ox" in every other English version of the Bible (including those translated before the King James). That's what re'em means: ox.
it kinda hard to sum up the impact of Christians on earth, I mean 2000 years is a long time.I suppose not getting feed to lions/good,and like wilberforce,lincoln and john brown working to end slavery/good,endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights/good,common law /good
2000 years is a blink of an eye in time, not getting "feed" to lions unfounded by evidence, the ending of slavery had nothing to do with Christianity and in fact the Bible supports it, "denowed by their Creator..." refers to the deist god as our founding fathers were predominatly deist, good common law arises from secularism, I really don't know why you would think any of that has anything to do with anything. Debunked in a single comment.
Christians condemned both the cruelties and the spectators. Thou shalt not kill, as Tertullian (De Spectaculis) reminded his readers. And, as they gained ascendancy, Christians prohibited such "games." More important, Christians effectively promulgated a moral vision utterly incompatible with the casual cruelty of pagan custom.
It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin.
You can't give Christianity any credit for ending slavery as slavery was started in the US by citing biblical supporting references. Abraham Lincoln's religion was ambiguous, so likely he was an Atheist.
Just as Obama's religion is equally ambiguous. I think he may be deist at best, liberal Christian at worst. I doubt we'll know for certain until he leaves office. Unfortunately, the religious in America have some significant sway in the voting box.
"When I left Springfield, I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son — the severest trial of my life I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg, and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ."
You seem to make a lot of generalizations with Christians and Atheists.
Being a Christian doesn't require a belief in magic, nor does the different denominations have much to do with its credibility. There are even churches that are non-denom.
Unless of course you would want me to argue that because Atheists are different, it affects their credibility.
Statistics can overly generalize. My question was why haven't there been more studies and what is the reason for these results? Wouldn't you also like to know the facts? I want to avoid side debates in this as I am interested in having my questions answered.
Well, I once heard an anonymous quote that while facts are "fascinating" they're generally irrelevant. Although, I would partially agree it would still be good to know, although I usually distrust statistics. Not that I distrust every single statistic ever made, I'm just hesitant to trust those made by sources that could be unreliable.
If facts are irrelevant then what is relevant? I think it's important to use facts when discussing an issue, or discovering things that you might not know otherwise. The US does very poorly in high school test scores, particularly males. I can chose to dismiss that as bad data, or I can look for the reason and a possible solution.
What is relevant? Good question if you're talking from an Atheistic standpoint.
It would probably be wiser to help correct the "bad things" that you have the skills and knowledge to correct. Some things you would be powerless to correct, others someone else might be able to correct more efficiently.
Wow, a bit self-righteous are we? I suppose you have the keys to all that is relevant and I know nothing because I lack belief in your 2000 year old imaginary friend.
That should be the Christian mantra, I bet you believe the rapture is near as well. Suffer through this life and do what the bible says and you'll be rewarded with eternal life, is that it? A bit self-centered in my opinion.
Don't even attempt a ridiculous argument like that, I could easily lump you in with Nazi science book burning, Jews killed Jesus eh? Aryan? Are you kidding me, Aryan nation and Neo Nazis are adamantly Christian and burn crosses for Christian distortions. Wow, I bet you think blacks and Jews carry the "mark of Cain." Thanks, but that's not what any Atheist I know supports.
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Many of you here are saying how parts of the bible are outdated. I wonder how the word of god can be considered outdated? If they are, god should have sent someone to write a newER testiment as he did for the new testiment when the old testiment became outdated.
anurre5 2 years ago
Jesus came to die for our old sins, our old ways. It is true that he did not write the New Testament. The NT is a collection of different-oh. So this is how it is.
Why does every arguement I get into turn from the original point? I am not your preacher, nor can I magically make you see what you refuse to see.
He is the SON OF GOD. Part of the HOLY TRINITY, which is Father Son and Holy Spirit. They are one. He is encased in this.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
Christians believe by belief. If that is a strange concept to you, I cannot make you understand it, and I would be a fool to try when you are not one that would be willing to except what I say concerning belief. I am not a preacher, I am only trying to shed some light on this, as well as defend my religion.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
I think you can explain this believe by belief thing to me and I will try to understand this concept if you are willing. I cannot understand what you mean so you will need to explain. I was a Christian years ago and I have read and studied many Christian theological arguments and i am not familiar with this one.
responder12345 2 years ago
In response to your answer including examples of violence in the OLD TESTAMENT:
No, I have not read the entire Bible yet. I'm slowly reading through it, starting with the New Testament. Once again though, you are focusing on the more barbaric past, rather than the way that was made for the future...
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
"Abraham attempting to murder his own child"
It was a test, in the olden times, before Christ. A test which God did not allow Abraham to carry out, so therefore this example does not work well here...
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
the example is applicable to today because if it is very good to be so pious that you will murder your own child because god tells you to, who's to say that you are not delusional and God said no such thing? how do you know for certain God says these things and not an imagination?
responder12345 2 years ago
"the Christian bible includes numerous accounts of murder to include Moses encouraging the murder of women and children"
Old Testament, I suppose? Try reading up a bit. Those times were bloody ones. Killing of all sorts was encouraged by various societies in those times.
And the Old Testament is accounts of those times... yet no where do you see Jesus, the Son of God, encouraging killing of the innocent.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
So did Jesus come to change the laws of the old testament? Jesus was a Jew who followed Judaism, he did not write the new testament, that was written long after his death and it is an account of his teachings among other things. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say he is God?
responder12345 2 years ago
i am sorry, i simply must...show me a time in human history which was not bloody please.
kcc238 2 years ago
Those are only some of a true Christian's guildlines.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
Following the works of Jesus and the Bible is what I mean.
In the Bible, for example, rape is punished by death. It is greatly frowned upon.
In the Ten Commandments, stealing, cheating, lying and killing are covered as sins.
Christianity preaches loving others and yourself, and God. Now this does not mean that two people cannot argue, so don
t try and turn that around. Love is wanting the absolute best for someone...
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
I don't think that you have actually read the bible. Perhaps you should read it through and and come back and edit some of this. You can start with numbers 25; 1-9, numbers 31: 1-54, judges 19: 22-29, Joshua 11: 19-20.
responder12345 2 years ago
... a bunk of... what? Hey, I'm not trying to insult anyone. You however seem to be trying ever so hard to either insult me or get your point across.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
You simply shifted the definition of Christian to exclude any murderers, but that does not work even if we concede that point because the Christian bible includes numerous accounts of murder to include Moses encouraging the murder of women and children and Abraham attempting to murder his own child, just as a few examples among many.
responder12345 2 years ago
The "Real Americans" comment does not work well as a comeback... America was founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but an American is one who lives in America, not one who follows a religion correctly. To me, a Christian is one who actually Acts like a follower of Christ. Plain and simple.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
I suppose you will need to explain what a "true follower of Christ" "acts like" since you bring that up and move the goalpost of what a Christian is.
responder12345 2 years ago
No, I am not trying to come off as threatening, though when one is defending their way of life... it's easy to get that way. As you've probably been seeing in the comments section of this video.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
One more thing, Mister. You say "I don't speak for all Aethiests." Well, neither do I. But don't you dare speak for all Christians in a video like this.
One final thought to hang on to...-The killer is at fault, not the gun.- So much to say, ack. So, so much. These comment boxes are a little too small for my liking...
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
Christianity is a doctrine, I can speak to that doctrine. Your tone is a bit threatening, but not sure if that is how you are trying to come off.
responder12345 2 years ago
Christianity does not kill, rape, steal. Real Christians, true ones these days, do not kill, rape or steal. Anyone can call themself a Christian, and then it feeds surveys like that. Especially those who just say that they are a Christian in order to answer the question. Like those who say "Oh, I was raised Catholic, so I'm Catholic." Bull. You're a Christian if you act like one. Don't call those who don't follow the religion actual Christians.
More to say, yet not enough time...
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
thank you for reinforcing my point that Christianity is a bunk system of morality.
responder12345 2 years ago
"Real Christians, true ones these days, do not kill, rape or steal."
Real Americans don't kill either. the killers are all fake Americans.
responder12345 2 years ago
I'm just really tired of trying to explain this to people. Most things in life vary in their ability of positivity and negativity based on how people utilize them.
Sex? Can turn into pleasure or rape.
Power? Can be used to control, corrupt or kill.
Science? Create or destroy
Religion...? You decide. It's what you do with it, but that doesn't fault religion in and of itself. People have faults, People abuse religion. Religion abuses no one, kills no one.
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
Religion doesn't always make you happy.
You can't force religious values into your marriage, nor sometimes your values and what shapes you as an individual.
The Bible says though shall not kill, steal, etc. It isn't the fault of the religion that people don't always follow it. Don't fault the false followers, fault the religion? Seems an unfair deal...
HeldbyGravity 2 years ago
okay, i couldn't resist...i had to come see you, but i found this really great recipe for red herring. hopefully, i can cook it up for you when we get together in may. first, you take one part faith in atheism then mix it up with a little agonist theist uncertainty bake for a few hours over some heated sexual discussion and top with orgasm...viola...greatest red herring you will ever be served. come kiss me.
kcc238 2 years ago
that is supposed to be agnostic theist, but agonist theist will work as a suitable substitute...it might leave a little more bitter and little less spicy taste in the mouth...no i think we should definitely stick with the original agnostic theist ingredient and correct the typo...sorry love, but the kids are underfoot screaming while i am trying to be witty and that can be slightly distracting.
kcc238 2 years ago
I'm sorry, did u respond to one of my comments or someone else's?
jcrebel18 2 years ago
Me personally, i prefer Eastern Countries who openly follow some sort of Ethical or Religious System.
ie. Japan , China, Dubai
yes a pious person "should" perform better but as i said... "should"
people will always do what they want to do, weather or not it agrees with the ideals they should be following is another thing.
im simply anwering what i would choose having a choice.
salaam
YasirTV 2 years ago
Thank you for the debate. There is one Muslim in the world who I have great respect for, he is the legitimate living Ayatolla of Shiism, Ayatolla Ali Al Sistani, and he is adamantly for the Separation of Religion and State, in fact he could take Khomeini's position if he chose to, but it would be against his morals.
Cheers
responder12345 2 years ago
Maybe the divorce rates just show that Atheists are better at choosing their partner.
One wonders if that holds true for their choice of world view also.
dbarnett79 2 years ago
I think that's accurate. There are a number of factors, as I see it, religious groups have a degree more pressure to get married, particularly out of wed lock. There is also the blind faith that "God will make things right if we just love each other and love God."
responder12345 2 years ago
"haven't you heard what the queers are doing to the soil"? that's the dead milkmen, right? funny song.
kcc238 3 years ago
lol
responder12345 2 years ago
I don't have anything to say because I'm just not intelligent enough as the rest of you.
Anyways, I'm not sure whether I'm Catholic or Atheist..
I'm supposed to be Catholic.
MyChemicalFanpire 3 years ago
I think il have to agree with this Aetheist, as a whole, we should be focusing on studies against Moral issues.
Inshallah we will one day, maybe it will give us all an insight into ourselves
YasirTV 3 years ago
Yasir, how do you feel about the separation of Church and state, or religion and state? Do you think that islamic parties should hold power in politics or should they be separate from secular politics?
responder12345 2 years ago
it depends highly on the religion & ethical system, these decisions need to be done based on that religion and state etc...
overall if something is morally wrong today, it should be morally wrong tomorrow.
If i had to give an answer i would say im against separation of state / religion of Islam.
We need to know that the people ruling over us "should" be acting in our best interests as people, if a religious framework offers that then why separate the two?
YasirTV 2 years ago
i would love for more studies to be done, overall for the topic i would answer yes and no, i try explain
Christianity + State = they should be separated
Judaism + State = they could work together.
The old testament of the bible does attempt to teach you about equality and how to govern people based on laws , which makes Judaism "plausible"
The new on the other hand says, don't worry about it , you don't need it anymore, your going to heaven, if you believe..
YasirTV 2 years ago
How can you have your government following the New Testament etc knowing full well they don't have to be good to their people? bottom line is you don't.
Which goes back to the begining, if a religious framework overall provides a structure which "should" be helping the people then why seperate it?
Christianity as a whole, doesn't offer that, it offers only salvation in the afterlife, not this life.
Interestingly i would love to see more studies of how Islamic Ruling affects its people.
YasirTV 2 years ago
The U.S. government follows the New Testament because the Christian Right has real power to sway votes in the US. The Christian Right also believes that it has a shared destiny with the Jews in Israel, and there is a desire to bring about the end of times according to prophesies. This is similar to the followers of the 12th Imam and the belief of the kingdom of God coming to rule on Earth. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus, not just salvation.
responder12345 2 years ago
I think you missed my point and you havent read the new testament clearly, as a previous christian i honestly do know.
The new testament as a whole is the teachings of Paul, who says himself, the old testament died on the cross. Feel free to correct me. Jesus says one thing, Paul another, you need only Buy a "red letter bible" to understand what i mean..
The old Testament is teaching you far more than the words of Jesus.
I respect The bible and its followers as i do everyone.
YasirTV 2 years ago
Yes, I am an apostate as well and Jesus said that he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it.
You are referring to scripture that says that you only need to believe, but look at the countless contradictory scriptures such as faith without works is dead, etc. I am not defending Christianity as a valid form of government.
Islam has proven to be extremely oppressive form of government, and was founded on warfare, discipline, and absolutism.
responder12345 2 years ago
In theory, a pious person 'should' rule with equality and justice, in practice, this rarely happens. I can think of numerous occasions of rulers using religion to assume and wield unjust power and suppression. I cannot name a single secular, freedom of religion society that ruled its people with tyranny.
responder12345 2 years ago
"Judaism + State = they could work together."
Even that does not because the Zionists think that their lives are more valuable than gentiles and Muslim's lives. In most previous cases, the Israelis would kill 10 Palestinians for every Jew that died. During the previous Gaza invasion, they bumped it up to 100 to one. This is why Hamas wants 100 prisoners freed in exchange for 1 Jew, because of this craziness.
responder12345 2 years ago
Those are all analytical arguments and you pretty much answered your own questions.
"I cannot name a single secular, freedom of religion society that ruled its people with tyranny."
Can you name any government system which ruled its people perfectly?
Im not saying a religious state is perfect, I've spoken to friends who lived in Saudi Arabia.
There is more to gain from a religious state than a non religious state, from my perspective in terms of living.
YasirTV 2 years ago
"There is more to gain from a religious state than a non religious state, from my perspective in terms of living. "
You mean like Saudi Arabia, which squanders its oil wealth for religious education, but fails to teach morality to the Wahabist scourge? Or do you refer to Iranian Theocracy which has murdered 100x as many people as the Shah for political reasons and repressed its population with mafia tactics, dehumanized women and supported terrorist proxies?
responder12345 2 years ago
No, I simply look at Atheists in a respectable position. Although, I don't actually believe in "the races of man." In no way was I attributing Atheists to Nazis, nor do I believe Hitler was Atheist.
We could start by establishing morality's existence.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
I think it's important not to confuse science with Atheism as there are Christians that are scientists and Atheists that are not, and while the Theory of Evolution does explain some things, it does not explain how life began and science doesn't explain what happened prior to the big bang, if that is in fact the beginning of everything.
responder12345 3 years ago
I'm aware of that.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
Ok good because it is evident that the religious types are attempting to cross over too far by preventing science from being taught in public schools, at least without tacking religion onto the curriculum. As well we have false science being taught as the genuine version. The scientific community does not have any debate about creationism or ID. Evolution is the accepted theory, unless you happen to be an Alabama grade school student or a home schooler.
responder12345 3 years ago
Well, if them teaching evolution is the only science there is, then you are correct. However, what I've been taught has been claimed to be false by both skeptics and Christians, so it isn't honest science.
Well, if they're ignorant about the scientific theory of ID and evolution, then yes there wouldn't be any debate. Which so far, except for Ronald Numbers and a few others, I haven't met anyone willing to address its merits.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
Scientists are skeptic by nature, and we 'should' be skeptical of all things scientific, but especially things non-scientific. ID does not logically debunk evolution because it draws unnecessary conclusions from gaps in information. Scientists would agree that there are gaps in the observations we have, although the ones we do have point to evolution. UN-scientific is when the gap itself is described as the result of the supernatural.
responder12345 3 years ago
ID doesn't require the supernatural. ID is the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the function/information in living systems, as opposed to naturalistic causes.
ID isn't based on the Bible either. Although the CSC does have Protestant and Catholic scientists along w/ other Christians, it also has Agnostics and Jews. The CSC is mainly a secular thinktank.
Unless, of course, your defining intelligent causes as the supernatural, ID isn't creationism.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
In William A.Dembski's article, "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about design" he states "...students need no longer feel intimidated by Darwinist bullying."
If one feels that religious beliefs are being bullied by evolution aspects, as I assume would be the primary reason for adopting ID, then I would propose that there are better ways to assert that you have religious beliefs that the scientific theory of evolution might contradict, than introducing a philosophy as science.
responder12345 3 years ago
No, that's not it's main goal. Dembski was probably trying to communicate that evolution i.e. Darwin's theory isn't fact and is contreversial. Or that the "evidence" being used isn't really evidence at all, like in Jonathan Wells', Phd Phd book "Icons of Evolution." Or a # of other things.
ID, as I communicated earlier, is in no way religious and is in fact Agnostic in regards to the existence of Divine being or beings.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
"Unless, of course, your defining intelligent causes as the supernatural, ID isn't creationism."
It is supernatural because there is no evidence of it. The only evidence provided is a philosophical belief that complex systems cannot arise in nature. Simply stating a philosophical belief is not evidence of anything.
responder12345 3 years ago
Actually there is.
We're not talking just complexity, but specified complexity commonly referred to as CSI.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
Who, and how does one determine what constitutes CSI? If life was created by "Intelligence" then how was it done? Simply stating that something "can't occur by chance" does not explain 'how' life came to be, it only proves that the mechanism for this occurrence is not known. How is an unknown process evidence of intelligent creation?
responder12345 3 years ago
I posted a link on your wall, if you don't mind. ;)
sorry, but it wouldn't let me post it here.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
For example, if a student's parent wishes the child to be exempted from biology class during instruction on evolution, I would adamantly oppose this, but I still think that religious freedom is important and people should have that right and teachers should be educated on these nuances in that regard.
Contrarily, I disagree that ID should be taught as science in public school. A religion and philosophy class might be appropriate, which would teach about ALL philosophies and religions.
responder12345 3 years ago
That seems quite reasonable. Most Atheists I know of would probably disagree, but it's still reasonable.
Religious electives have been outlawed since 1954, if I remember correctly. According to the NCSE, no aspect of religion can be taught in public schools either. Which is part of the reason I think the whole "God is the driving force of evolution" is pretty ridiculous, both theologically and scientifically.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
Yes, but it enables people to believe in God while also pursuing science. I think the conflict comes when people realize that they do not have to believe in God anymore, because scientifically, God cannot be proven. Some people are able to tell themselves that God is outside of the realm of science, but really, that equates to another argument that doesn't hold much water, so the logical conclusion is either to reject science or reject God.
responder12345 2 years ago
"Wow, a bit self-righteous are we? I suppose you have the keys to all that is relevant and I know nothing because I lack belief in your 2000 year old imaginary friend."
We both lack something, if anything. But if you would like me to stop talking, I wouldn't mind too much with the attitude you've had so far.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
You see, I wanted to have a civilized discussion about morality issues today, but I was matched with an obscure quote from Charles Darwin and an accusation hinting that Atheists somehow espouse the Third Reich. In other words you attempt a "reductio ad hitlerum" in this discussion which reduced it to senselessness. Now, we can stop here or we can look for legitimate morality issues to debate.
responder12345 3 years ago
"That should be the Christian mantra, I bet you believe the rapture is near as well. Suffer through this life and do what the bible says and you'll be rewarded with eternal life, is that it? A bit self-centered in my opinion."
No, I was speaking of Hedonism. They're quite different. Although, I fail to see how doing what you believe is right and true is self-centered.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
"Don't even attempt a ridiculous argument like that, I could easily lump you in with Nazi science book burning, Jews killed Jesus eh? Aryan? Are you kidding me, Aryan nation and Neo Nazis are adamantly Christian and burn crosses for Christian distortions. Wow, I bet you think blacks and Jews carry the "mark of Cain." Thanks, but that's not what any Atheist I know supports."
I simply got the quote from Darwin's works. Not from anything Nazi, unless that's what you consider Darwin.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
No, you said you consider Atheists as Aryan stock. That's clearly an attempt compare Atheists to racist remarks made by someone in the past. Besides, I was only quoting the Aryan Nation and Neo-Nazis, which are Christian sects.
responder12345 3 years ago
"No, you said you consider Atheists as Aryan stock."
My point exactly. That's a quote from Darwin.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
"My point exactly. That's a quote from Darwin."
Ok, I'm listening, go on then.
responder12345 3 years ago
Haven't you read his works, or at least part of them?
jcrebel18 3 years ago
yes
responder12345 3 years ago
I agree, with that redwine guy, it's too difficult to mention all the great things Christinity has done thru the history of man.
you need to pick one topic and a certain time frame to have a proper discusion about it,we can clearly see providence's hand
USAGNP 3 years ago
Christianity today has become a caricature of absurdity. Don't get me wrong, I am conservative on many issues and voted for Bush in 2001, but the Christian religion today is a hindrance to society, promoting right wing politics, attempting a blockade on scientific thought, promoting hate against various minorities, and preaching the end of times. The direction of the church today is dangerous in my opinion and could result in increased extremism.
responder12345 3 years ago
btw, what does an atheist belive?
redwine65 3 years ago
The only definite thing all atheists share is their lack of belief in gods. Some atheists may believe in vegetarianism while others may not. "Atheism" describes what one doesn't believe in instead of what one does believe in.
nonreligionist 3 years ago
so atheists belive there is no God?
can they prove that?
USAGNP 3 years ago
Can you prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn?
responder12345 3 years ago
The Authorised Version of the Bible in English, known far and wide as the King James Version, mentions unicorns. In fact, the word which is translated nine times as "unicorn" or "unicorns" is the Hebrew re'em. This Hebrew word is translated as "ox" or "wild ox" in every other English version of the Bible (including those translated before the King James). That's what re'em means: ox.
USAGNP 3 years ago
it kinda hard to sum up the impact of Christians on earth, I mean 2000 years is a long time.I suppose not getting feed to lions/good,and like wilberforce,lincoln and john brown working to end slavery/good,endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights/good,common law /good
I really don't know where to start or stop:/
redwine65 3 years ago
2000 years is a blink of an eye in time, not getting "feed" to lions unfounded by evidence, the ending of slavery had nothing to do with Christianity and in fact the Bible supports it, "denowed by their Creator..." refers to the deist god as our founding fathers were predominatly deist, good common law arises from secularism, I really don't know why you would think any of that has anything to do with anything. Debunked in a single comment.
nonreligionist 3 years ago
Christians condemned both the cruelties and the spectators. Thou shalt not kill, as Tertullian (De Spectaculis) reminded his readers. And, as they gained ascendancy, Christians prohibited such "games." More important, Christians effectively promulgated a moral vision utterly incompatible with the casual cruelty of pagan custom.
USAGNP 3 years ago
William Wilberforce was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade.
do you understand the roman empire was 1/3 slaves in Jesus's day?
USAGNP 3 years ago
It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin.
USAGNP 3 years ago
There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations.
USAGNP 3 years ago
You can't give Christianity any credit for ending slavery as slavery was started in the US by citing biblical supporting references. Abraham Lincoln's religion was ambiguous, so likely he was an Atheist.
responder12345 3 years ago
Just as Obama's religion is equally ambiguous. I think he may be deist at best, liberal Christian at worst. I doubt we'll know for certain until he leaves office. Unfortunately, the religious in America have some significant sway in the voting box.
nonreligionist 3 years ago
"When I left Springfield, I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son — the severest trial of my life I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg, and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ."
USAGNP 3 years ago
I am very sorry about your son, that must have been a very difficult experience. May I ask how he passed?
responder12345 3 years ago
that was a quote from lincoln
USAGNP 3 years ago
I think that's impossible from an Atheistic standpoint. But that's just my opinion.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
You seem to make a lot of generalizations with Christians and Atheists.
Being a Christian doesn't require a belief in magic, nor does the different denominations have much to do with its credibility. There are even churches that are non-denom.
Unless of course you would want me to argue that because Atheists are different, it affects their credibility.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
Statistics can overly generalize. My question was why haven't there been more studies and what is the reason for these results? Wouldn't you also like to know the facts? I want to avoid side debates in this as I am interested in having my questions answered.
responder12345 3 years ago
Well, I once heard an anonymous quote that while facts are "fascinating" they're generally irrelevant. Although, I would partially agree it would still be good to know, although I usually distrust statistics. Not that I distrust every single statistic ever made, I'm just hesitant to trust those made by sources that could be unreliable.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
If facts are irrelevant then what is relevant? I think it's important to use facts when discussing an issue, or discovering things that you might not know otherwise. The US does very poorly in high school test scores, particularly males. I can chose to dismiss that as bad data, or I can look for the reason and a possible solution.
responder12345 3 years ago
What is relevant? Good question if you're talking from an Atheistic standpoint.
It would probably be wiser to help correct the "bad things" that you have the skills and knowledge to correct. Some things you would be powerless to correct, others someone else might be able to correct more efficiently.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
Wow, a bit self-righteous are we? I suppose you have the keys to all that is relevant and I know nothing because I lack belief in your 2000 year old imaginary friend.
responder12345 3 years ago
"rationalist" is a better title than "atheist", atheist has bad connotations
semajdroflah 3 years ago
I prefer "heathen" or "infidel."
responder12345 3 years ago
Pretty sad considering heathens consider us to have no more value than a bug. Others are more "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
I mostly considered Atheists as part of Darwin's "Aryan stock," but of course randomness doesn't care what you believe so that's a bit faulty.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
That should be the Christian mantra, I bet you believe the rapture is near as well. Suffer through this life and do what the bible says and you'll be rewarded with eternal life, is that it? A bit self-centered in my opinion.
responder12345 3 years ago
"Let us eat and drink, from the body of our Lord, for we die tomorrow from salminela." LOL!
nonreligionist 3 years ago
Don't even attempt a ridiculous argument like that, I could easily lump you in with Nazi science book burning, Jews killed Jesus eh? Aryan? Are you kidding me, Aryan nation and Neo Nazis are adamantly Christian and burn crosses for Christian distortions. Wow, I bet you think blacks and Jews carry the "mark of Cain." Thanks, but that's not what any Atheist I know supports.
responder12345 3 years ago