|
|
|
|
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:41:21 AM |
Why are
Dawkins, Harris, and company proselytizing their message to
rid the world of religion because it's bad and must be destroyed?
This was literally addressed in the message right before yours... just a couple inches away.
Msg: 114, Msg: 118, Msg: 120 & Msg: 124. CountIbli makes similar points in Msg: 121 & Msg: 127. Which I refrenced in Msg: 141. | |
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 6:30:12 AM | A: Because religion is bad and it is a lie, it is un true. Religion has slowed mankind down again and again and we all will be better off when only a few follow any religions.
Says you and a few others like you, obviously radical to the max.
Why do "normal" atheists not want anything to do with those of you who believe like this?
Where do you get off thinking you can dictate to anyone what they believe? Why are you so extremely threatened by religion?
At any rate, it's a backward plan of Dawkins' and the like to believe they can destroy or rid the world of religion. All this will cause is an even more fierce determination to cling to our religion and our guns (thanks, Obama).
The plan will not work. You can never force anyone to give up a philosophy that means something to them. You cannot ridicule it out, or stop it from being taught to one's children, or prevent one's mind from choosing to believe in it. Will you push for frontal lobotomies on Christians next?
| |
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 6:57:43 AM | "You can never force anyone to give up a philosophy that means something to them."
Take a trip to the Philippines once all most a totally islamic country. Not today, Spain came in and if you do not think foce was used to make the change you would be wrong again. That is not what I am pushing for. I believe mankind will get there with logic, given time and freedom to talk the issues out. The church does not like the idea of logic and has tried for years to stop the talk. Some christians let the church do the lobotomies on them all ready, or at least it seems that way. | |
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:24:55 AM | Countibli:
*sass* you've been on the boards long enough to know that atheism is the "lack of belief in the existence of any gods" which is not the same as "the belief that there are no gods." Sounds like semantics to me.
Proof, in general, doesn't exist. Even in mathematics, since proofs first require us to assume ceratin unprovable axioms are true. Indeed, and it is up to each person which 'unprovable axiom' they wish to develop a belief system on.
the claim that atheism is a belief is usually followed by an argument that all beliefs are created equal, and that Creationism should be taught in schools, laws should be passed that to restrict homosexuality, etc. Ahhh, so your argument is based on the generalization of your 'opposition'?
How sad.
Nerdstatus:
I can "believe" that 2 + 2 = 10 all I want, but when someone can demonstrate why that solution = false... which 'belief' has more value? But in this case, as I have said, neither position can prove their position.. therefore the belief with more value is the one you happen to buy into. What else can be said?
As to your biblical scripture and 'proof' as such, well it falls flat with me since I do not think the bible is inerrant or sacrosanct.
Faith by it's very definition holds less value than a system that has evidence to support it. As Countibli pointed out above, many times certain unprovable axioms must be accepted to get to the 'proof'.. therefore faith is involved in science as well. I see no false dichotomy.
It's been a slice boys, but I'm rarely here anymore since I've found a new home to vent my penchant for debate on this topic. Hopefully see you there  | |
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 12:28:48 PM |
Says you and a few others like you, obviously radical to the max.
The bible is what's radical. It promotes sexism, rape, slavery... all kinds of fun stuff:
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
Why do "normal" atheists not want anything to do with those of you who believe like this?
I don't presume to know the hearts & minds of other people. I can only speak for myself.
Where do you get off thinking you can dictate to anyone what they believe?
When did anyone in this thread dictate what you can think?
Why are you so extremely threatened by religion?
Wow. Really? Did you just ask this? Considering it's been addressed very clearly: Msg: 114, Msg: 118, Msg: 120 & Msg: 124. CountIbli makes similar points in Msg: 121 & Msg: 127. Which I refrenced in Msg: 141.
At any rate, it's a backward plan of Dawkins' and the like to believe they can destroy or rid the world of religion.
Please cite your source on this one, I don't recall Dawkins ever claiming he wanted to destroy or rid the world of religion.
All this will cause is an even more fierce determination to cling to our religion and our guns
Which is sort of our point. That many religious people don't think rationally.
You can never force anyone to give up a philosophy that means something to them.
Why do you feel “forced” to do anything? All we've done is answer a question posed to us, and cite supporting documents for our decisions. That's a discussion, or an explanation of a position. The exchange of ideas is hardly “forcing” anything on anyone.
You cannot ridicule it out, or stop it from being taught to one's children, or prevent one's mind from choosing to believe in it.
When did we claim we wanted your belief to be not shared with children, or to “prevent” (whatever that means?) you from choosing to believe in it?
Will you push for frontal lobotomies on Christians next?
Please explain your connection between rational discourse, and the belief that we want to lobotomize you?
What else can be said?
I addressed that already: b) The notion that somehow the value of my non-belief is of equal value to someone else's belief is nonsense.
As to your biblical scripture and 'proof' as such, well it falls flat with me since I do not think the bible is inerrant or sacrosanct.
Not sure what your point is?
therefore faith is involved in science as well
This is laughable. The laptop I'm typing on now is only possible through science. There's evidence of the scientific process working all around us. Not so with religion. The only 'assumption' or 'faith' I need to have is to make the presumption that I actually exist. And, that's not much of a leap of faith at all.
Hopefully see you there
I will indeed  | |
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 7:38:46 PM | RE Msg: 114 by NerdStatus:
I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with followers who use religion as an excuse for sexism, bigotry, wars etc. Then you have a problem with anyone who uses anything as an excuse for sexism, bigotry, wars, etc. Like using "national security" to deny possibly terrorists the right to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers. Like using "protecting the world from dictators" to only invade countries that have huge national resources that your country wants to control. Like economic practises that unfairly advantage American steel. Like that women like sex being used to excuse that 1/4 of American women report having been sexually assualted or raped at least once in their life, and only 2% of even the cases reported to the police resulting in a conviction. There are plenty of secular cases of such corruption. Expressing that you have a problem with the ones using religious justifications, and not stating that you are against ALL of them, secular as much as religious, is not only biased, it's abhorrent, as it's enabling those who are using secular reasons, and is encouraging those who used to use religious justifications, to switch to secular justifications, and get to behave far worse with impunity. | |
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 10:22:18 PM | I've got no idea how you connected the dots between my not liking the sexism, bigotry, wars etc from canon to national security, terrorists and how we may or may not be denying rights to them that may or may not exist. Nor do I understand how you're making the connection to conviction rates of rape victims.
There are plenty of secular cases of such corruption.
Define "such corruption" and how it exonerates the biblical canon for rape, sexism, bigotry, ownership of slaves etc.
Expressing that you have a problem with the ones using religious justifications, and not stating that you are against ALL of them, secular as much as religious, is not only biased, it's abhorrent
Since the topic is: "Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?" - I disagree. I don't think it's abhorrent at all, I think it's on topic. Even out of context, it's not abhorrent. You either don't understand the meaning of the term, or you toss it about way too easily.
And, of course I'm speaking from my bias, just as you are speaking from yours, and everyone else is speaking from theirs. That's sort of the point isn't it? | |
|
| Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:39:15 PM | RE Msg: 182 by NerdStatus:
I've got no idea how you connected the dots between my not liking the sexism, bigotry, wars etc from canon to national security, terrorists and how we may or may not be denying rights to them that may or may not exist. Nor do I understand how you're making the connection to conviction rates of rape victims. You're not that stupid, NerdStatus.
Either you're pro-rape or you're anti-rape, pro-sexism or anti-sexism, pro-bigotry or anti-bigotry. There is no half-measure. Either you are against it in ALL its forms, using secular justifications or religious justifications, or you're not. If you're against rape, sexism, and bigotry in all its forms, using secular justifications or religious justifications, then you're against it. If you're only against rape, sexism, and bigotry using religious justifications, then you're NOT against rape, sexism, or bigotry. You're just against religious people. But you're fine with secular people doing it.
There are plenty of secular cases of such corruption. Define "such corruption" and how it exonerates the biblical canon for rape, sexism, bigotry, ownership of slaves etc.
However, I've read the Bible, and I know what it says. Let's take rape, for example. This is what you quoted on the subject:
The bible is what's radical. It promotes sexism, rape, slavery... all kinds of fun stuff:
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm So, let's look at what the article says. I did:
Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil? Now, let's examine this. Well, we have to read it, then, don't we?
The story covers chapters 19-21. Chapter 19 describes the events leading up to a woman being gang-raped in a town in the land of the tribe of Benjamin. It ends by saying that everyone who say the corpse saying "Never has such a thing happened since the Children of Israel left Egypt until now". In chapter 20, the people of Israel go to the tribe of Benjamin and ask for the gang-rapists to stand trial. They refuse to give them up. That would be like your sister being gang-raped by some Californians, and the governer and all the police tell you to get lost. As a result, they go to war with the tribe of Benjamin, until they give these gang-rapists up. But the Benjaminites are incredibly good fighters. They wiped out 40,000 men over two days, and didn't lose a single man of their own. But they lose the war in the third day, and almost get wiped out in the fighting.
Then the people lament that a whole tribe (state) would be completely wiped off the map. They find the people who are left, and manage to find some women who marry them.
Now, let's suppose it was you. You're a nice guy. One of your sisters or one of your friends, gets repeatedly gang-raped, until she is so destroyed by the numerous rapes, that she dies of the injuries. You go to the police, and they tell you to get lost. You go to the governor, same thing. So you go to Congress, and to President Obama, and they al say this is an absolutely terrible thing, and this is something that cannot be allowed to go unpunished, for if this is allowed to go unpunished, more young women will go through this terrible atrocity. So they approach the governor and the police of California, and they refuse to make these horrific men stand trial. But Congress will not let America become a place where girls can be gang-raped at will. So they tell the people of California, that they will arrest these people, and the whole of California goes to war with the rest of America. A terrible battle ensues, and almost double the population of California, 70 million, get annihilated in 2 days. But the war continues, and the Californians lose, and they fight to almost the last man, leaving almost all of them dead. Now, there is almost no-one left in California, no-one to run it at all, and it needs repopulating soon. Would you "give" your other sister to them, if it meant that she would be gang-raped? Of course not. Not in a million years. Would anyone? Do you seriously think anyone who would do anything to ensure gang-rapists were convicted, and then let his own daughter or sister or friend by gang-raped? Nope. If you're going to go to that extreme to stop gang rape, you're hardly going to make someone get gang raped, and definitely not by the same people who protected the gang rapists.
The ONLY way you would EVER let ANY woman get near them, would be if these guys were nothing to do with the thing, got roped into the war, but were 100% totally and completely against gang-rape, and wouldn't dream of even lying to a woman to get laid, and were nothing but upfront and treated women with the utmost respect. Even then, there is absolutely no way in any way that you would ever try to convince your sister or your friend to even date them, not unless she was very keen on them, and anything sexual between them would have to be 100% clearly wanted on her part.
There is just no way you'd go to such lengths to stop rape, and then let anyone date them, unless you were sure they would be safe with those men.
So quite simply, thinking anything else would be on the verge of insanity.
I'll skip the more detailed explanations of chapter 21 for now. But I can go into much more detail to explain to you how the text of the Bible is describing willing marriage.
So, on what justification does anyone start arguing that these girls were raped? I can think of 2 possibilities:
1) That the author started out assuming that all Jews are gang-rapists. Jews are the descendants of the Children of Israel, and these events happened hundreds of years after the events of the Five Books of Moses. So if the Children of Israel were gang-rapists for hundreds of years, it would have been endemic to this day. But we know that's complete BS, unless you're going to claim that Jews are gang-rapists, and I seriously think you'd never say that. So the only other option is that this person was raised to believe all Jews are evil to the core, and that all the problems of the world were caused by them, and has never learned to let go of his unbelievable racism and bigotry.
2) That the author thinks this is what one can expect, because this is what he expects of all people, including himself and all his friends, and the only reason why he wouldn't gang-rape lots of women now, is because he's afraid of going to prison. But, apart from that, he'd do it in a heartbeat.
Now, the problem I have, is why would you believe this pile of BS? Have you got any good reason to justify your acceptance of it as if it was gospel truth?
Expressing that you have a problem with the ones using religious justifications, and not stating that you are against ALL of them, secular as much as religious, is not only biased, it's abhorrent Since the topic is: "Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?" - I disagree. I don't think it's abhorrent at all, I think it's on topic.
Even out of context, it's not abhorrent. You either don't understand the meaning of the term, or you toss it about way too easily.
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | 2009
ab·hor·rent / ab'hôr?nt; -'här-/
• adj. inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant: racial discrimination was abhorrent to us all. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-abhorrent.html
It's abhorrent to say that you are against a person raping someone on religious justifications like "G-d told me to", but cheering when a guy is raping a girl because of a secular justifications like she "was asking for it".
And, of course I'm speaking from my bias, just as you are speaking from yours, and everyone else is speaking from theirs. That's sort of the point isn't it? No, it's NOT. The point of any discussion is to remove your biases BEFORE speaking. If you don't think you have to do that, then nor should anyone else, and then everyone else would just keep arguing in favour of their biases, and there would be no discussion at all, just a lot of bigots posting insults at each other. That's NOT a discussion. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
