90-200 million dead.

[MrJonno]

This does not mean that Atheists are inherently immoral, merely that they are entirely unpredictable when it comes to their system of moral beliefs

Could say the same about left handed people, being an atheist doesn't make you a good or bad person . It just makes in you in one part of your life more rational

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I am not an atheist, I am atheistic.

[rasetsu]

Do you know where the idea of sending people to hell to burn in eternal torment comes from? It's not in the Old Testament. The doctrine of hell is from Christianity. The Jews didn't believe in hell as such. It took the loving Christian God to decide, "Hrm, why not, instead of simply letting mortals die, I roast the bad ones for all eternity in a pit of fire? Yes, I'll do that instead." I can see how you consider that a loving God.

Yeah, that whole Lot's wife thing isn't in the Old Testament, is it.

Lot's wife and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed in the Old Testament, Genesis 18:20 - 19:28, to be precise. Although I must confess to not knowing what you are referring to here. The only places named in the story are Sodom, Gomorrah, and Zoar. Gehenna is nowhere mentioned in the story. (Gehinnom in Hebrew) What are you on about?

Besides, I didn't say anything about God being loving, I just said that the New Testament is about forgiveness and expiation of the sins of man by Jesus and salvation through belief in Jesus. It's not about man judging man or punishing other men or women for their sins as the Muslims do, it's about a plea to live a righteous life so that in the next life one will not suffer the wages of sin and disbelief.

You're right. What you actually said was, "Christianity, which New Testament-wise, is all about peace, love and not judging people...." I guess that doesn't necessarily include God/Jesus, who reserves the right to judge, and is not a part of Christianity..

Atheists too often try to conflate the messages of the Old Testament with the message of the New Testament in order to condemn both, but that's just intellectual laziness and hatemongering bigotry.

No, what's intellectual laziness is responding to a point that was supported with scripture by making the bare assertion that doing so is laziness, hatemongering and bigotry. Sorry Seth, even for you, that's pathetic.

But you know what's amazing, Seth? Here you are, without the slightest bit of humility, claiming to know the mind of God, and what he meant in making that statement about twigs and fire.

I said nothing of the kind. I'm merely pointing out what the New Testament says and making the point that if God is a vindictive and jealous god as portrayed in the Old Testament, then the words of Jesus cannot be viewed as a threat but merely as a warning.

Sorry, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted text. And I can assure you that there are legitimate Christians who will assert that this passage supports the persecution of others1. What that means is that you had to use your judgement to choose this exegesis rather than that one. That's your judgement, not that of some mythical universal agreement on the meaning of this passage. That makes you claiming to know the mind of God. (And despite your failed evasion, you miss the larger point: people decide God's meaning — all the time — because we have no other way to know the meaning of these words than somebody deciding what God meant here, and others agreeing with them, and believing based on their subjective judgement, what God's point was, and then asserting that God's meaning is their subjective meaning (just like you just did).

1 "It was much more difficult for the proponents of the Inquisition to find New Testament justification for their acts. The most often quoted New Testament verse is from John 15:6" — A Brief History Of The Inquisition (See also Sola Scriptura, referenced below.)

The whole basis of the faith is that God sent his only begotten son, Jesus, down to earth to live as a man, suffer as a man, and die as a man in order to expiate the sins of all mankind in his suffering. This is Jesus, the man/deity pleading with mankind to accept this salvation and thereby avoid the wrath of God the father by something as simple as belief and acceptance of Jesus as one's personal savior. That's the message of Jesus. The rest can be viewed as obiter dicta by the Apostles as they formed a religion in the material world, where people are imperfect and need (and want) guidance and assistance in living good lives.

That's not orthodoxy in any branch of Christianity that I'm aware of. What Church did you say you belonged to? For Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic, and Roman Catholic traditions, the basis of faith is the bible and tradition. For Protestantism, the basis of Christianity consists of the five Solas (one of which is Sola Scriptura, that interpretation of the bible is available to the individual, and indeed is the responsibility of the individual — which adds another support from Christianity itself that refutes your claim above that you weren't responsible for the interpretation you gave of John 15:6. Thanks, Seth; I wouldn't have thought of it if you hadn't driven me to the Solas).

You've just yourself demonstrated exactly why and how Christianity becomes a force for evil in the world: if one can argue it means peace when the argument calls for it, it can also mean war when the argument calls for it — and both claim the authority of God.

Er, that's how every philosophical exercise of the human mind works my dear.

Um, so you're asserting that every philosophical exercise of the human mind regularly claims the authority of God?

I... don't.... think.... so.... dear... ?

I've got the Oxford edition of Hume's A Treatise Of Human Nature. (I have other philosophical texts, like The Critique, World As Will and Representation, and can probably lay my hands on any major philosophical work of the last two centuries; feel free to point to at least two examples of them claiming that they have the authority of God)

People pervert religion all the time, including Atheists. Witness the Skepchick debate, where your religion, Atheism, is being perverted and morphed into something quite unlike a simple "lack of belief in god or gods." The only difference between Atheists and any other religious zealot of a theist is that theists argue and act in the name of their deity while Atheists argue and act in nihilist denial of someone else's religious beliefs. Atheism has nothing original to offer, which at least can be said for theistic religions, however silly the claims. Religious Atheism is the cult of "God doesn't exist and I'm going to stamp my feet and hold my breath till my face turns blue if you say he does!" It's the philosophy of four year olds.

Well, it's obvious that you have a good grasp on the behaviors that characterize the atheist (or Atheist with a capital 'A'). You know me well. You've observed my behaviors, identified the typical behaviors of an atheist, er Atheist I mean, and formed your conclusions. You surely have a masterful command of the psychology and behavior of Atheists like me.

There's only one problem: I am not an atheist.

And this is the second time you've misidentified me as an atheist. I am a Shakta Hindu who worships the goddess shri Kali devi. But thanks for once again demonstrating that you don't know shit about atheists and atheism. If you can be so wrong about what my behaviors indicate — not once, but twice — then it's exceedingly obvious you don't know anything about what makes actual atheists tick. Indeed, I share many traits that are common among atheists, like skepticism of religious claims, a commitment to materialism, a lack of belief in the Abrahamanic god, a love of science, logic and philosophy — most everything except that lack of belief nonsense. But apparently, by your criterion, these behaviors make me a religious atheist. I couldn't be laughing harder.

Do you know how many such ambiguous commands from the God of atheism are in the Holy Bible of atheism? (You know, the one Pol Pot and Stalin were reading.)

Many. But then that's what you get when you create a committee to write a book over thousands of years. Lots of self-serving political opinion disguised as the "word of God."

Name three.

Better yet, since you're the one claiming that atheism supports violence in the same way that Christianity does, why don't you supply me with some juicy quotes from the sacred texts of atheism that can equally be used to support violence. Something that a large proportion of atheists consider to be the divine and authoritative word for all atheists. (You'll have to excuse me, I seem to have misplaced my copy of the Bible of atheism.)

One branch of Atheism is called "Marxism." I'm sure you can find plenty of quotes from Marx.

You know, for a moment there, I thought you had claimed Marxism was a branch of Atheism. Oh, wait. You actually did say that. That's fucking hilarious. I hope that you've never actually said that in the presence of grown-ups.

"It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster."
Voltaire

A wise statement that applies just as much to you and every other religiously zealous Atheist as it does to any theist.

As for me, I'm a Tolerist™, and I persecute no one based on their opinions, I only judge people based on their deeds.

Yes, you've told me. You, your mom, and your dog. That's impressive.

Here's the thing, Seth. Science is quickly closing in on the features of our brain which give rise to religious inferences and religious beliefs. The problem is, there's no support in any of that science that what is happening in an atheist's brain has anything in common with what's going on in the brain of those engaged in religion. So feel free to continue with your bullshit rhetoric, because it ultimately doesn't matter.

[Ian]

Seth, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Or, as Zilla put it: Bullshit.

Oh, but I do know what I'm talking about. I've made a careful study of religiously zealous Atheism. You're just in denial.

What, pray tell, is "religiously zealous atheism"?

I have a good deal of disrespect for devoutly religious people. Beyond that one simple notion, I follow no dogma or set of tenets.

I think you're in denial. You need atheism to be some thing around which a malevolent movement can be formed. But that is not only paranoid, it misses the point of atheism completely: that there is no point. Atheists can be moral or immoral, tolerant or intolerant, authoritarian or anarchistic, liberal or conservative, left or right, jovial or serious, or anything in between. If you've convinced yourself that something called Atheism (capital A) exists, then this is merely a handful of non-religious people you've noticed who happen to be like-minded in some respects. Whoever it is you're talking about that you've so carefully studied, they don't account for a great many others (like meself) who aren't following some mysterious movement.

[rasetsu]

"It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster."
Voltaire

A wise statement that applies just as much to you and every other religiously zealous Atheist as it does to any theist.

As for me, I'm a Tolerist™, and I persecute no one based on their opinions, I only judge people based on their deeds.

This last point actually bears revisiting. You are here, on an atheist forum, where your primary knowledge is of opinions, not acts, indeed to the point that you misidentified me as an atheist on the basis of my opinions.

Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb 'to persecute' to mean:

1. trans. To seek out and subject (a person, group, organization, etc.) to hostility or ill-treatment, esp. on grounds of religious faith, political belief, race, etc.; to torment; to oppress.
2. trans. To afflict, trouble, vex, worry; to harass; to pester, importune, or annoy persistently.
3.a & b. Obsolete
4. trans. To prosecute (a person or †suit) at law. Now regional and humorous.

Did you seek me and atheists out? Check. Did you subject me to hostility? Check. On the grounds of religious faith? Check. Did you torment or oppress? Check.

Have you troubled, vexed, harassed, pestered or persistently annoyed myself and atheists on this forum? Check.

Did you prosecute us at law? Hey! Look! You got one!



Seth, you have got to be absolutely the world's worst ToleristTM. Indeed, I believe that you claimed there were three acknowledged Tolerists, including yourself; I'd say that based on that, hypocrisy is a common Tolerist affliction, at 33%.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Or, as Zilla put it: Bullshit.

Oh, but I do know what I'm talking about. I've made a careful study of religiously zealous Atheism. You're just in denial.

What, pray tell, is "religiously zealous atheism"?

I have a good deal of disrespect for devoutly religious people. Beyond that one simple notion, I follow no dogma or set of tenets.

I think you're in denial. You need atheism to be some thing around which a malevolent movement can be formed. But that is not only paranoid, it misses the point of atheism completely: that there is no point. Atheists can be moral or immoral, tolerant or intolerant, authoritarian or anarchistic, liberal or conservative, left or right, jovial or serious, or anything in between. If you've convinced yourself that something called Atheism (capital A) exists, then this is merely a handful of non-religious people you've noticed who happen to be like-minded in some respects. It doesn't account for a great many others (like meself) who aren't following some mysterious movement.

You make it more complicated than it needs to be. Seth is just a troll.

[Ian]

True dat.

[rasetsu]

Oh, but I do know what I'm talking about. I've made a careful study of religiously zealous Atheism. You're just in denial.

What, pray tell, is "religiously zealous atheism"?

Seth is depending on one of the definitions of the word "religion," namely that definition which defines religion as "4.b. fig. A pursuit, interest, or movement, followed with great devotion."1 According to which, obviously, David Beckham is a god. (Oh wait. David Beckham actually is a god.) Seth here is arguing in the time honored tradition of misusing dictionaries to settle questions of fact. First of all, dictionaries report usage, they don't dictate it, nor pass any judgement on the validity, meaning and correctness of usage. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. I know. It's a subtle point. One that people who don't know what they're talking about often trip over. But notice that 'fig,' in the definition? That stands for figurative, meaning that this usage is not literally referring to such practice as an actual religion, but just as a metaphor, comparing the zealousness practiced in religion to that observed in non-religious habits.


1 Oxford English Dictionary.

[Seth]

Who's running, chuckles?

You are. Running and hiding behind smarmy ejaculations that show no signs of rational thought but rather just knee-jerk Atheistic evasion.

You get back what you give. Your posts distill down to bullshit. I note this. Grow up and post without lying and you'd get better.

Meh. I've never found any of your arguments to be in the least compelling, when you bother with more than one-liners, which are universally uninteresting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who's running, chuckles?

You are. Running and hiding behind smarmy ejaculations that show no signs of rational thought but rather just knee-jerk Atheistic evasion.

You get back what you give. Your posts distill down to bullshit. I note this. Grow up and post without lying and you'd get better.

Meh. I've never found any of your arguments to be in the least compelling, when you bother with more than one-liners, which are universally uninteresting.

So you pile your shit higher. Big deal. It's still shit. You don't argument, you whinge and pettifog.

[Seth]

This does not mean that Atheists are inherently immoral, merely that they are entirely unpredictable when it comes to their system of moral beliefs

Could say the same about left handed people, being an atheist doesn't make you a good or bad person . It just makes in you in one part of your life more rational

Not really. Most Atheists of my acquaintence are far less rational and far more bigoted than the theists of my acquaintence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This does not mean that Atheists are inherently immoral, merely that they are entirely unpredictable when it comes to their system of moral beliefs

Could say the same about left handed people, being an atheist doesn't make you a good or bad person . It just makes in you in one part of your life more rational

Not really. Most Atheists of my acquaintence are far less rational and far more bigoted than the theists of my acquaintence.

Troll.

[Seth]

This does not mean that Atheists are inherently immoral, merely that they are entirely unpredictable when it comes to their system of moral beliefs

Could say the same about left handed people, being an atheist doesn't make you a good or bad person . It just makes in you in one part of your life more rational

Not really. Most Atheists of my acquaintence are far less rational and far more bigoted than the theists of my acquaintence.

Troll.

Netwit.

[Svartalf]

This does not mean that Atheists are inherently immoral, merely that they are entirely unpredictable when it comes to their system of moral beliefs

Could say the same about left handed people, being an atheist doesn't make you a good or bad person . It just makes in you in one part of your life more rational

Not really. Most Atheists of my acquaintence are far less rational and far more bigoted than the theists of my acquaintence.

Troll.

Possibly, or he hasn't the slightest idea of what the words he uses mean.
The only rabid atheist I know who would verify his statement lives in Nawleens.

[Robert_S]

Hey, rasetsu,

You are truly awesome!