If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vice)   What do you mean we atheists are Islamophobe hatemongers? That's ridi... well, that's actually pretty spot-on   (vice.com) divider line 724
    More: Sad, new atheists, Islamophobia, The God Delusion, Islamist terrorists, Thomas Aquinas, God Is Not Great, Islamic fundamentalism, atheists  
•       •       •

14326 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 5:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



724 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 06:44:34 PM  

maddogdelta: NostroZ: My original statement was that civilization's of antiquity needed religion in order to start the whole process of being great (i.e. masonry, architecture, building big buildings, etc.) as was with Egypt, then Greece.
The Romans came in at a MUCH later point in history and pretty much replaced everything the Greeks had in terms of culture/statues/gods

Excellent way you moved the goalposts there, champ. You make a claim about antiquity, then claim that the Roman empire wasn't antiquity.    Duane Gish would be really proud of you.

Unfortunately, your definition of antiquity matches your idea of god.  You made up your own rule, then you claim your rule is right. The rest of the world uses a different definition, btw...


Classic Antiquity = Greece, then Roman...  The Greeks got their ideas from the Egyptians, the Romans took everything Greek by force.  Egyptians had an extremely developed system of gods and a society to match.  Then Greeks took a lot of that progress and pushed it forward, still with gods.  The pictures of the aqueduct and Colosseum are Roman, which come later, and are still building off the religions in the land, but more so in a Mongolian style "we don't care, we just want land/money" dominance.

My statement that "Civilizations of antiquity needed religion to get started" is quiet accurate with the start of the era being Greece in 6BCE.  Though I'm sure you're here on Fark to correct my usage of an anthropology term, instead of spew hatred as you did above.

Please tell me what do you educate us on?  History?  Politics?  Hatred of Duane Gush?
Or is your purpose to enter conversation to spew crap and then leave with your dirty ass hanging out?
 
2013-04-09 06:49:04 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Also, atheists don't care about ANY religion. That doesn't make them "Islamaphobes", nor are most of them "hatemongers". Though I'm sure many of them are tired of religion trying to turn the world back to the days of ignorance and fear and it being used to justify bigotry, hatred, and murder.

We're adults now. We don't need invisible fairy godparents to explain the universe, to comfort us from the scary thought of death, to make us feel better with fantasies of eternal happiness and mansions in heaven, and to justify fear and hate and death.


If Atheists don't care about religion so much, why do they hate on people of faith so much?
I'm not a huge believer myself, but when someone comes out and tells ME WHAT NOT TO BELIEVE... it's just AS BAD as being told to believe in some fair godparent in the sky.

Does that make sense?
Don't tell me what NOT to believe either... because that's JUST as rude
 
2013-04-09 07:44:49 PM  

NostroZ: Please tell me what do you educate us on? History? Politics? Hatred of Duane Gush?
Or is your purpose to enter conversation to spew crap and then leave with your dirty ass hanging out?


Actually there are quite a few educated people here whom I wouldn't presume that I have greater knowledge.

then there are the pompus twits who make up their own definitions for words, make deep sounding pronouncements and claim to educate everyone on the profundity of their thinking. Like you.


Ergo. You made a statement. When challenged, you got very noble and pissy at all the "haters" who dared presume that they had a greater understanding of history and theology than you. To get through this, you shifted your goalposts and claimed that your version of god was superior to all others, therefore you are right.  Which I called you on.


Then you made the absurd claim that the only way ancient people could build great buildings was because of religion.  A claim for which you showed absolutely no shred of evidence for. I hammered you on that, then you move the goalposts again and claim that your definition of antiquity is superior to the rest of the english speaking world's definition, therefore you are right.

Duane Gish was brought up because he was a filthy little toad who wouldn't know the truth or a real scientific argument if he was locked in a room with 5 Nobel prize winners for a year.

Just like you.

Duane Gish was a master at moving the goal posts..

Just like you...

And... can we play the tape...

NostroZ: My statement that "Civilizations of antiquity needed religion to get started"


That is you "quoting" yourself.

NostroZ: My original statement was that civilization's of antiquity needed religion in order to start the whole process of being great (i.e. masonry, architecture, building big buildings, etc.) as was with Egypt, then Greece


Now you claim that religion was needed to make masonry... not not a need to keep from getting wet in the rain...

NostroZ: No secular civilization of antiquity could achieve great things like the Pyramids without a belief in an after-life and that service to the Pharaoh affected it positively.


Now you claim that to build great things you need religion, which was your original claim.  Which one is your real claim?  Or would you prefer to move your goalposts again?

Rome had religion.  The Pontificus Maximus was a Roman state office directly responsible for Roman religion.  However, Roman society was pretty damned secular.

Roman gods didn't intervene other than to make harvests good/bad or make earthquakes and storms. They could be placated with sacrifices and big buildings.  But the buildings that were built which were not specifically to placate a god were all built for secular purposes.  The coleseum, the aqueducts, the roads, the forums, the baths, the bridges across the Rhinewere all built for secular purposes. No gods needed.

And, the Roman Empire was considered "antiquity" by most scholars. Even when you try to move the goalposts and call it "Classical" antiquity which only includes Egypt and Greece, you fail, because people who study "classics" include Rome in their study.

BTW, here is the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the Wiki article you quote, emphasis mine:
Classical antiquity (also the classical era, classical period or classical age) is a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered on the Mediterranean Sea, comprising the interlocking civilizations of ancient Greece and  ancient Rome, collectively known as the Greco-Roman world. It is the period in which Greek and Roman society flourished and wielded great influence throughout Europe and the Middle East.

Care to redefine antiquity again?
 
2013-04-09 08:02:39 PM  

NostroZ: If Atheists don't care about religion so much, why do they hate on people of faith so much?


How about this
Or this
Or this
Or this
or this  // this one is good because they get to kill their kids and get off because JEEEEEEZUS
or this // 33% of Americans want "Christianity" as their official state religion
or this  // go ahead and count how many people stand up and defend the first amendment on this one...
or this
or this

I only stopped because I got tired.  We can keep going with this for days.

In short, there is an old phrase which says that "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"

I have absolutely no problem with religions or religious people as long as they don't harm anyone other than themselves.  As soon as they try to tell me what rights I'm not allowed because their god tells them I'm an untermenchen, then I have a problem.

Capice?
 
2013-04-09 09:34:13 PM  

Divinegrace: I have, however, noted that every time I meet a person who was SOOOOOO spiteful/hateful/self-centered that I felt the need to ask them about their faith of choice (or lack thereof), that there answer was atheist.


I find it interesting that, in a Fark thread about religion, a place usually filled with vile people screaming over each other, you are probably the most unpleasant person here (disregarding the "people who don't think like me should be executed" trolls like Mouser).

I mean, doesn't that right there disprove your little hypothesis? There's a bunch of atheists in this very thread responding to you after you've called them a lot of nasty names, and the worst things that have been said about you is:

Biological Ali: Have you considered the possibility that you're the only asshole involved here? You know - Occam's Razor and all that.


 Granted that isn't a nice sentiment, but it's a heck of a lot nicer than what you're saying about a sizable percentage of the world's population.
 
2013-04-09 09:46:56 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: He created everything out of love, but randomly slaughters his followers


No. But let me ask you something. Why shouldn't he?
 
2013-04-09 09:49:45 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: and it's been altered and edited and rewritten ever since. Satan and Hell didn't show up until the Catholic Church added them in the Middle Ages. Most of the Bible was cribbed and adapted from the contemporary and older religions anyway.

So, what's there to put faith on? What's there to follow as the "Truth"?


This is the reason I left the church. I believe there is truth in the bible, but that the bible is not truth.
 
2013-04-09 10:50:59 PM  

NostroZ: If Atheists don't care about religion so much, why do they hate on people of faith so much?

Maybe because of the people of faith who use it to commit fraud, theft, kidnapping, extortion, murder. And the people of faith who try to push their faith on others. And the people of faith who use it to justify their hatred, bigotry, racism, etc.

I'm not a huge believer myself, but when someone comes out and tells ME WHAT NOT TO BELIEVE... it's just AS BAD as being told to believe in some fair godparent in the sky.
Hey, they're just trying to help you. Fairy tales don't help in any way. Live in the real world where real rewards and real consequences happen with real people. Dreaming of supernatural things in a place you can't see until you're dead and likely doesn't exist is a waste of the only life you'll ever have.

Does that make sense?
Lots.

Don't tell me what NOT to believe either... because that's JUST as rude
Not as rude as waking me up at 5 in the morning to lecture me about how I'm going to hell unless I join the cult, or proclaiming I'm a terrible and disgusting affront to God because I'm attracted to people with the same genitals I have, or preventing women from getting vital medicine which nearly kills them, or slaughtering 3,000 people because they're heathen infidels.

s2s2s2: Keizer_Ghidorah: He created everything out of love, but randomly slaughters his followers

No. But let me ask you something. Why shouldn't he?


Well, everything says he's an all-loving and all-compassionate being who created everything out of love. But if he's not, then why should I swear my fealty to such a monster?
 
2013-04-10 02:33:23 AM  

bunner: So, to completely divorce yourself from the metaphorical context that is dripping off of this call to spiritual solidarity, and at that  most convenient m moment where you say "Z0mg, Jebus wants U 2 burnorz teh heretics!1!" handily circumvents having to also state, "yeah, Jesus was, like, yeah, a vine.  A tree.  An actual tree.  That's all literal."?


No, it's an allegory. Now what is "those who do not remain in me will be thrown out and wither and gathered up and burned" an allegory for?

  Nudge nudge, indeed, oh English major.  Then again, the point isn't the obvious, here.  The point is where you totally dismiss the obvious as some sort of "cover up" that only people stupid enough to read the bible in the first place could buy into, isn't it, Mahatma?   :  )

No alternate interpretation from you either, I see.
 
2013-04-10 02:38:27 AM  

s2s2s2: Uncle Tractor: What does free will have to do with it? Besides, an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god would have given us free will and still made us not want to burn people alive.

That's not how free-will works.


An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god could and would have made a universe in which nobody did wrong and everybody had free will and nobody went to hell.

This is obviously not the case.

Uncle Tractor: Oh, it's a warning, is it?

Yes, telling something to avoid something because the consequences may be severe certainly wouldn't be perceived by an rational person as a warning. What was I thinking?


You're just proving my point. What you're saying is that Jesus warned people to stick with him or they would be burned on the fire. If he was against burning people, he'd warn people against burning apostates instead. IOW he'd try to prevent something he thought was a bad thing.
 
2013-04-10 02:51:09 AM  

GilRuiz1: You can read all of the classical Bible commentaries for John 15:7 shown together here, explaining the scholarly interpretation of the meaning of the verse.  You will note that none of them interpret the verse as commanding witch-burning, but instead interpret the "fire" thing as judgement that God will carry out in the afterlife.


At best, this means that people will be burned by angels and demons instead. Forever. I'm not sure how this is an improvement, nor why it's any more correct than mine.

Also, why would an all-knowing, all-powerful god write his message in such a convoluted way that it has to be interpreted by scholars? Why not use a clear, straightforward language that anyone can understand?

While we're on the subject of burning sinners, perhaps you can look up the interpretation of this little episode from Luke 9: 51-56:

As the time drew near for him to ascend to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. He sent messengers ahead to a Samaritan village to prepare for his arrival. But the people of the village did not welcome Jesus because he was on his way to Jerusalem. When James and John saw this, they said to Jesus, "Lord, should we call down fire from heaven to burn them up?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them. So they went on to another village.


They asked him to do a magic spell and he said no.
 
2013-04-10 02:54:26 AM  

NostroZ: If Atheists don't care about religion so much, why do they hate on people of faith so much?


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-10 03:02:01 AM  

Uncle Tractor: No alternate interpretation from you either, I see.


To be chaff.  To be discarded by the father.  Learn to read.  Much like the valley og Hinnom, the town trash dump, Gahenna, which burned consantly - not a lot of EPA laws then - it serves to use a metaphor to reinforce an idea.  Not endless burning in some mythical pit.  There are two kinds of people who tend to pontificate.  Those are investigating and those who are overtly and repetitively wont to dismiss any and all investigations that do not support what they already chose to believe.  I'd go easy on the "science!", if I were you.  Because the notion that an allegory gets tossed out the window mid paragraph is quite a stretch even for the most self serving conclusion.
 
2013-04-10 03:02:49 AM  

s2s2s2: Keizer_Ghidorah: He created everything out of love, but randomly slaughters his followers

No. But let me ask you something. Why shouldn't he?


Because he's supposed to be an all-loving god. Because a parent is responsible for the well-being of his / her children. Because people are not property. Because people are not slaves.
 
2013-04-10 03:12:40 AM  

bunner: Uncle Tractor: No alternate interpretation from you either, I see.

To be chaff.  To be discarded by the father.  Learn to read.  Much like the valley og Hinnom, the town trash dump, Gahenna, which burned consantly - not a lot of EPA laws then - it serves to use a metaphor to reinforce an idea.


So instead of being burned as punishment, the apostates / nonbelievers are to be burned as trash. Not sure whether that's an improvement.

 Not endless burning in some mythical pit.

GilRuiz1 seems not to agree with you, judging by his / her first link.

 There are two kinds of people who tend to pontificate.  Those are investigating and those who are overtly and repetitively wont to dismiss any and all investigations that do not support what they already chose to believe.

Investigate how? We're talking about religion, remember? It's all make-believe. I have repeatedly asked for an alternate interpretation that does not involve burning people, and so far the best I've got from this thread is being burned in the afterlife.

 I'd go easy on the "science!", if I were you.  Because the notion that an allegory gets tossed out the window mid paragraph is quite a stretch even for the most self serving conclusion.

If we can both agree that Jesus isn't trying to tell us that he literally is a vine, can you now tell me what the burning thing is an allegory for?
 
2013-04-10 03:15:31 AM  

Uncle Tractor: So instead of being burned as punishment, the apostates / nonbelievers are to be burned as trash. Not sure whether that's an improvement.


You're not very good at this, are you?  :  )
 
2013-04-10 03:19:58 AM  

Uncle Tractor: I have repeatedly asked for an alternate interpretation that does not involve burning people, and so far the best I've got from this thread is being burned in the afterlife.


You have belabored a point which has been handily discarded by the simple fact that Jesus was using allegory and somehow, when shown an example of a similar allegory, said "oh, so they get burned in a trash pit."  I don't mind you wiping your ass with any semblance of comprehension of materials read you may have portended to, but I'm honestly done helping.  I shall leave you and your endless "but, nuh uh" drum beating and ersatz smugness hoist upon it's own petard for the benefit of those readers to whom you are appealing for vindication.
 
2013-04-10 03:34:04 AM  

bunner: You have belabored a point which has been handily discarded by the simple fact that Jesus was using allegory


Allegories are supposed to have meaning. I get the vine part. I think we all do. The point I'm "belaboring"  is the burning part, and I have not yet been given a good interpretation that does not involve people being burned for the sin of not believing in Jesus / God.

So the burning part is an allegory for ...?

 and somehow, when shown an example of a similar allegory, said "oh, so they get burned in a trash pit."

Which is the interpretation  you gave.

I don't mind you wiping your ass with any semblance of comprehension of materials read you may have portended to, but I'm honestly done helping. I shall leave you and your endless "but, nuh uh" drum beating and ersatz smugness hoist upon it's own petard for the benefit of those readers to whom you are appealing for vindication.

Suit yourself. I'll just stick with the burn the apostates" interpretation. It's the most straightforward one and the one mainstream christianity followed until it (christianity) was neutered by secularism.
 
2013-04-10 03:40:49 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Which is the interpretation  you gave.


No.  It isn't.  You can't read.  Seriously.  And this isn't even amusing anymore, because, as I already stated...

Suit yourself. I'll just stick with the burn the apostates" interpretation.

Please use your own brick wall to bark at from now on when you need an echo chamber.  Adios, Cletus.  :  )
 
2013-04-10 05:19:46 AM  

Uncle Tractor: bunner: You have belabored a point which has been handily discarded by the simple fact that Jesus was using allegory

Allegories are supposed to have meaning. I get the vine part. I think we all do. The point I'm "belaboring"  is the burning part, and I have not yet been given a good interpretation that does not involve people being burned for the sin of not believing in Jesus / God.

So the burning part is an allegory for ...?

 and somehow, when shown an example of a similar allegory, said "oh, so they get burned in a trash pit."

Which is the interpretation  you gave.

I don't mind you wiping your ass with any semblance of comprehension of materials read you may have portended to, but I'm honestly done helping. I shall leave you and your endless "but, nuh uh" drum beating and ersatz smugness hoist upon it's own petard for the benefit of those readers to whom you are appealing for vindication.

Suit yourself. I'll just stick with the burn the apostates" interpretation. It's the most straightforward one and the one mainstream christianity followed until it (christianity) was neutered by secularism.


You see, that's the beauty of the Bible. It can all be interpreted however the individual wants to interpret it, and everyone interprets it differently and declares theirs is the true meaning, which causes strife and schisms and centuries-long blood feuds and genocides and other wonderful things.

Of course, one has to really stretch an interpretation to see "I am the vine, and all of those who don't follow me will be pruned off and tossed into the fire" as anything but "If you don't kowtow to me you're dead meat".
 
2013-04-10 06:10:07 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah: You see, that's the beauty of the Bible. It can all be interpreted however the individual wants to interpret it, and everyone interprets it differently and declares theirs is the true meaning, which causes strife and schisms and centuries-long blood feuds and genocides and other wonderful things.

Not just the Bible; all religious texts. In the end, it's the zeitgeist that determines how a religion will be expressed, not the actual wording of the texts.

Of course, one has to really stretch an interpretation to see "I am the vine, and all of those who don't follow me will be pruned off and tossed into the fire" as anything but "If you don't kowtow to me you're dead meat".

Pretty much, yeah.

To sum up the interpretations of John 15 so far:

1: Apostates are to be burned. (mine)
2: Apostates are to be burned. (christians throughout most of history)
3: Apostates will burn in hell.
4: Apostates will suffer the consequences (IOW burn), but it's not God's fault.
5: Apostates will be thrown out with the trash. (and burn in hell)
6: Adios, Cletus.
 
2013-04-10 09:33:46 AM  

bunner: "yeah, Jesus was, like, yeah, a vine.  A tree.  An actual tree.  That's all literal."?


Dude.

If you're going to go all "it's just a metaphor" on us, you really can't ignore the many, many Jesus-spoken references to the destruction of non-fruitful plants.  That part means something, too.

Hell, he withered the unproductive fig tree Himself!  (So what if "it was not the season for fruit"?  The Naz wanted a goldurn fig, and he wanted it NOW!  see:  Mark 11 and Matthew 21, for the picky among you.)

But Fig trees (and agriculture in general) were a frequent topic for parables, and almost always the issue was their production, or lack thereof, see also The Unproductive Fig and The Budding Fig parables.

I'm not saying that these parables precisely say "burn a witch", but they clearly indicate that those things which are not productive for the Kingdom should be destroyed.

All this hair-splitting about "witch" and "burning" when those terms respectively easily fall under the Sets of "ungodly things" and "means of destruction, especially for plant matter" are petty, stupid troll-jousting, and stock-in-trade for those engaging in it.

Shame on you.

False Prophets that you are.
 
2013-04-11 07:03:27 AM  

NostroZ: Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you sir, as you are asking others to possibly damn their eternal soul.


Nope. I`m not. Believe what you like but you would be wrong. I just want them to not talk to me about it. They can do what they like but if they want to talk to me about it or change my behaviour then proof is a prerequisite.
 
2013-04-11 08:23:51 AM  

Uncle Tractor: NostroZ: If Atheists don't care about religion so much, why do they hate on people of faith so much?

[i560.photobucket.com image 600x400]


Because some religious institutions get enormous tax exemptions and are actively making our society less educated?

And those aren't the WORST religions on this ball of rock?
 
Displayed 24 of 724 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report