I love it.

When it comes to faith, modern Christianity has it wrong.

When it comes to stoning homosexuals, ancient Christianity has it wrong?

How slippery can you get? The best part is that no one involved could possibly know whether ancient or modern Christianity is "right" or "wrong." If you can't demonstrate the existence of your god in the first place, all nuance or distinction about these supposedly holy texts is irrelevant.

(I used the word faggots not as my own personal slur, but changed it for clarification nonetheless)



[Edited on April 21, 2014 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2014 1:56:59 PM

You didn't have to change it; your hypocrisy is well known.

All my super-liberal friends say 'fag' on a regular basis anyway; I word I haven't used myself since maybe 4th grade (when it was novel).

[Edited on April 21, 2014 at 3:11 PM. Reason : -]

4/21/2014 3:04:56 PM

Yeah but when liberals say it, it's cheeky and fun. When you say it, it's cruel and tragic.

4/21/2014 3:12:54 PM

I'm not sure what 'you' is supposed to imply, but ill agree I was a cruel and tragic 4th grader.

Or rather, I was at least as stupid as disco_stu is now.

4/21/2014 3:14:24 PM

The only liberals I know who use it use it ironically.

The conservatives I know usually just say "queer".

[Edited on April 21, 2014 at 3:17 PM. Reason : but let's not hijack the thread, eh?]

4/21/2014 3:16:54 PM

Quote :

"Dude, don't post a fucking 30-minute sermon as a response. Nobody's got time for that. Describe how the modern conception of faith isn't biblical."

Sorry, my post was poorly worded. I meant that the popular conception of faith as held by many ideologues (most people in America?) and demagogues (most rightwing politicians?) that ends up being known as "blind faith" is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Instead, the Bible repeatedly calls us to reason, to consider the evidence, to see (not to be blind). For those who have never taken the Bible seriously though (being spoon fed in Sunday School doesn't count), and haven't read it with an open mind (or at all), you'd never know.

4/21/2014 3:19:41 PM

ohmy god

4/21/2014 3:20:31 PM

a plethora of fat dicks, an embarrassment of wobbly dongs just spilling from your mouths onto the floor

they buck and hop trying to get back in, and better men have to restrain you all from scooping them up by the handful

squeezing slimy purple heads in until your lips crack

4/21/2014 3:31:06 PM

youre so cool

4/21/2014 4:39:15 PM

Shut up, baby, I know it.

4/21/2014 4:39:37 PM

Quote :

"The only liberals I know who use it use it ironically."

How do you know the Spanish Inquisition wasn't done ironically?

4/21/2014 6:16:57 PM

Nothing brings out the hate more than a simple discussion on religion.

4/21/2014 8:52:03 PM

Quote :

"You didn't have to change it; your hypocrisy is well known."

My hypocrisy? Please explain. I was saying "Stoning faggots" because bigots use "faggot" as an expletive, not because I do.

Quote :

"Or rather, I was at least as stupid as disco_stu is now."

Horay, intellectual honesty is met with vitriol on this site. no wonder I had to take a break.

[Edited on April 21, 2014 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2014 10:06:29 PM

You realize you're responding to yowilly...? You don't have to take him seriously in TSB.

4/21/2014 10:19:26 PM

Speaking of irony...

4/21/2014 11:11:13 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't a god know that we would eventually figure out empiricism and the scientific method? Wouldn't he know that hearsay from ancient scrolls would be unconvincing?"

The rest of your questions about faith notwithstanding, I'd say that, at least from Biblical texts, it seems that such a god was aware of this, which is the Bible makes few, if any, statements of a scientific nature. The ones most commonly associated with it (YEC and heliocentric-ism) are, ultimately, contortions of scripture that were used to justify the prevailing ideas of several hundreds of years ago. The simple fact is that the Bible is not a scientific text and was not written with the intent to be one; those who have sought to use it as a scientific text have done a great injustice to both the Bible and science.

Quote :

"The God of the Bible (and other major religions) has been disproven."

Care to back that up with any shred of facts?

4/21/2014 11:38:29 PM

Quote :

" Quote : "The God of the Bible (and other major religions) has been disproven." Care to back that up with any shred of facts?"

LOL are you serious...?

There are so many different interpretations of Christianity, i'd have to know exactly what you believe to pare it down.

But we know the story of Genesis/adam&eve/garden of eden is entirely figurative and borrowed from more ancient stories, the tower of babylon is entirely figurative because we know cultures weren't imparted all at once because people wanted a tower, the book of Chornicles is missing some genealogical data to say the least, there was no great flood, which also hurts a lot of the chronology and implications, most of the "hero" characteristics applied to Jesus were borrowed from other mesopotamian myths, anything that mentions the devil is just an artifact of the Persian occupation of jersualem from the influence of Zorastrianism. The bible is even henotheistic throughout the new testament. Ever wonder why the 10 commandants says "no other god BEFORE me?" that implies you can have other lesser gods-- this was of the great political strengths of Christianity in its early days. The ancient greeks, romans, egyptians, and other peoples could keep their own religions and still be worship the Hebrew god. There's the complete nuttiness that is Revelations (always my favorite book growing up because of how bad-ass that world seems like it'd be-- although i never got that 12 people from 12 tribes thing).

Then there's the whole mess of implications of realizing the bible we know today was created by the Council of Trent.

Then there's the philosophical issues with the idea of morality presented in the bible...

There's the philosophical implications of a god that would turn water into wine, let jesus walk on water, feed thousands of people with a 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes, but pretty much do nothing about anything since the era of smart phones.

If you believe anything about Christianity more deeply than "the bible is a fascinating historical text that documents the development of a powerful Mesopotamian belief system that has deeply influenced politics and society for centuries" or "the stories in the bible are useful, readily available, socially pervasive tales to help teach people lessons on life" then you are basing your beliefs on flawed events and delusion (not that delusion isn't a useful tool).

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2014 12:11:16 AM

Quote :

"The simple fact is that the Bible is not a scientific text and was not written with the intent to be one"

Wouldn't you expect to be moreso if it were actually written or inspired by the all-knowing creator of the Universe? Wouldn't you expect it to contain useful information if he truly loved us and wanted us to know that he exists?

Address these points, please instead of going off on one of your usual tangents.

4/22/2014 12:14:12 AM

^ I can accept that it's not meant to be a scientific text, this is plainly obvious to everyone except mainstream Christians...

But if it's not meant to elucidate natural truths, it's only partially able to explain historical events, it doesn't do as good as modern psychology and neurology at explaining human behavior, it's ideas on women and courtship are grossly outdated, a majority of Americans now reject its ideas of marriage (including its ideas on polygamy, rape, and the gays), then what exactly does it have left? Does it really even count as a "religion" when you remove those things?

It doesn't seem meaningfully different than most self help books, once you distills the stories that aren't horrible.

Most people in the practice of their daily lives only view it as a self help book already, anyway. Churches might as well take the next step, drop the mysticism delusions, and just make this official. It would probably grow their congregations, and allow for some real discourse.

4/22/2014 12:24:20 AM

^^^ absolutely none of that disproves anything. It may lead some people to think "yeah, I'm not gonna believe any of the Bible," but that's not the same as disproving the Biblical God.

^^ It all depends on said all-knowing creator's intent. If all he wanted to do via the Bible was say "hey bitches, I'm here," then presenting a fully fleshed-out theory of evolution or general relativity to iron-aged men seems a bit superfluous. It may be that the "useful information" is "hey bitches, I'm here, and I created this shit."

4/22/2014 12:31:44 AM

Quote :

" absolutely none of that disproves anything. It may lead some people to think "yeah, I'm not gonna believe any of the Bible," but that's not the same as disproving the Biblical God. "

You are wrong, some of it does disprove the biblical God.

But it just depends on which aspects of the Bible you have faith in. You can't rationally believe in the mystical aspects of the bible. You have to throw rationally out the window at some step along the way to do so, which is fine, if you recognize this is what you've done.

4/22/2014 12:36:04 AM

which of it disproves the Biblical God? Which part, exactly, is undeniable, irrefutable proof that the Biblical God does not exist?

4/22/2014 12:37:01 AM

Obviously it's not meant to be scientific: it was written by savages over a thousand years before we discovered science.

My point is that it should more accurately describe the Universe, medicine, and any information that would have been useful to humanity if it truly were written by the all-knowing creator of the Universe.

It appears to be a book of fables and nothing more because that is all that it is.

Quote :

"^^ It all depends on said all-knowing creator's intent. If all he wanted to do via the Bible was say "hey bitches, I'm here," then presenting a fully fleshed-out theory of evolution or general relativity to iron-aged men seems a bit superfluous. It may be that the "useful information" is "hey bitches, I'm here, and I created this shit.""

So you believe his intent was to let us suffer in ignorance for 1500 years, dying of extreme young age from teeth infections, wars, disease before we crawled out of the infancy of our species?

Quote :

"is undeniable, irrefutable proof "

there is no such thing for anything, and you know it.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 12:42 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2014 12:40:35 AM

It depends what aspects of the Biblical God you believe in. Some people don't take the story in genesis or the flood or the tower of babel literally, so obviously pointing out those things are wrong doesn't disprove god for them.

Pointing out the the devil hasn't always been an overarching evil character should be enough to make people realize the epic battle between angels/demons is just a story, and the God that story describes doesn't exist.

Pointing out the modern day bible was constructed to push a political ideology should convince people that preachers' attestations that it's divinely inspired is just ignorance, and the God it describes doesn't exist.

Likewise, pointing out the Bible just coopted existing myths of its society to explain its own gods and demigods to make it easier to spread and expand its ideology, a goal it was only partially successful at, should also help people realize it wasn't the inspired spoken word of God, and this God it describes doesn't exist.

Pointing out that the idea that you have to believe Jesus died for your sins in order to go to Heaven doesn't make sense in the context of the existence of native americans, aborigines, or any people who could never possibly be able to hear about Jesus-- do these people just automatically go to Hell? Clearly this God was created by humans unaware of a spherical earth with continents of people they knew nothing about.

As a self-consistent belief system without an omnipotent, omniscient God, no aspect of Christianity stands up to reality. As a loose, flawed collection of ideas and fables, Christianity is a fine specimen.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 12:47 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2014 12:44:37 AM

^^but why should it have those things in it? What about those things would make its authorship more believable to you? Your point seems to be that a book that likely wasn't intended to offer scientific explanations of things should have offered them, because, well... because!

^ and yet, none of those arguments are a proof against the Biblical God. It may well be that he's a hypocritical douchebag (which, considering that mankind is supposedly created in his image, might not be far off...) It may be that the Bible does not offer a 100% logically consistent picture of God, but that lack of logical consistency is not proof of his absence.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 12:48 AM. Reason : added ^^ to point it to disco]

4/22/2014 12:44:37 AM

Quote :

"^ and yet, none of those arguments are a proof against the Biblical God. It may well be that he's a hypocritical douchebag (which, considering that mankind is supposedly created in his image, might not be far off...) It may be that the Bible does not offer a 100% logically consistent picture of God, but that lack of logical consistency is not proof of his absence. "

It is.

You can't say "perfect omniscient, omnipotent God wrote the bible" then also accept that the Bible is rampantly flawed and inaccurate, and still maintain that the God still exists.

You can't say only Christians go to Heaven, therefore native americans and uncontacted tribes are in Hell, but claim your God is a just and merciful God without recognizing that your God doesn't exist the way you claim it does.

It's funny how Christians over the years have managed to exclude their own philosophy from scutiny.

We Westerners laugh and mock the multi-armed blue elephant gods of Hinduism, but still cling to the story of the tower of Babel? That all life came from 2 animals on the Ark? That jesus walked across water? That demon possessed pigs drowned themselves? We don't hesitate to dismiss other religious as looney, but somehow the loonies of Christianity gets excused.

There's miracles Mormons believe, the miracles Catholics ascribe to Popes to this day, the weird stuff about aliens that Scientologist believe are all equally illogical, irrational, unsourced, and unproven, yet somehow only pointing this out in Christianity gets excused as "well just because it's illogical isn't REAL proof it's not real".

That's really the fundamental problem with religion. During the Nye/Ham debate, when asked what it would take to convince them to change their minds, Nye stated it would merely take "evidence". Ham stated nothing could convince him.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:01 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2014 12:47:50 AM

Quote :

"^^but why should it have those things in it? What about those things would make its authorship more believable to you? Your point seems to be that a book that likely wasn't intended to offer scientific explanations of things should have offered them, because, well... because! "

Because it would have spared humanity thousands of years of suffering. Do you worship a god that has this knowledge but chose to withhold it from humanity until we figured it out on our own?

4/22/2014 12:56:15 AM

that is a question that goes well beyond "Wouldn't you expect to be moreso if it were actually written or inspired by the all-knowing creator of the Universe?" and "Wouldn't a god know that we would eventually figure out empiricism and the scientific method? Wouldn't he know that hearsay from ancient scrolls would be unconvincing?" And this is why you'll note that I said earlier that it boils down to intent. If the intent was "hey, bitches, I'm here", then vaccines and electricity are beyond the needed scope.

4/22/2014 1:02:41 AM

Quote :

"Do you worship a god that has this knowledge but chose to withhold it from humanity until we figured it out on our own?"

4/22/2014 1:06:33 AM

Can you describe even 1 aspect or tenant of Xtian God, supported by most Christians, sourced in the Bible, that isn't easily disproven by logic or modern science?

I'd bet everything I own that it can't be done.

4/22/2014 1:06:58 AM

can you provide any actual proof that refutes it? I, too, would bet everything I own that it cannot be done.

But, if you would like, then sure: God exists. Now, disprove it. Provide something that analyzes every single possible plane of existence, searches every vast part of it, and shows that he does not exist.

4/22/2014 1:09:38 AM

Most assuredly I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there, ’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Fortunately for you, I don't want any of your shit.

Quote :

"God exists."

Which god? The one that created the world in 7 days approximately six thousand years ago? And the one that flooded the earth completely?

Those things didn't happen.
Therefore that god doesn't exist.
QED.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:13 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2014 1:10:55 AM

Thankfully I have my faith-measuring device, and I have set it to "size of mustard seed". Alright, let's go put that verse to the test!

No. Just the Biblical God. "Created the earth in 7 days 6000 years ago" is your convenient interpretation to allow easy refutation.

4/22/2014 1:14:15 AM

Quote :

"can you provide any actual proof that refutes it? I, too, would bet everything I own that it cannot be done. But, if you would like, then sure: God exists. Now, disprove it. Provide something that analyzes every single possible plane of existence, searches every vast part of it, and shows that he does not exist. "

LOL now you're just moving goal posts.

I said the CHRISTIAN God (and god of every major religion) has been disproved.

It is possible to construct an idea of god that isn't at odds with everything we know about the universe, but no belief system that I know of has yet sprung up around such a god.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:15 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2014 1:14:44 AM

Quote :

"Thankfully I have my faith-measuring device, and I have set it to "size of mustard seed". Alright, let's go put that verse to the test!"

For fucks sake, please do. If prayer actually worked the world would be a much better place.

Prayers go unanswered, therefore that god doesn't exist.

Quote :

"No. Just the Biblical God. "Created the earth in 7 days 6000 years ago" is your convenient interpretation to allow easy refutation."

Completely ignoring the Flood, are we? And it's not my interpretation, it's what the damn book says.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2014 1:16:47 AM

and yet, you have not proven that the Christian God does not exist. You've provided plenty of reasons not to believe in Him, but none of those amount to any "proof" that he does not exist. it almost sounds as if you don't comprehend the meaning of the word "proof."

^ I must have missed the part of the Bible where it said "God answers every single prayer, and in the way that person praying wants it to be answered." Let me go search again...

4/22/2014 1:17:16 AM

^^ or even more damning, maybe everyone's prayers are being answered, and they just cancel each other out.

^ i have. You've admitted belief in God is illogical, that is proof by normal definitions of the word "proof".

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:18 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2014 1:17:28 AM

And what was that proof, again, that conclusively searches every plane of existence?

Quote :

" And it's not my interpretation, it's what the damn book says."

Except, it's NOT what the book says. It doesn't say "God created the earth in a 7-day period, about 6000 years ago."

4/22/2014 1:18:37 AM

To the degree that we know that the tooth fairy isn't real, we know your god isn't.

Must we search every plane of the existence for the tooth fairy too?

4/22/2014 1:20:12 AM

what is this "every plane of existence" thing? That's not a christian or biblical belief.
You can't make up a new belief system, then say that the Christian God can't be disproved.

4/22/2014 1:20:51 AM

Quote :

"No. Just the Biblical God. "Created the earth in 7 days 6000 years ago" is your convenient interpretation to allow easy refutation."

You're right, it doesn't literally read that exactly. But it does have a genealogy going back all the way to the week of creation to recorded history. Unless the entire book is figurative, that's what it says.

Which, by the way, if the entire book is figurative, god doesn't exist. QED.

4/22/2014 1:23:24 AM

You can't say "X has been proven not to exist" when you haven't even begun to look in any of the places it might exist. You said "God has been disproven," yet all you offer is "this interpretation of the story is not 100% logically consistent." Those two statements are not synonymous.

^ Bravo. Beautiful false dilemma.

4/22/2014 1:25:11 AM

Look, any reasonable Christian interpretation of the Bible must take Genesis literally. The authors of your precious Gospels clearly believed it to be a literal history of the world.

Modern non-Creationist Christianity just ignores this massive inconsistency with their philosophy and the Creationists rightly call them out for it.

If Genesis didn't happen, then the Resurrection fable didn't happen.

Genesis didn't happen.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2014 1:29:55 AM

Quote :

"You said "God has been disproven," yet all you offer is "this interpretation of the story is not 100% logically consistent.""

Yes, demonstrating something is illogical is proof that the thing being described is wrong.

If you're saying A=B and i'm showing you that A!=B, then continuing to believe A=B is plain wrong. That's how proof works.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2014 1:30:28 AM

Quote :

"Look, any reasonable Christian interpretation of the Bible must take Genesis literally."

Reasonable, as conveniently defined by you, not that you have a vested interest in choosing any any particular definition, right?

^ Only, you haven't proven that the Bible is illogical. You've only shown that your cherry-picked version is illogical. At best, you've presented an argument (not proof). Up and until you go out and search every last possible place the Christian God could exist, you haven't proven he doesn't exist. This is the basic problem with trying to prove a negative. You can absolutely say I've never proved he exists, and I'll happily say that you're right, I haven't. But I didn't make the original claim that he's been proven not to exist; you did. And I'm still waiting for that proof. The simple fact is that you are putting far more stock into your argument than what it actually shows and does. Moreover, what you're trying to do is say "If any one part of it is disproved, then the entirety of it disproved," and that, too is fallacious.

4/22/2014 1:39:46 AM

Quote :

"Reasonable, as conveniently defined by you, not that you have a vested interest in choosing any any particular definition, right?"

That's right. The non-believer is the one with the vested interest.

Quote :

"Reasonable, as conveniently defined by you, not that you have a vested interest in choosing any any particular definition, right?"

Internal consistency is a requirement of a reasonable interpretation. It doesn't prove that the interpretation is accurate, but without it the interpretation is complete nonsense. Like any interpretation that doesn't treat Genesis and Exodus as historical.

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:47 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2014 1:42:18 AM

Quote :

" Only, you haven't proven that the Bible is illogical. You've only shown that your cherry-picked version is illogical. "

LOL, it's not cherry picked, i only picked major parts of what mainstream christians believed. not sure how you expect me to review hundred of pages individually?

I believe you said on here before you're not really Christian, but if you told me somethings you believed about the Christian God, then i'll tell you why they're wrong.

This website has reviewed each page individually though if you want to see things broken down that way:
http://bibviz.com

[Edited on April 22, 2014 at 1:45 AM. Reason : ]

4/22/2014 1:44:55 AM

^^ OK, then kindly provide a nice discussion of what is and isn't a reasonable Christian interpretation of Genesis...

4/22/2014 1:46:43 AM

^^ your cherry-picked version starts out with "Genesis is 100% literal" and then proceeds to "Every part of the Bible must be 100% true for the God referenced in the Bible to exist". I mean, it doesn't get more cherry-picked than that...

4/22/2014 1:52:33 AM

ha you've got to be trolling at this point...?

4/22/2014 1:53:07 AM