Truth hurts. Oh damn. rjlrii. i, EVER lall. llooll o . c: -It fa: iebook. com/ atheist memebase. Actually it is. 1 John 4:8 He that does not love does not know God, because God is love. (and verse 16) ...God is love and the one who remains in love remains i Holy shit
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #104 - kittygerman (03/03/2014) [+] (2 replies)
stickied by kittygerman
Thank you all for getting me to front page and sharing your opinions ^^
#47 - snakefire (03/03/2014) [-]
I'm christian, and my grandmother actually gets mad at me for NOT hating muslims.   
Its actually a real problem.
I'm christian, and my grandmother actually gets mad at me for NOT hating muslims.

Its actually a real problem.
#173 to #47 - greensky (03/03/2014) [-]
maybe that's because muslims are are huge fckin problem by being a goddamn cancer
Thank you for your attention
#202 to #47 - rebenely (03/03/2014) [-]
I feel ya bro.
#210 to #47 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
Yoy should though.Islam is a ******* plauge and all middle eastern ******* smell like **** ,lie,are shady as **** .
#49 to #47 - anon Comment deleted by kittygerman [-]
User avatar #51 to #49 - nibbero (03/03/2014) [-]
I care. Nibbero always cares.
User avatar #83 to #49 - chrispoot ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
I care ******* .
I would like to smack his Grandmother, just like I want to smack you
User avatar #68 to #47 - toastersburnthings (03/03/2014) [-]
My grandmother gets mad at me for not being racist in general
User avatar #111 to #47 - ugottanked (03/03/2014) [-]
are you serious?
User avatar #113 to #111 - snakefire (03/03/2014) [-]
User avatar #114 to #113 - ugottanked (03/03/2014) [-]

nah, **** it. not gonna let it ruin my good mood today.

anyways hello! how are you?
User avatar #135 to #114 - iamaniceperson (03/03/2014) [-]
Very good! Hey, did you heard about that grandma who hates his son for not hating muslims? It's really neat.
User avatar #138 to #135 - ugottanked (03/03/2014) [-]
why yes, i did!

did you hear about the gif that says anyone can be as bitchin as they want?
User avatar #139 to #138 - iamaniceperson (03/03/2014) [-]
nope. mind to show me?
User avatar #144 to #139 - fuckingtrolls (03/03/2014) [-]
I guess he did mind
#15 - pebar (03/02/2014) [-]
User avatar #31 - psykojet (03/02/2014) [-]
I am a Christian, not the most devout man of God, but a man of God nonetheless, and I agree with this. I have met some Atheists both online and in real life who are some of the nicest people you will ever meet, and I have have met some Christians who act nothing like they should at anytime. Even though we all have bad days, they claim to know God and act like a ******* 24/7 and do everything they want to then just use Christianity as a "Get out of Hell FREE!" card.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." -Matthew 7:1-5
#40 to #31 - mastercolossus (03/02/2014) [-]
**mastercolossus rolled a random image posted in comment #7947162 at Safe For Work Random Board ** westboro baptists faces when they realize all of christiandom hates them. god too.
User avatar #120 to #31 - wallbuilder (03/03/2014) [-]
Why a log... and how...
User avatar #121 to #120 - psykojet (03/03/2014) [-]
It's like, why try to fix a pixel on your monitor when you can't see **** .
User avatar #122 to #121 - wallbuilder (03/03/2014) [-]
I understand the analogy. But why would they say log. How does a log enter ones eye?
User avatar #124 to #122 - psykojet (03/03/2014) [-]
It's a translation from something said 2000+ years ago
User avatar #44 to #31 - mapleknight (03/02/2014) [-]
Same here.
#2 - mohawkwarrior (03/02/2014) [-]
Actually it is. 1 John 4:8 He that does not love does not know God, because God is love. (and verse 16) ...God is love and the one who remains in love remains in union with God and God remains in union with him.

And no, I am not Christian, but I have studied the Bible more than any other Christian I know. That is a big part of why I am not one. But I had a minister once tell me that he believed that he didn't care that I was a traditional Native American and a Buddhist, he would still see me in heaven one day. Regardless of ones beliefs, a truly loving god can not be one worth worshiping if he would be so petty as to condemn a good man because happened to pick the wrong choice out of a thousand possible religions!
#4 to #2 - anon (03/02/2014) [-]
I like this answer, this is a good answer.
User avatar #17 to #2 - mechaemperor (03/02/2014) [-]
inb4 hurr, hurr fedoraw tippin' euphoria
User avatar #53 to #2 - rainbowrush (03/03/2014) [-]
That does not say people who don't believe in God does not love, only that people who do not love, does not know God. There's a gigantic difference.

Also, Catholics have edited the Bible a few times, so not everything there should be there.
#79 to #2 - mitchimusk (03/03/2014) [-]
I've always agreed with this. And I get a lot of crap from my religious friends (I am religious). There's the teaching that "God is the only path to Heaven" but I just can't imagine a God who loves us to say "That man, the one who has done nothing but good deeds his whole life, the one who was never introduced to my teachings...yeah he gonna go to Hell."
User avatar #108 to #2 - monsieurhonkhonk (03/03/2014) [-]
What point is there in studying the Bible if you don't understand it? Someone who's read it once and understood it for what it is, as opposed to someone who read it multiple times and studied it and doesn't understand what God makes extremely plain, is going to get more out of the reading.
#222 to #108 - mohawkwarrior (03/03/2014) [-]
Because people who skimmed through once, tossed it aside, and said "okay, I got it!" are the overly pushy, holier than thou, religious zealot morons that always think they are right, everyone else is wrong, even when they are PROVEN wrong. They are stuck up and hateful, and not the kind of people worth talking to, and one of the very reasons I abandoned Christianity at an early age, even though I was giving better sermons than the elders at my church by age ten.
I found so many lies and loopholes within the faith and the book itself, so try thinking first before saying something so stupid. If you have only taken one quick glance at the book, maybe you might have missed a few damn things. Like I said, you can take a few good life lessons from it, but you are just a ******* moron if you want to try to follow every single hypocritical passage in there.
User avatar #157 to #2 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, the Abrahamic God can't be benevolent.
User avatar #220 to #2 - lieutenantderp (03/03/2014) [-]
God is love, god is life lol
User avatar #29 to #2 - blackrunner (03/02/2014) [-]
You read the bible so you're a christian you ******* muppet. Lol get owned.
#32 to #29 - mohawkwarrior (03/02/2014) [-]
I also read the Quran, the Upanishads, The Eightfold Path, the Four Noble Truths, the Torah... So what? Enlightenment comes from many sources, as can falsehoods...
User avatar #34 to #32 - blackrunner (03/02/2014) [-]
Showoff.. idot
User avatar #94 to #32 - vortexrain (03/03/2014) [-]
What are the Upanishads, The Eightfold Path, and the Four Noble Truths?
User avatar #225 to #94 - blackrunner (03/03/2014) [-]
he doesnt now hes a lying christian. a sin punisble by an etenity in the hell
#209 to #29 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
obvious b8. (or just retarted)
#16 to #2 - RiflemanFunny (03/02/2014) [-]
"Sins of the flesh shall be forgiven, sins of the spirit will never be forgiven."
#8 to #2 - thismustbeseen (03/02/2014) [-]
You sound like an interesting person
#10 to #8 - mohawkwarrior (03/02/2014) [-]
Thank you. Would you like a hug?
#36 to #2 - anon (03/02/2014) [-]
We are all in gods image, not because we look like him but because of our innate knowledge of what is right and wrong. An atheist is born with this even if they don't believe they got it from god they still have it. If they so make the choice to pursue the innate "good" then they would in turn be loving and know god more than a hatefully christian who certainly does not know god for who he is.
#5 to #2 - acheryus (03/02/2014) [-]
you are not as learned as you think, god only judges people by sin, one sin in the bible is enough to condemn a soul to hell, but what Christianity says is that god forgives people of all the sins that they commit if they follow god. the only unpardonable sin occurs on your death bed and you haven't become a follower, or basically saying that god is a liar.
#7 to #5 - anon (03/02/2014) [-]
can you prove those points with verses from the bible? Because most of the time you guys misinterpret the **** out of it, positively and negatively.
User avatar #26 to #7 - psykojet (03/02/2014) [-]
"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." - Romans 3:24 (NIV Translation)
#97 to #26 - moshpiler (03/03/2014) [-]
so uhhh...hmmm yeah... explain again how that translates to aforementioned point of view...

I'll make it easier for ya specifically, how the "redemption that came by christ jesus" means becoming a follower of christianity
#167 to #5 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
...just throwing this in here. Talking about being on your "death bed"...
#6 to #5 - mohawkwarrior (03/02/2014) [-]
You forget that the bible doesn't even say that there is a hell. Also god does not only judge by sin. Many times Jesus himself references that god judges by virtue and the way a man treats others. The bible gives no exact formula for how god judges, and it would be pure arrogance to say that there is a formula that could be written in human language that could fully expand on every contingency for such a judgment.
User avatar #42 to #6 - anenemy (03/02/2014) [-]
The bible gives no exact forumla?

Matthew 5:48 - Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.
User avatar #38 to #6 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/02/2014) [-]
What about the lake of fire and all that good stuff?
User avatar #13 to #6 - maxataxx (03/02/2014) [-]
John 14:6 says, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. None can get to the Father except through Me." This page doesn't even have all the places that the Bible mentions Hell.
#14 to #13 - mohawkwarrior (03/02/2014) [-]
All of the older translations (pre-King James) refer to Hades as a place of waiting. The actual passages that refer to casting the souls into the pits of fire state that they shall be "cast into the fires to be destroyed for all eternity" Not tortured, destroyed. This is actually one of the point brought up during the rebellion against the church that created protestantism. Because many priests, such as Martin Luther, were pissed at the fact that the church made up horrible lies just to keep people in line. Much of this message was lost in the struggle to form new christian faiths.
Of course, we have to remember that the bible itself was also a collection of texts thrown together and voted upon by the church, as to what passages would make the cut, and which were not acceptable. That is why the entire manuscript that Jesus himself wrote is not in there. There were things they considered inflammatory.
User avatar #228 to #14 - acheryus (03/03/2014) [-]
ok, Hades is also know as "Abrahams bosom" and it is a place of waiting, however it was divided into two parts; one was the hell that most people think of and the other was a place of peace for the followers of Jewish law. Christians believe that messiah was Jesus; Jews do not think that messiah has come yet(that is the difference between the religions), Both groups were awaiting the coming of messiah to come and judge the souls of the dead, and to allow the good souls into heaven and the bad souls into "Gehenna" a place of pain and darkness. if you are Christian you believe that Hades is empty, and if you are Jewish then it is full of all the souls that have ever died.
User avatar #19 to #14 - maxataxx (03/02/2014) [-]
I feel like being destroyed for all eternity is kind of the same thing as tortured for all eternity. Being destroyed would be extremely painful, and I feel like torture/destroyed could have just been a difference of how they translated it.
#20 to #19 - mohawkwarrior (03/02/2014) [-]
I also look at it as it was a book written by men lusting after power. So, yes there are some good lessons in it, but taking everything in it as absolute truth is irresponsible. That is why the entire thing pretty much contradicts itself the whole way through.
#21 to #20 - anon (03/02/2014) [-]
No, taking the bible as the only absolute truth is the only way to salvation. Besides, just because you look at it as a book written by power lusting men, doesn't mean it is, so your last statement about the bible being contradictory is invalid.
#24 to #21 - mohawkwarrior (03/02/2014) [-]
Actually, it is historically proven fact. We now know exactly how the bible was compiled, and it has been on historical record for decades. There are even records of the council that decided which books could go in and which would not. The only invalid thing is believing that a magic hand from the sky came down and set these things to paper without any human involvement, and therefore no chance of corruption whatsoever. That is naivety.
User avatar #150 to #5 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/03/2014) [-]
God is a liar. It is not benevolent.

See ya'll in hell.
#78 to #5 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
No a key point of Christianity is that you must believe in Christ. Have you ever wondered why there are so many Christian missionaries/so much evangelizing/why Christianity has spread so much. It's because this is a core belief. Other religions do not have this stipulation (eg. In Judaism, the Jewish Law only applies to Jewish people). Also regarding this, I know it doesn't sound right to us but you cannot look at Christianity from our perspective or morality. Something may seem evil to us but at the end of the day if it is what we believe God wants us to do that is what we should do (It's not supposed to be easy but it's not about our morality but God's morality) keep in mind he asked Abraham to kill his child (this is the level of commitment you need if you want to be a good Christian, I'm not saying you need to kill your child but some things the Bible says might conflict with our morality but it's not our choice to apply our morality to it.
User avatar #75 to #5 - arstya (03/03/2014) [-]
God doesn't lie.

His followers lie, or the information is misconstrued over the years.
User avatar #41 to #2 - anenemy (03/02/2014) [-]
You studied the Bible, and yet your last sentence shows how little you actually understood it.
#58 - legendofbearo (03/03/2014) [-]
Everyones face when religious debates
Everyones face when religious debates
#9 - allthekingsanons (03/02/2014) [-]
This makes me mad. according to me:
being good > believing in god
But i'm atheist.
If you want to go to heaven you have to believe in god, read the bible. Most christians haven't, but when you do you realize how backwards the whole thing is.
User avatar #33 to #9 - douthit (03/02/2014) [-]
I get what you're saying, but Christians believe that "being good" means never having done anything bad, sine even one bad act separates you from God. And that's why Jesus.
#208 to #9 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
You don't understand. being good is neither < or > than believing in God it is = to it. If it was possible to be a truly good person that person would go to heaven on their own. However it is humanly impossible to be good, and anyone whose professes themselves to be good is lying to others and themselves. Believing in God allows you to make yourself good in his eyes through his power. Some "Christians" use this as a get out of hell free card and to make themselves feel more good than other people, when you are supposed to do the opposite and realize it is not you but God that gets you to heaven and you must humble yourself instead.
User avatar #217 to #9 - rockamekishiko (03/03/2014) [-]
if there is a God, your belief in whether he exists or not doesn't change anything. believing in God could could be just being a good person and loving others (since God is love) there are many interpretations
User avatar #35 to #9 - brrigg (03/02/2014) [-]
why would this make you mad, they're saying the same thing you are...
User avatar #18 to #9 - thegirlyoudespise (03/02/2014) [-]
if you wouldn't take medical advice from 200 years ago, why take moral advice from 2000 years ago?
User avatar #133 to #18 - nommonsterbaa (03/03/2014) [-]
That's a horrible comparison. Medical advice is something that is going to constantly be changing as our technological capabilities do, and making it better and better for the treatment of people, etc. People are still people, and the people 200 years ago likely would have loved to have the 'medical advice' we do today, but. It wasn't available to them, even if it would have been useful. Same medical needs. The people 2000 years ago, and the people today, are still people. There's obvious differences in the societies, but the same morals should apply. And just because something happened back then and not today doesn't mean it was to be considered totally acceptable then. Some comment below mentions genocide, as if that's something that each and every individual human has contributed to.
User avatar #147 to #133 - thegirlyoudespise (03/03/2014) [-]
To each his own

i agree with it, you may not and thats ok.
User avatar #149 to #147 - nommonsterbaa (03/03/2014) [-]
Thanks for not responding in a hostile way, apologies if I came off as such
User avatar #151 to #149 - thegirlyoudespise (03/03/2014) [-]
'tis not a problem

i hate it when people disagree in disrespectful ways, and it came across fine
#22 to #18 - anon (03/02/2014) [-]
Do morals change? I believe its just social norms that have changed. God is constant, 2000 years ago and present, so if what he calls just and unjust 2000 years ago, they must still be just and unjust today.
User avatar #59 to #22 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
God called shell fish and wearing two clothes of the same fabric bad 2000 years ago...
User avatar #28 to #22 - okamiterasu (03/02/2014) [-]
Oh, yeah. i forgot genocide was still moral.
#100 to #28 - moshpiler (03/03/2014) [-]
can't miss slavery, put that down too
User avatar #129 to #28 - nommonsterbaa (03/03/2014) [-]
Are you really going to let the actions of part of humanity represent humanity as a whole?
User avatar #132 to #129 - okamiterasu (03/03/2014) [-]
Well, that's what god has been doing for the entirety of human history
User avatar #134 to #132 - nommonsterbaa (03/03/2014) [-]
"the entirety of human history" Do you even have multiple examples of god having done so?
#136 to #134 - skunkmilk (03/03/2014) [-]
I got upset when santa clause stopped giving me presents
User avatar #141 to #136 - nommonsterbaa (03/03/2014) [-]
"I made you that way
I hate you because of it"
When god created man, they weren't sinful or corrupt. God created them in his image. And then satan tempted Eve, and then from her Adam, to eat from the tree they were forbidden to eat from (Tree of knowledge if I'm correct). Man was without knowledge, and didn't take it as evil to eat from the tree anyways, simply following one word instead of another (Just like people following one religion or another, or none at all, doesn't make them evil). And from then, man had sinned, and been tainted by it, and was no longer the way god had made them, because of satan. To be fair, satan was a creation of god as well, but. The angels weren't as man, and without knowledge.
User avatar #168 to #141 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Soooo what do we take from that?

"Knowledge is evil", basically.

Yet another reason to shun the Judeo-Christian mythology...
User avatar #176 to #168 - skunkmilk (03/03/2014) [-]
No way man, thinking is bad. Just throw your money at churches cause god.
User avatar #180 to #176 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't have to throw money at churches. Because our Government is so kind it feeds the Church from taxpayers money. Along with all its "donations" requests. Including a completely megalomaniac project of possibly the world's largest cathedral, which would cost somewhere about.... 500 million euros. More or less, I may be wrong about the correct number of the hundreds of millions...
#181 to #180 - skunkmilk (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah it gets excessive
User avatar #172 to #168 - nommonsterbaa (03/03/2014) [-]
Pretty much
User avatar #140 to #134 - okamiterasu (03/03/2014) [-]
assuming a literal interpretation of the bible, god curses the entirety of the human race for all eternity because two people ate a fruit. he also destroys the entire planet because a few cities weren't worshiping him
User avatar #142 to #140 - nommonsterbaa (03/03/2014) [-]
God was pure, and made man pure. They were tainted by sin, and because of it the rest of humanity from then on was as well. People weren't worshiping him, but they were also full of sin, and hateful people. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, assuming you've done any reading of the bible and could correct me (not that it's bad if you haven't). So god made the flood, and made the promise never to do so again. The world was filled with sin once again though, and man returned to having parts not worship him. But god had made the promise not to create the flood again. Because there was going to be sin, Jesus died so that even if there is sin, it can be forgiven because of the sacrifice he made.
User avatar #236 to #142 - okamiterasu (03/03/2014) [-]
But the thing that everyone seems to forget is that god is supposedly all knowing. He knows the past, the future, and everything in between. Therefore he knew exactly what was going to happen to mankind before he even created them. it would've been impossible for him to not know that Satan would've corrupted humanity, and he did absolutely nothing to try and prevent it. Same thing with the flood. it would be impossible for him to not know that humanity would start to turn away from him, and again, he did absolutely nothing to prevent it. He could've shown his power by changing the color of the sky, or instantaneously changed the mental state of all the evil people, or even made Satan not exist in the first place. Literally no story in the bible involving god makes any ******* sense from the story of job to the whole "life is a test of your worthiness of heaven" **** because god knew/knows exactly what was going to happen. the only two scenarios in which this makes sense are: 1) God doesn't exist, and the bible was written by a bunch of asinine storytellers smoking camel **** . or 2) God is such an evil and sadistic **** that it escapes all forms of logic and sense why any reasonable person want to worship him Assuming, of course, a literal interpretation of the Bible
#48 to #28 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
its not but its still isn't as bad as hearing atheists bring it up all the ******* time.
shut the **** up you piece of **** .
User avatar #125 to #48 - okamiterasu (03/03/2014) [-]
Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. unless you're a christian, in which case, words slaughter millions. or something along those lines
User avatar #64 to #48 - ieatpaste (03/03/2014) [-]
you jesus cunts are really bad at hiding your butthurt
User avatar #146 to #64 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
I could say the same for atheists on this website, even after the cleansing through the "euphoric" meme of some of the dumber atheist-related **** .
User avatar #158 to #146 - ieatpaste (03/03/2014) [-]
idk i only see religious people start swearing and getting all pissy.
User avatar #159 to #158 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
I've seen atheists do that a lot on the internet. The "euphoric" meme is really getting on their nerves around here recently.
User avatar #161 to #159 - ieatpaste (03/03/2014) [-]
that's just a way to get out of an argument when you know that you can't argue. I don't care about being called a neckbeard because i know im not, but it is pretty annoying seeing a perfectly valid comment spammed by fedoras when im looking to read a good argument.
User avatar #162 to #161 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
I dunno. The meme was made in the first place because there was so much stupid atheist **** circulating the internet, so there had to be a meme to mock it all like atheists have for religion.
User avatar #163 to #162 - ieatpaste (03/03/2014) [-]
Im done with this conversation, have a good night.
User avatar #164 to #163 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
alright man
#39 to #22 - anon (03/02/2014) [-]
"Being gay is bad."

"Don't judge."

Guess which one you need to do?
#211 to #39 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
By judging they don't mean do not discern what is right and wrong. they mean do not judge to make yourself higher, or think you are better than someone. I think a lot of people don't realize that Christans are supposed to believe that Gayness (the act) is wrong, not gay people themselves. gayness is supposed to be wrong like lying, cheating, immorality, etc in Christians eyes. However they are not meant to hate gays because that would mean they would have to hate all sinners (aka everyone including themselves).

Side note: A lot of people think Gayness is part of a person like a body part or skin color ( they are just born with it) yet it has not been proven and many people become gay (not gay their entire life) . Source: (life experience with gay friends
User avatar #25 to #22 - RefrainFromTouchin (03/02/2014) [-]
Yeah dad. Divorce/cheating used to get you stoned to death

Now it's a TV show
User avatar #23 to #22 - thegirlyoudespise (03/02/2014) [-]
morals are of course going to change if social norms do
User avatar #27 to #22 - psykojet (03/02/2014) [-]
That depends, would you sell your sister to a man from the next town over for two goats and a cow?
#37 to #9 - anon (03/02/2014) [-]
I am part of a religion that doesn't believe in hell, they just believe in less good heavens.
#156 - teranin (03/03/2014) [-]
This comment section makes me smile a bit.
This comment section makes me smile a bit.
#91 - AnAnon (03/03/2014) [-]
I love funny signs.....
User avatar #61 - mrgoodlove (03/03/2014) [-]
Pray not for the man who shares your belief, but for the man who needs the relief
User avatar #55 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think this is quite right.
Hating someone is a sin, even if that person is doing something wrong. The correct thing is to try and help that person as you would a loved one.
Being an atheist is also a sin because you are rejecting God.

They are comparing two sins and saying one is more favored by God than the other. It would seem to me that God would find less displeasure from someone who is has let their righteous fury turn into genuine hate as compared to someone who has refused and neglected to search him out.
User avatar #57 to #55 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you have a good understanding of atheism. Many atheists live in foreign countries like China where the majority of people are Buddhist, so if you're in Buddhist culture the Christian God isn't a big deal or even on the plains of consciousness. They don't think "I refuse the Christian God and refuse to search him out" it's that these ideas don't even reach their consciousness just like you don't say "I refuse the Hindu God Ganesh and refuse to search for Ganesh" you just never thought Ganesh was relevant or even knew who Ganesh was.

Furthermore many atheists do want to believe in God but just don't think it is a justified belief like Ricky Gervais or the person in the song Johnny Hoax - Obsolete . So they are searching and they want to embrace the idea of God but they can't find him.
User avatar #62 to #57 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
I actually do completely understand all of that and know what an atheist is. And I chose my words thusly. That is how it works when you choose any religion, or lack there of, you are choosing to reject all other schools of belief. Including the ones you don't know about. But you do know that there are religions out there you don't know of or understand and you choose not to pursue that knowledge.
So no, I have never thought "I reject Ganesh" but i have thought "I accept Christianity" which, by default, is to say "I reject everything that contradicts it."
User avatar #66 to #62 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's just the language you used made it sound like all atheists actively reject religious ideas rather than a very large majority who live in Buddhist or tribal culture who never even heard of the Christian God and so could not have rejected an idea which they did not have.
User avatar #67 to #66 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
That's because they do. There's not much difference between actively rejecting something and passively rejecting it. To reject it is to dismiss it and put it out of your mind. In that way, those who don't know about Christianity put the idea that there could be other religions out of their minds. They choose not to search for more.
As for people who are searching for God but haven't found him yet. I wouldn't call those atheists sense they aren't disbelieving or else they wouldn't be searching.
User avatar #72 to #67 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Again, they didn't put it out of their mind because it was never in their mind, the majority of people weren't raised in Christian culture. There may not have been more religions in their communities because many cultures are very secluded. Choosing not to search for more religions is pretty normal, I expect you have done it.

Well if you don't believe in God but are searching for him, you still don't believe in God.
User avatar #73 to #72 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
But even in a community with a single religion there is still the duality of choosing to believe that religion or be an atheist. Now are there people out there who simply never even think there could be anything besides their one religion through their whole lives? I find that hard to believe. Every person is a thinking human being. Thus, it would make sense that everyone has encountered the question of 'if what I believe really true?'

Also, if you are searching for God then you have to believe he might be there. That means you think he is even though you're not sure. That is a lot closer to belief than disbelief. Why look for something you don't believe you're going to find?
User avatar #77 to #73 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I know of a tribe which doesn't even have one religion, it's an atheist tribe which over the thousands of years, never had any creation myths. Although recently a missionary did go to them but they politely told him to stop, he eventually became an atheist himself. A lot of cultures like the Eskimos are very secluded and they only have one religion. What I mean though is that there are many people who have never heard the gospel story or know who Jesus is, so they never rejected, refused to search or ignored Christianity they just never heard of it.

Most atheists, myself and Richard Dawkins, say that God might be there and it is a possibility. We aren't sure he isn't there. We believe that we could believe in God in the future or we might see God after we died. But we don't believe it. Saying "I am going to see if there is any good evidence for God or any reason to believe in God" is not just closer to disbelief it IS disbelief because you don't believe in God you're just searching for evidence.
User avatar #102 to #77 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
While I wouldn't mind reading about that story(if you have a link), that gets into some rather opinion based things. If you don't believe in God then yes, that clearly looks like a case where these people are blameless sense they weren't exposed to Christianity. But The bible has an explanation for it in Romans 1:19-20. That even without exposure to the bible, they have it "written in their hearts" that there is a right and wrong and what that right and wrong is. Right, of course, including the belief in God.

As for searching, I'm not talking about allowing for the possibility that God is real. the difference is your mindset. Do you believe in God but don't know for sure and are searching to find proof or do you not believe and are searching to find a way to prove he's not real?
If you are searching to find God, you believe. But if you are searching for the lack of God then you don't believe.

Though I definitely see that you believe in the possibility of God, why else would you work so hard to find out for sure.
User avatar #166 to #102 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Funny that you mention about something being "written in their hearts"... I guess the Aztecs were DEEPLY searching for Jehova, weren't they?...

In other words: kind of hard for Christians to explain how different religions/mythologies all over the world have NOTHING in common with the Jewish/Christian god. Doesn't make any sense if you were to believe in ONE all mighty creator.
User avatar #171 to #166 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
On the contrary, the religions of the world have much in common. Some held on to the miraculous events, some held on to the moral law, and some had a combination of both. But throughout all civilization morality has been there. And, like with those who have the bible, that internal morality can be rejected or followed. Just because those peoples don't know the name of the god of morality they follow, they recognize there is one.

So I would argue the opposite, it supports rather than contradicts the idea of one single god.
User avatar #175 to #171 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Except that gods have nothing to do with morality.

The concept of morality was created by societies out of need to better govern themselves. The earliest concept of "religion" was shamanism, where the shaman was the one holding central authority, because he was believed to be the one who is in most contact with nature.

Put it further: most social animals follow a hierarchy and have a for of morality, without showing any religious behavior whatsoever.
User avatar #179 to #175 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Exactly, contact with nature. With the natural understand of how the world works. How morality works. Where did that come from? Why from the internal understand of right and wrong, the understanding that is written on our hearts by God. It fits together rather well.

You see, without God, where does morality come from? No where. It's made up. An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative. And if one person can think murder is wrong and the other think it's right while both being correct, then does morality even exist?
User avatar #183 to #179 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
"An all knowing being to guide is quiet necessary or else morality is relative"

This is the major fallacy of Christians - implying that without god, there is no morality.
No, morality comes from empathy. By having the intellectual capability of relating to another being. There is nothing supernatural about empathy.
Once again - we see it even in animals, many of them who are not even self-aware.

And you're also taking a huge leap from "how the world works", in terms of natural phenomenons, and "how morality works". The primitive humanoids couldn't give 2 ***** number 1 "how morality works". They were only interested in their keen survival.

See, this is the most important aspect about life, in general: it seeks to survive, first and foremost. And a completely anarchist society is a self-destructive one. "Morality" exists to counter this and to make sure that a society becomes more and more constructive.
User avatar #185 to #183 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Then let me ask you, what makes something wrong?
User avatar #245 to #185 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Christians don't work on Sunday, that's why the church service is always on Sunday, the old Jewish law was on Saturday or the Sabbath and the Jews celebrate it on Friday night because their days work differently.

Almost exactly the same as the original texts? are you ******** me? all we have are fragments of the original texts but even then it's well known that the stories were spread by word of mouth because no one wrote them down and when something is spread by word of mouth it's very vulnerable to manipulation or mistakes in their recollection. Even now though there are known forgeries, like when Jesus said "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone" that was only added in a few hundred years ago.

"bible is divinely inspired" - bro, do you even substantiate claims with evidence?

Many times in the bible do the children get punished for their parents mistakes (Isaiah 14:21: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.) You're verse just highlights the contradictions in the bible:

Are you really saying that Jesus wasn't a sacrifice because that's one of the main themes of the bible, Jesus died for our sins, that's the idea, he sacrificed himself for humanity.

Adam was punished, he was cast out of the garden with Eve. He was the origin of original sin when he ate the apple which gave him knowledge of evil and that's why now we know how to do evil and why we do evil, you must disagree with a lot of Christians they are always telling me about these things.
User avatar #246 to #245 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/05/2014) [-]
Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Saturday to Sunday. But as I said before, it is simply a tradition that has followed over from the old Jewish practices. Church is held on Sunday but you are not required to avoid working nor buying/selling goods on Sunday because that was one of the things Jesus came and changed. Study the bible a bit an this becomes quite clear.

And yes. Considerable evidence. But you don't want to hear it because you've been taught that the bible can't be used as evidence for itself.
This evidence includes the numerous prophesies of the future that can be proven to have been written before the events occurred. No other text in the world comes close to the number of true prophesies in the bible nor how specific and accurate they were in describing what later happened. From Alexander the Great to the restoration of Israel as a nation.
The bible was written over 1500 years in several different countries in several different languages by numerous different authors who often didn't know one another and yet it still has complete consistency in message and form. And yet these books not only don't contradict one another, they actually support and confirm each other in a way that would be incredibly coincidental were it not for a God element in their creating.
As for those contradictions, I told you, look at each one in context and you will find they melt away. In the places he talks about sins of the father on the son he is clearly talking about how the father can cause the son to commit sins. NOT that an innocent child will be punished.

And yes, as I said, Jesus was not sacrificed so much as he gave himself up to be a sacrifice. Not like the lamb that is taken and killed, Jesus knew and allowed it to happen to himself.

And yes, I do disagree with some Christians. Some Christians don't properly study the bible. It's almost like we're not one huge hive minded group you can lump us into or something.
User avatar #247 to #246 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
User avatar #187 to #185 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Inconsistencies, first and foremost.

If you were to shove logic or logical fallacies aside, because allegedly the human mind cannot comprehend god's ways, then all that is left is to compare different scenarios that exist around the world.
User avatar #191 to #187 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
No no. I think you misunderstand. I'm not asking what makes a religion wrong. I'm asking what makes something, an action, morally wrong. What does it mean for an action to be wrong? Where is the wrong?
User avatar #193 to #191 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Simple: it affects the well-being of another human.

Notice that I say "human" and not "creature". Because we are aware that we are at the top of the food chain, therefore we do "harm" other animals, but for substenance purposes.
User avatar #194 to #193 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad?
And is it always wrong to negatively effect a human? What if it's to positively effect another human or humans? Is it wrong to shoot a man who is about to blow up a school bus? You are very much negatively effecting him.
User avatar #201 to #194 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Replying here because reply limits...

" Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him. "

Yes, yes it is. Because from my point of view, he has denied another person's right to live, therefore by default he has also lost his own right to live.
Not only is there the morality aspect, but you are also removing a dangerous specimen from society, better yet if he didn't yet breed to pass on the dangerous criminal genes further.
That is, mind you, the basic role of a prison: to keep dangerous individuals away from society, first and foremost. Second reason of a prison being trying to reform them.
User avatar #204 to #201 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Ah. And I disagree. i don't think he has lost any right and I think he should be allowed to continue on with his life, not being hurt by having his freedom stripped.

But which one of us is right? We disagree on this issue. Are we both right? How can we tell which one is right if either? If only there were some absolute source for moral law that we could turn to to be sure!
User avatar #196 to #194 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
"But why is it wrong to negatively effect another human being? What makes that bad? "

Because, I'm not sure that there is an actual English equivalent to our saying at this hour, but we have a saying "Do not do unto me something that you would not like being done onto yourself". Or somewhere along those lines.
Basic, common sense logic. No religion or supernatural implied in any way.

And your example is such a particular and extreme one I'm not even going to bother with it.
User avatar #199 to #196 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Alright, how about a real example. Crime and punishment. Is it ok to hurt an inmate to keep him from hurting others? He makes no gain by being sentenced to death or locked away. Only other gain from it but it hurts him.

And if you want logic, then you cannot deny that there are many cases in which it would make logical sense for you to take from someone else or your own gain. It's what's best for you. And yet it's wrong. Morality isn't all about doing what is best for survival.

User avatar #110 to #102 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It was a radio segment, that's how I heard it Daniel Everett on The Atheist Tribe The Pirahã

These tribesmen did not have belief in God written on their hearts, the Buddhists who account for a very large proportion of humanity didn't have it written in their hearts.

These aren't the two options, there are many atheists who don't believe but want to believe so they search, these are the people who I'm talking about. These are people who don't believe but are searching.

I don't consider this as working, I'm interested in these subjects and quite confident in my position on this matter. I can't be sure about God because I can not test for his existence, but there isn't a valid reason to believe in him.
User avatar #115 to #110 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Interesting. I wonder how much of it is true.

But yes, those tribesmen and the Buddhists do have it written on their hearts. You will find that every single society has some form of morality. But again, jsut because they have it written on their hearts doesn't mean they are bound by it, they can choose to reject or embrace it just like you or I.

And in saying "there isn't a valid reason" you are closing the possibility he exists.
User avatar #223 to #115 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
This is a reply to this comment:
Couldn't reply on it for some reason so I replied here instead.

So are you saying that the bible is "absolute source for moral law that we could turn to be sure"?
User avatar #230 to #223 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no. I'm saying I think that bible is. It looks that way to me in accordance to the religions I have so far studied. But my point was actually not that Christianity is right, but that an all knowing deity is needed for there to be absolute morality.

Otherwise there is only relative morality. Meaning that nothing is truly right and wrong, you just kind of make it up on the spot and it varies for different people. An example would be pirates in the colonial era. A British pirate raiding French ships is called a hero by the British and a criminal by the French.
User avatar #231 to #230 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes and no is a good answer, but hear me out.

Did you know that the Bible says human trafficking is okay and that slavery is normal. You can even hit your slaves as long as they don't die within the next few days. I wouldn't really take it for the base to morality.

What I think this is only my opinion, don't get too offended. is that religion has nothing to do with morality and if it's the only thing keeping you from murdering people or whatever you're pretty immoral person. Yeah with this the religion is great as it helps society in a way, but doesn't make you more moral.

The pirate example you used is silly. Those people could have been religious just the same. Believing in a higher power doesn't suddenly make you a better person and vice versa.
User avatar #232 to #231 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, I was aware of that. But you should also understand the context. There are two kinds of slavery in the bible that are both called "slavery" in the English translation. The one you are referring to is not the slavery you are thinking of, i. e. American forced slavery such as black people in colonial times. The slavery they are talking about is much closer to indentured servitude. A contract willingly entered, often to avoid poverty. And the guidelines for punishment are there to say "you cannot punish your servant to death" not "it's ok to beat your slave." That law you cited is to protect both servant and owner by keeping the punishment for not working relatively mild but also keep the owner in the legal right is the slave dies the next week after a punishment.

Secondly, you completely misunderstood my example of the pirates. I was illustrating relative morality vs absolute morality.
So perhaps I should put it this way. What keeps you from doing moral wrongs?
If you see an apple, want that apple, and know you ca get away with taking said apple, why don't you?
User avatar #233 to #232 - viperish (03/03/2014) [-]
As I already mentioned, it was only my opinion. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject so I don't really know what each of the "morality categories" hold under. I still don't feel how slavery would be morally right, even as mild as you described..

I wouldn't take the apple, because it's wrong. I would feel bad for doing it and I believe this bumped into this earlier while watching some of the links from this thread is what it comes down to:

"Morality is so simple. "I like being alive, I don't want to die. I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me." "I like my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff. I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal my stuff." Boom. Morals. It all comes from pure self-interest."
- Mark Rosengarten

Just to remind you, as I already said, these are only my opinions and I'm not here to specifically offend you or other religious people.
User avatar #234 to #233 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
There you go, self interest. But what if someone decides that it's in their best self interest to take something they can? If you base your morals on self interest, then it's not wrong because it's best for you to take what you won't be punished for taking.

And don't worry, I'm not easily offended. I understand everything you say is your opinion, that's why you said it.
User avatar #243 to #234 - viperish (03/04/2014) [-]
Oh riiiiiight. Now I understood what you meant, thanks.
User avatar #123 to #115 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I meant that they did not have the belief in God written in their hearts. Morality will be encoded in their DNA rather than their hearts, it's really just an over glorified pumping system, now I sound like a pretentious slut, nevermind no ones really listening but you.

Actually no, something can be true without a valid reason to believe it. Imagine an ancient person said "in the future we will fly" the ancient person didn't have a valid reason or justification for their claim but the claim was possible and true because we have helicopters. Even if God exists there isn't a valid reason to believe in him that I know of.
User avatar #131 to #123 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
It should be obvious that "on their hearts" means their head heart, not the actual blood pumping organ. If I say 'listen to your heart' are you seriously going to reply with 'wtf does puhpump puhpump mean?"

If you don't think there is a reason to believe then you clearly haven't studied the bible. But that's an entire different discussion right there.
User avatar #226 to #131 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Yeah I was just being pretentious ignore that. I thought you meant that in our DNA there is something which make us believe in God but as so many cultures have been around for so long and never thought of God this doesn't add up.

I read the bible all the way through when I was younger and I've looked certain parts up for reference, but reading the bible is what turned me an atheist in the first place because the stories are so bat **** insane and the morals are so outdated. Why read about what I should do if my bull kills a fellow tribesman or that I shouldn't boil my goat in it's mothers milk? the book isn't relevant to me.
User avatar #229 to #226 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Sounds like the old testament. If you take time to read and understand the new testament you will find that those morals ARE outdated, they were for ancient man and that's why Jesus came and "updated" the bible. Building and expanding upon the old Jewish law.
As far as the insane parts. It really has to be. If you are going to claim to be sent by God, you had better have some godly powers to prove it or else you'll be just like that guy that started the Taiping rebellion.
User avatar #235 to #229 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well the old testament is like 80% of the book.
I don't mean that the powers they did are insane, I mean the logic used in the stories is crazy, it's like
Abraham gets drunk and stumbles around his house naked, his kids put his clothes on but Ham sees his cock by accident, Ham is cursed into slavery for the rest of his life as are his children which was thought to be a prophecy of the black race being enslaved. WTF, who wrote this **** ?

User avatar #237 to #235 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone who read it and made a connection that may or may not be true. But these are stories of the people of the time and what they did. It's not always up front law, some of it is parables used to teach lessons through example. There's a reason some of the bible reads like a children's book for adults.
User avatar #239 to #237 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 to #239 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 to #240 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 to #242 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#76 to #73 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #165 to #67 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Dude, let me put it this way:

Rejecting the idea of "God" or "Gods" is the same for me as all people past the age of 7 reject the idea of an actual "Santa Claus" (which is a bit ironic, since Santa is essentially a Bible character...) being real. In my eyes, any god from any religion has as many chances to be real as Santa. Both the gods and Santa Claus are made up by the human mind.

Also, if I were to accept the notion of gods that are real, I do not see any reason why the Christian mythology should be given any priority or special attention than any other mythology known to man. Christianity is just ONE religion amongst the thousands of religions in the world.
THIS is a concept I would like to see Christians pondering about more. Most of them tend to have a very egocentric outlook on the whole thing.
User avatar #170 to #165 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
That's mostly opinion. And while opinion is fine. We were talking about definitions of a word here while you seem to have commented simply to say "well in my opinion God's not real so there."

And I'm not sure how many or which Christians you've talk to, but we, or at leas I, ponder such things. You have to study other religions or else how do you know which is the right one?

I have to say your words seem rather arrogant.
User avatar #178 to #170 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Well that's funny, because in my opinion Christianity (or Islam or Judaism for that matter) are extremely arrogant when they preach the idea that THEIR religion is the only true one.

I am simply applying an age-old thought process, backed up by Occam's Razor:
"Either all of it is OK, or none of it is" - meaning either all religions and gods are real, or none of them are.

And Occam's Razor comes in when comparing the 2 situations, one in which you would take for granted each creationist story from every religion on the planet and try to give each and every religions as much credit as the other...
or apply the simplest obvious solution, that religion is solely a man-made concept, created out of fear of the unknown.
User avatar #182 to #178 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
By you definition, every scientist who has ever said this theory was correct when others disagreed was being arrogant. Darwin was arrogant to push evolution. Mendel was arrogant to push his ideas of genetics. That makes no sense.

Speaking of making no sense, your point about all or nothing is very flawed. If two things contradict one another then they can't both be true. But how did you come to the conclusion that if two things contradict BOTH must be false?

And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense. This all or nothing stuff is scheiße.
User avatar #186 to #182 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
You see, I did not mention anything about "contradictions". YOU are the one who brought the idea up.

I simply stated that either all religions are real, thus each must respect the rest, creating all sorts of logical fallacies.... or none of them are.

"And there's no reason to give all religions credit. Only one is the true way, that's what makes sense"

You see, this is what I completely despise about Christians. These kinds of absolutes.

Fine, you want to talk about giving credit to a certain religion? Well, let's see if there are any reasons for Christianity to be that religions
- chronological priority? Nope, Christianity stems from Judaism, that is at least 3000 years older. Furthermore, there are plenty of proofs that there are religions that are way older than that. Hinduism, for example.
- priority given by how much it is spread? Irrelevant. Once, long ago, the Egyptian or Greek mythologies were the most spread (even under different forms, such as the Roman pantheon) in the world. All of these religions have withered and died, along with the civilizations that stemmed them.
- priority by the morality it preaches? Let's be serious...
User avatar #192 to #186 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
You despise absolutes and yet you are sitting here speaking in them yourself...
There is no reason that all or none has to be true. In fact, the opposite is much more reasonable.

As for your priorities. Most religions claim to have started at the beginning of time. But you seem to be going on the oldest time we have some writing that indicates the religion was around, that's a poor way to go about it. Just because there are no records didn't mean things weren't happening. In fact, records are increadably rare the farther you go back.

Spread is an ok indicator, if nothing else, those religions that are gone are almost certainly not true.

Morality is the best one sense if there is not a logical system of morality in a religion then it falls apart.

The best indicator is to look at all religions together, compare them, and pick the best one based on the comparisons. But there really is no gain in not picking one. "i can't lose if i don't play" never works in practice.
User avatar #195 to #192 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
"But there really is no gain in not picking one."

No, that's just bull. Not being tied to ANY religion allows you to basically think "outside the box", see the whole situation as a whole. It also makes you objective to any religion, letting room for better, more accurate analysis.
User avatar #197 to #195 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Because ignorant religious people simply can't think that way. We lack the ability to see outside the box and our brains simply won't work to let us see thing objectively. Bias is programmed into us right?
Sweet mercy if i didn't know better I'd say you didn't think religious people were humans at all, just animals who can't think on your level. Probably sheep if you were to pick one.
User avatar #200 to #197 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't view religious people as sub-humans or animals, not at all.
But I do view them as being chained, their thoughts & morals bound by that one religion.

Instead of finding morality within ourselves, we allow it to be dictated by a religion.
Not only is that completely contradictory with the concept of Free Will, but it also leads room for people who are indeed sheep in nature, by blindly following certain doctrines.
There is no morality for hating gays, for instance. It's actually incredibly anti-moral, because you're shoving your nose into something that is completely none of your business: another person's personal life.

Also, I am against religion because I advocate for people to start believing in themselves, not in a supernatural power. I know that the human race can achieve many great things, if only we as a collective start searching for power and faith within ourselves.
To quote from a famous movie, "in spite of all his imperfections, I'm a fan of man"
User avatar #203 to #200 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't think you know what free will is if you think that contradicts it.

And there you go again. You say we "blindly follow" as though we have no thought at all about it. Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong. Religious people simply do what they are told and don't think about things, not in the way you do right? You're just that much smarter.

As for the last part, I think you are quite backwards. Only with the morality of the true religion can people possibly drop their selfish ways enough to actually move forward in that way.
User avatar #205 to #203 - tkfourtwoone ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
" Clearly they never consider another religion, they never think their might be wrong"

No, no they don't. They blindly follow what they have been told. Not all religious people, of course, but quite a large number of them.

And do you know why? Because people, in general, are stupid. And not only are they stupid, they are lazy. Far too lazy to think for themselves.

Otherwise how the hell do you explain all the irrational hate that has brought legitimacy to different regimes throughout history?!
Even many of my fellow Romanians think that it's perfectly normal to be anti-semite. They don't know why, nor do they care why, for the most part. I've even met one who claims that Jews are hated because "they killed Jesus".

THAT is how most religious people are, I'm afraid. And if you're calling me backwards because of my way of thinking, then how pray do tell do you classify those kind of "people"?
User avatar #206 to #205 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
But as you said, not all. There are some thinking religious people, is that not what you said? And if so, then isn't it possible that, simply because you don't always see it, that there could be many thinking religious people? Even a silent majority?

But it remains that there are thinking religious people. Perhaps ones that are even on your oh so enlightened level.

And yet you look down on the majority with a smug sense of superiority. Sure;y you can see something wrong with that?
#70 to #62 - xcoreyx (03/03/2014) [-]
If you fully understood atheism then you wouldn't say that we "reject god." Because you can't reject something that simply doesn't exist.
User avatar #71 to #70 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Not true. You can reject a notion.
User avatar #84 to #71 - chewiewhatawookie ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
You can select the motion.
User avatar #86 to #84 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
You can perfect the lotion
User avatar #88 to #86 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
dude stop nobody cares go to the debate /religion/ bored...not here, you're being a little fagger.
User avatar #90 to #88 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
**** the religion board, it's too antisemetic
User avatar #143 to #90 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
I thought that was only two guys.
User avatar #227 to #143 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
There's only about 5 guys on the religion board excluding myself so it makes a big difference.
User avatar #238 to #227 - majormayor (03/03/2014) [-]
Maybe I should get active on there again to help a little.
User avatar #95 to #90 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
antisemetic use big words are like being asshat, stop that too, only asking as a friend and chill out..
User avatar #98 to #95 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
"Only asking as a friend' you called me a fag and down thumbed my comments.
User avatar #106 to #98 - acemcgunner (03/03/2014) [-]
cause you're being little moldy pickle and I'll thumb you if you stop it plus, it's the internet everybody is a fag and you're being a fag...
#96 to #95 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #87 to #86 - chewiewhatawookie ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
You can elect the potion.
User avatar #89 to #87 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
We can erect the... ****
User avatar #92 to #89 - chewiewhatawookie ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
We can effect the... Duck
#93 to #92 - thebritishguy has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #85 to #84 - Vandeekree ONLINE (03/03/2014) [-]
Sorry but what?
#82 - swagloon (03/03/2014) [-]
Of course there's some big argument in the comments. I wouldn't be FJ with out one or two threads full of users who think they know everything.
User avatar #63 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
The thing is that although these Christians are super cool it doesn't mean to me that their religion is peaceful because their holy book still says
Psalm 53:1 ESV
To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.

As nice as they are, I don't think God would like what they are doing, so these Christians are better than their God in my opinion, they are able to judge atheists for who they are rather than their theological beliefs.
User avatar #216 to #63 - theshadowed (03/03/2014) [-]
Religious tolerance was pretty much non-existent until the 1800s.

But obviously the Bible should magically evolve to match our current morals.
User avatar #109 to #63 - lolfire (03/03/2014) [-]
As a British guy I'm sure you will appreciate this.
It's Stephen Fry talking about that very subject.

Stephen Fry Catholic Church is Not a Force for Good.
User avatar #117 to #109 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Stephen Fry is a really fly guy, his friend Hitchens is also really brilliant.
Christopher Hitchens - The Best of the Hitchslap
#118 to #117 - lolfire (03/03/2014) [-]
I wonder what would happen if Stephen Fry and Bill Nye got together...
I wonder what would happen if Stephen Fry and Bill Nye got together...
User avatar #127 to #118 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Bill Nye always says that, I know that Bill Nye got together with Niel De Grasse Tyson and Dawkins once.
#215 - theshadowed (03/03/2014) [-]
Wow the first actual big bible fight on FJ front page for months now. These comments are hilarious
#177 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
My religious teachers have always told me that the Bible isn't right literally, but spiritually.
User avatar #207 to #177 - lemurlemur (03/03/2014) [-]
faith in humanity restored
#45 - poepsjinees (03/03/2014) [-]
I believe heaven is not where you go to after you die. Heaven is what we create by being good people.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)