Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 freetime2bme
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people? Page 3 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
"People that believe often seem to be happier and have a more joyful life than those that don't. "

Did you know the higher your IQ and/or the more educated the person the less likely they are to believe in god. Google it if you like it is a fact. Also in the USA none believes are under represented in our nations jails, they don't go to jail as much as chistians do. Again if you want to check google it. I think it is the none believers that are happier.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 148
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/20/2009 7:07:36 PM
Whoa hold the fort....
Happiness is subjective>> IMO we cannot judge someone else' s external expression of their internal state by our own internal state.
As far as statistics go they are not facts they are numbers... one must uncover the facts beneath the numbers.. statistics can be manipulated.. most college graduates with a 4 year degree in Science easily understand that these statistics mean nothing by themselves.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 150
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:23:36 PM


Gosh, athiests seem to be quite an angry and bitter people. I am content to let them be.


Really? When you go into the voting booth do you leave your religion behind?


They seem to take delight in bashing any that are religious.


It was the religious who started this culture war. Now you whine because we're beating you.


When I try to engage them in a civil discussion they either run or post more of their their anti-religious tripe. I would have so much more respect for one that can discuss why they do not believe in a higher power and can as well as listen to another discuss why they do believe.


Funny, my experience is that Theists (usually Christians and Muslims) are too busy telling us that we're going to Hell and have no morals to have a civil discussion. But if you want a civil discussion I'm game. Let me start with two simple questions:

1) What precisely do you mean by "higher power" (e.g. what properties does it have and what testable predictions does the Higher Power Hypothesis make)?
2) What objective evidence do you have that this Higher Power exists?
 freetime2bme
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 152
view profile
History
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 4:00:49 AM
"I can tell you my knowledge of prisons, that men and women that find Jesus there are model prisoners and those that don't cause more problems."
So being a model prisoner rates higher then not going to prison in the first place with you. Not with me ,to me not going in the fist place is way better.
"And you dear sir can google how many scientist believe in a higher power"
I never said some scientist do not believe in god, but the higher ones IQ or the more education someone is the less likely they are to believe in a god.
"obviously is grammatically incorrect and is senseless."
As a follow on poster said, I think you got my point. I often times do other things while I post. If I remember correctly I was shaving my nut shack when I did the post so I am sorry if my grammar was a bit off. What were you shaving?
"You might try using the quote function"
Or I might just do it the way I am.
"You can email me if you don't understand how to do it and I will try to explain it to you. "
Are you coming on to me?
 freetime2bme
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 154
view profile
History
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 5:28:21 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

"Again, there is no actual study that has shown those that believe in a higher power have lower IQ's. But there have been actual studies showing most scientists do believe in a higher power."

I really hate working the google for you, but yes there are lots of studies that show a difference in IQ between those that believe in a higher power and those that do not. One link provided, but there are lots and lots. As to the most scientist, fact scientist are much less likely to believe in a higher power the the average person. If you look at the ones with PHDs the difference is really big. If you look at the world wide data on this, not just the USA the nimbers even get bigger.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 156
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:31:14 AM


As for your questions, I owe you no explanation as I believe you are really not interested in more than an arguement.


So much for being willing to discuss religion in a civil manner. Weren't you the one proudly proclaiming that Atheists run away from discussions with you? It seems the opposite is true. You can't even answer two simple questions about your higher power.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 157
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:47:20 AM


Had the men and women found a higher power prior to going to jail, it is very likely they wouldn't have committed their crimes.


This isn't true.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html



In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 158
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:11:35 AM
correlation is not causal...but hey carry on.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 159
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:16:26 AM
"correlation is not causal...but hey carry on."

You should read the article. The author explains the chain of causation. The more religious a person the more likely he is to think that he answers to a higher power. They become anti-social because God's Law override man's laws.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 160
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 5:48:04 PM
I have never been happier and more spiritually fulfilled than when i chose to leave behind Abrahamic religion.
If one feels that Atheists are proselytising(spelling?) their beliefs, and it bothers you, maybe it is a wake up call where one gets a taste of their own medicine, and see's how annoying and obnoxious it feels.
I have had Christians come to my door and disturb my private home and family time to
proselytize me, and go on a tirade when i inform them I am a follower of the Dianic Tradition as a Witch/Pagan, they spout off about the evils of my beliefs and the goodness of theirs.
But when I ask of them when was the last time followers of my religion burned and tortured folowers of their religion was, they cant answer that. They cant answer wqhen i ask fior heir home address so i can coe preach to them about the Moon Goddess and Tre e Spirit. Wonder why they feel welcome to come to my property to sell their religion and insult me, but dont want me interuptin their dinner to do it to them.
Why is that, christians?

If your faith in your Gos id so strong, an atheirst isnt gonna shake ya up.
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 161
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 8:50:27 PM

If one feels that Atheists are proselytising(spelling?) their beliefs, and it bothers you, maybe it is a wake up call where one gets a taste of their own medicine, and see's how annoying and obnoxious it feels.


Actually, you've missed the point. Remember the old saying "two wrongs do not make a right?" Most of our mom's and dad's taught us this early on.

Few enjoy those who shove their personal beliefs down the throats of others. Aggressive atheists of the rabid, more radical kind are everything that's bad about the other side of the coin. These kinds of atheists are embarrassing their own. There are regular atheists who are coming out and stating that new atheists are hurting their cause and asking them to stop. When non believers are asking other non believers to put a sock in it, what does that tell you?




The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris
By Chris Hedges, Free Press. Posted March 22, 2008.

From demonizing Muslims to believing we can use science for our own moral advancement, the New Atheists preach a dangerous faith. Tools

I flew to Los Angeles in May of 2007 to debate Sam Harris, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, in UCLA's cavernous Royce Hall. I debated Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God is Not Great, two days later in San Francisco. I paid little attention, until these two public debates, to the positions of the new atheists, writers that also include Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet. Those are many people of great moral probity and courage who seek meaning outside of formal religious structures, who reject religious language and religious ritual and define themselves as atheists. There are also many religious figures that in the name of one god or another sanctify intolerance, repression and violence. There is nothing intrinsically moral about being a believer or a nonbeliever.

These New Atheists attack a form of religious belief many of us hate. I wrote a book called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. I am no friend of Christian radicals. We dislike the same people. We do not dislike them for the same reason. This is not a small difference.

The New Atheists embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They propose a route to collective salvation and the moral advancement of the human species through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving towards collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil, not for evil's sake but to make a better world.

I started Harris' book when it was published but soon put it aside. His facile attack on a form of religious belief I detest, his childish simplicity and ignorance of world affairs, as well as his demonization of Muslims, made the book tedious, at its best, and often idiotic and racist.

The liberal church, attacked by the atheists as an ineffectual "moderate" religion and by the fundamentalists as a "nominal" form of Christianity, is, as their critics point out, a largely vapid and irrelevant force. It may not support the violent projects of apocalyptic killing championed by atheists such as Harris or Hitchens and these Christian radicals, but it also does not understand how the world works or the seduction of evil. The liberal church is a largely middle class, bourgeoisie phenomenon, filled with many people who have profited from industrialization, the American empire and global capitalism. They often seem to think that if we can be nice and inclusive everything will work out.

There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea that we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally. We use the newest instruments of technological and scientific progress to create more efficient forms of killing, repression and economic exploitation, and to accelerate environmental degradation. There is a good and a bad side to human progress. We are not moving towards a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere.

Religious institutions, however, should be separated from the religious values imparted to me by religious figures, including my father. Most of these men and women frequently ran afoul of their own religious authorities. Religion, real religion, was about fighting for justice, standing up for the voiceless and the weak, reaching out in acts of kindness and compassion to the stranger and the outcast, living a life of simplicity, finding empathy and defying the powerful. It was about caring for the other. Spirituality was not defined by "how it is with me," but the tougher spirituality of resistance, the spirituality born of struggle, of the fight with the world's evils. This spirituality, vastly different from the narcissism of modern spirituality movements, was eloquently articulated by Dr. King and the Lutheran minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was imprisoned and put to death by the Nazis.

Many of these atheists, like the Christian fundamentalists, support the imperialist projects and preemptive wars of the United States as a necessity in the battle against terrorism and irrational religion. They divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. Hitchens and Harris describe the Muslim world, where I spent seven years, most of them as the Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times, in language that is as racist, crude and intolerant as that used by Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell. They are a secular version of the religious right. They misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology, just as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible, by trying to argue that we can evolve morally -- something Darwin never asserted. They are as anti-intellectual as the Christian Right.

And while the atheists do not have much power and are not a threat to the democratic state, they engage in the same chauvinism and call for the same violent utopianism of the radical Christian Right. They sell this under secular banners, but this does not excuse it. They believe, like the Christian Right, that we are moving forward to a paradise, a state of human perfection made possible by science and reason. They argue, like these Christian radicals, that some human beings, maybe many human beings, have to be eradicated to achieve this better world.

Harris, echoing the blood lust of Hitchens, calls, in his book The End of Faith, for a nuclear first strike against the Islamic world. He defends torture as a logical form of interrogation. He, like all utopians, has reduced millions of human beings and cultures he knows nothing about to primitive impediments to his vision of a better world.

"What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?" Harris asks. "If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime -- as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day -- but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe." Harris reduces a fifth of the world's population to a vast, primitive enemy. He blithely accepts that we may have to murder "tens of millions of people in a single day." His bigotry, and the bigotry of all who dehumanize others, sets the stage for indiscriminate slaughter and atrocity. The people to be killed, we are told, are not really distinct individuals. They do not have hopes and aspirations. They only appear human. They must be destroyed because of what they represent, what lurks beneath the surface of their human form. This dehumanization, especially by those who live in a society with the technological capacity to carry out acts of massive industrial slaughter, is terrifying. The new atheists see only one truth -- their truth. Human beings must become like them, think like them and adopt their values, which they insist are universal, or be banished from civilized society. All other values, which they never investigate or examine, are dismissed as inferior.


http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 162
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:10:35 PM

It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies

Please note where it states"pressing question include THE REASONS." again correlation never means causation and that was a correlation study.
Source:
ISSN: 1522-5658
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

A First Look

Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 163
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:17:02 PM
Oh you are definately right Miss Lass, two wrongs never make a right.
But, IMO, right or wrong, it may be a plausible reason. Religion is oft unwelcomely forced into peoples faces, as I mentioned some followers even knock on peoples doors, what kinda crap is that? So i am taking a guess that it is a backlash to having their views deemed wrong, and being proseletyzed to.

Yes I would be just as annoyed if an atheist knocked on my door or stopped me on the street to try to convert me to their belief system. In real life I have not encountered that though, the only time i knew of someone being an etheist (off the internet_ is if i specifically asked them what religion they follow. I have been vehemently insulted and hounded by Christians, Jehovahs, and Mormons. I respect their religion completely, I just dont want them banging on my door, insulting MY beliefs, or botheringme on he street about it.



come to think of it I almost karate chopped a Scientologist on Hollywood Bvld once upon a time because I thought the nut was going to jump on me for not accepoting their brochure or whatever they were passing out about their religion. I had to actually get in a fighting stance to get my point across to leave me alone.
Some people can be very scary in their proseltyzing.

So yes i concur it isnt right to aggresively push a belief on anyone of any religion or non-religion, coming from either side of the coin.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 167
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/24/2009 12:25:24 AM


Yes I would be just as annoyed if an atheist knocked on my door or stopped me on the street to try to convert me to their belief system.


It bears worth pointing out that atheism is not a belief system. It's not a religion. An atheist is someone who lacks positive belief in the existence of gods. The lack of a belief is not a belief. The lack of religion is not a religion. The lack of hair is not a hair color.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 168
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/24/2009 8:01:48 PM
^^^^^OK. I will dumb it down. If an atheist knocks on my door to persists in telling me they do not believe in God, and that my religion is wrong, or stops me on the street, ;eaves flyers on my door, interupts my personal and family time to persist that hisnot believeing in God is the only way to think, I will be just as annoyed as I am when Christians or other proselytising idiots knock on my door.
I do not go onto the property of a Christian and insult their beliefs, disrupt their time, preach to them about my religion, why on earth, do some feel ok doing it to me?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 170
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/25/2009 7:11:34 PM


I do not go onto the property of a Christian and insult their beliefs, disrupt their time, preach to them about my religion, why on earth, do some feel ok doing it to me?


Their religion demands it. Christianity is about spreading the gospel. I have to wonder what happens when a Mormon knocks on the door of a Jehovah's Witness.
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 171
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/26/2009 10:45:04 AM
Countibli:
The lack of a belief is not a belief
The stance that there is no God is still a belief..

By virtue of the fact that there is no proof, for either side of the equation (and everyone in between) all we have are beliefs. We are all the same in that regard.

Not sure why this is so repugnant to some.

And it's true that some non-christians attempt to press their beliefs on others, but certainly not all. The same can be said of christianity or virtually any other group.

Generalizing others says far more about the person doing it than it does who they are generalizing.. Jmo
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 172
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:37:29 PM


The stance that there is no God is still a belief..


*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."



By virtue of the fact that there is no proof, for either side of the equation (and everyone in between) all we have are beliefs. We are all the same in that regard.


Proof, in general, doesn't exist. Even in mathematics, since proofs first require us to assume ceratin unprovable axioms are true.



Not sure why this is so repugnant to some.


Because 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.
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 174
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 12:57:15 AM
If atheism cannot be classified as a religious perspective or "belief system,"
then why are new atheists out preaching it like one? Why are
Dawkins, Harris, and company proselytizing their message to
rid the world of religion because it's bad and must be destroyed?

These new atheists have essentially created a religion of atheism;
hence why even their own of the less radical variety, are frowning
upon them.
 freetime2bme
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Why do Non-Christians feel the need to press their anti-religous belief's on people?
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:01:22 AM
Q: Why are Dawkins, Harris, and company proselytizing their message to
rid the world of religion because it's bad and must be destroyed?

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.
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 177
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?

 freetime2bme
Joined: 1/16/2006
Msg: 178
view profile
History
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.
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 179
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
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 181
view profile
History
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.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 183
view profile
History
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.
There is no corruption that exonerates rape, sexism, or bigotry, or what Americans and British used to do to people they called slaves.

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.
If you said that you pushed anti-religious beliefs on people because Christians were the ones to push for getting slavery banned (it was the Quakers and William Wilberforce, a very religious Christian), that would STILL be on topic. But it would also be abhorrent.

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.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >