Problems with the Bible

And yet the fact remains that convictions are tested. And when they are - their strength is indeed revealed.

And it does not change the fact that at least two hardened atheists (only one of which will admit he's an atheist), were all about calling Christians violent. Yet when their bravery in battle was questioned (and they are not even on the battlefield), why suddenly they are down right war heros? How dare you question THEIR bravery by pointing out that attendance at religious services in battle sky rocketed?

Its exactly what I said about atheism - its whatever it needs to be to make other people feel bad so the atheist can feel good.

Attempting to defend the need for war under certain conditions? Crusades, rape of children, violence and oppression.

Pacificism is dismissed as failure to defend what is right and a pacifist is called a coward.

And yet, as we see, the atheist is both a war hero and pacifist? When it suits him. And when pressed, the lot of them are shocked that such antics prove to be fleeting rather than strong? Why would you expect any different?

 

I don't really care about 2 atheists making sweeping generalizations, just like I don't really care about about one Christian's strawman. If we're too careless, intellectually lazy or dishonest to define the actual problem, we aint never finding a solution.

Who was calling themselves a war hero?

You can insert whatever label you want into that sentence and it will be equally as untrue as someone saying that all Christians are violent.

Brother, I aint got a clue what context this is in, but if war will prevent the rape of children, then there is a need for war.

This is another sweeping generalization, bro. I aint got time for it. You know better than that. You might as well be making blanket statements about blacks or Catholics or whatever umbrella term that don't really represent a person unless they're just conforming to the idea that is attached to the label.

Some do that, but it aint a one size fits all deal. Just like the motives when church attendance goes up aint uniform. Some do out of fear or a coping mechanism, while others do for guidence or clarity. Some to conform to what their brothers and sisters are doing. It aint a test of conviction across the board.

 

Do you think this is my first time debating atheists? And lets look shall we:

"In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god."

http://www.atheists.org/religion

""Atheists have served in the military proudly and with distinction and Atheist military members and veterans refute the lie that there "are no atheists in foxholes."

http://www.atheists.org/military

Funny that you state it is 'just two', when it fact it is merely these two who are in line with a long trend and the organizational propoganda regularly generated by atheism.

But, we can lift portions of the Bible to call Christians child rapists .... but that is not a sweeping generalization and generates not one word of criticism from those now concerned about generalizations? Do we see how the standard shifts in context? Pacfists and War heros, eager to condemn and celebrate violence at the same time, able to make and condemn generalizations at the same time.

And yet, atheists say it all the time. As we see above, it is what is said right up front regarding religion in atheist propoganda. Yet no atheist seems to care? And when we attempt to explain or discuss the realities of war and violence it becomes a spin fest of those without standards.

Some things are worth fighting for. The problem is that while atheists condemn the Inquisition, they remain strangely silent on the Hungarian Uprising that was crushed by the Russians, Tiananmen Square, the oppression in North Korea, The African Coups that kill thousands, the ethnic genocide in Rawanda, The first suicide bombers to come from ... the Tamil Tigers. In short, they attach blinder to condemn religion and in doing so miss the greater condition of humanity.

It is, IMHO, more about castigation and blame then it is about a search for truth. For the reality is that any ideology can be used to produce good things, even atheism, and any can be manipulated by the unscrupulous for evil. The real danger is in thinking that your ideology is someone how immune to it .... because you use the Inquisition to bash other people.

See above. There is point at which the behavior becomes more than a generalization, but a pattern or a trend. And when it does, claiming the status of bigotry is silly. Examine it on the facts and disagree with something like facts. We have two atheists behaving just like this, and an examination of the board, and many other board substantiates the claim. And we have atheist propoganda to boot. I'd say that is pattern.

Unfortunately, one of us has made clear that not all atheists are like that, but the modern atheist nihilist that spends his time bad mounting religion with inaccuracies? Its basically like saying that because not all Christians and literal Creationists that there are none ... and sweeping generalization to hide a problem is just as bad as sweeping generalization to make a problem.

 

I aint speaking to whether either of those two statements are true or not, but they don't contradict each other. You can believe that religion is responsible for most wars in human history and still be involved in warfare without being a hypocrite. It has to do with the necessity of war, not the nature of it. Many wars that were caused because of religious differences were about conquest, not defense.

No religious attachment whatsoever, many of our vets are proud that they have defended this country but are disgusted by wars of conquest (Bush's war, for example)

I stated just two cause that was the context that you brought into it.

btw, atheism don't produce propaghanda, egocentricism does. Many atheists, being human, aint immune to egocentricism. Christians, either.

I aint seen anyone lift portions of the bible to call Christians rapists. I do see support in the bible for such acts, which should be condemned, but many Christians either ignore it or hand wave it away. I wouldn't call someone a supporter of rape or a rapist if they refused to acknowledge that what the bible says in two or three passages is deplorable, but I would say that person was being dishonest/deluded if they said it was okay because it was a different time.

And I aint seen anyone celebrate violence, so as far as I can tell, you are setting em up to knock em down, but that aint even the issue.

Many atheists say that religion has produced violence, which is true, even now. But I have to say again that I aint heard any atheist say that "all Christians are violent", or if I did, I would correct them. I'm having a hard time seperating your hyperbole from a straight on strawman.

You got a point there, but you are missing something here: You got smart people and dumb people and you got educated people and hardheaeded people and you got atheists and theists. The ratio of smart atheists to dumb atheists, I assume, is the same as the ration of smart theists to dumb theists.

Like music, you got excellent standards and you got mainstream, whatever genre, country, rock, jazz, you gonna get about 8% quality to 92% filler. So since we got a lot of dumb mainstream folk, I assume we got a lot of dumb atheists. Just my assumption/worldview. Don't ask me to prove it, just get my meaning.

Not only are they dumb, but they're mostly uneducated. They don't complain about Tiananmen Square cause they don't even know about it. It aint on their radar (failed school system, focus on individualism over community, America, bla bla bla)

I see your point. I think the Inquisition was first used as a tool for atheists to remind Christians that Christianity aint immune, either. Then it became a tit-for-tat along with whose camp Hitler belongs to and who gets Einstein. This is a problem on both sides.

I see a pattern. I believe you spoke about those who "attach blinder to condemn and in doing so miss the greater condition of humanity."

That aint atheist specific. That's just plain old egocentricism at work, independant of acceptance or rejection of a diety.

Sometimes I see nice people and somtimes I see jerks, and they'll be jerks whether we're talkin God, Cars, movies, And yeah, some atheists are obnoxious and try to bully their way through an argument cause they are too lazy to make a case. Just like many Christians do.

The trend you talking about is called "hypocrisy" which happens to be a natural disposition for the whole of human creature.

Again, I will try to say that while actions may be uniform in a population, the motives for those actions aint.

Oh, I know there are some obnoxious atheists out there. I won't deny that. But I don't think that atheism is the cause. It's just one person's particular disposition manifest in any subject they might be passionate about, and the focus just happens to be atheism, Christianity, (insert arbitrary thing that you didn't agree about with Mr. Know-It-All, so now he wants to punish you into submission)

And I know that's in the culture of some online atheists. I've been to Youtube. But I've also seen them boys and girls earn the right to be smug on some very tough points and be clear, to the point and spot on. Some of the bad mouthing they done with absolute precision.

Personally, I think the more aggressive approach is just in response to fundamentalism... two coins for one ride.

Not that I think it makes it okay.

I do believe that we will see a substantial decline in militant atheism as a direct response to a decline in literalist Christianity, especially if that means it aint up in the air whether kids will be taught that Noah brought the dinosaurs as a counter theory to evolution in the classroom.


Just basic fight or flight behavior when you get down to it.

 

This is preferable, IMO.


[video=youtube;9CZvWbcPEa8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CZvWbcPEa8[/video]

 

You are dancing around the issue.

The issue is that there is no statement about war and violence in general. There is no over arching standard, as say the Just War Doctrine of the Catholic Church - which is very similar to the reality of Jihad in Islam. There is condemnation of violence that is in any way shape or form associated with religion, excuses made to ignore violence associated with atheism, and statements that killing in general is just bad. Yet when called, to actually make a statement of principle, well, now we need to make sure we recognize atheists for their heroic contributions in the same wars they condemn us in? Yes, there is a contradiction there - a massive one.

To castigate an entire religion as warmongering and evil, and then in the next breath accuse someone of sweeping generalizations when they point out that atheism is greatly reduced in fox holes? Well?????

What is the standard?

Then you are simply seeing what you wish. This forum has an excellent search engine, and I suggest you conduct a search to confirm or deny what in written on this forum - or any other. PLease bear in mind, this is what atheists publish:

"Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame."

http://www.atheists.org/religion

But YOU haven't seen any of that stuff? Or simply do not want to acknowledge it?

They set themselves up. I simply point out the contradiction of calling people warmongers on one hand, and then demanding that we honor their service in the same warmongering atrocities that they were right there with. It cannot be both ways - and no one 'set anyone up'.

That goes to another discussion I have had recently - personal accountability through standards, atonement. Whose fault is it that atheists say these things? Or are religious people, in general, just so much more intelligent than atheists that we set trap after trap that bambi eyed innocent atheists just wander haplessly into?

It's published in atheist propoganda all the time. What do you think the intent when harping on the Crusades and the Inquisition, but ignoring global conflicts like WWI, WWII, The American Reviolution, the Opium Wars, Colonization, etc. Our religion causes wars remember, but you aren't actually saying that?

And, like so many others, I see you have studiously ignored the correction that all ideologies can cause either good or bad, and the real danger is thinking that YOUR ideology is above that kind of manipulation. Yet you suffice by saying that religion has caused violence? So has atheism, and great many other things.

I tend to agree with you there.

That is indeed part of the problem. IMO, the real problem for atheism is its lack of doctrine. There is nothing wrong with linking Jefferson as a 'pioneer' of atheism, or even Einstein for guidance. The problem is that many atheists first downplay their religious roles, and then they do not use them exemplary role models but as attacks on religion. It's Einstein was one of ... see how smart we are? Well, what does Einstein teach us? Even as a devote Christian I look at Einsteins often tender coorespondance, particularly with children and the great respect he has for different faith and am as deeply impressed with the man as I am with his brain. His struggles with divorce and relationships, his pondering about the meaning of all this when he is uniquely in his time aware of the vastness of the universe is striking in its insight - no matter your personal faith. And to see that reduced to - he's one of us, you can't have him?

Nope, it is not. But is currently a greater problem for atheism than it is for other faith groups. No faith group has a significant content of its online image dedicated to slandering atheism. Almost all atheist web sites do - and indeed, those atheists who engage in religious debate bear out that conditioning in their arguements. It is a problem - very much akin to the early churches villianization of Jews - the way Kuchi are treated in Afghanistan - Gypsies in Europe - Armenians in Turkey - etc.

Hypocrisy is nothing more than a failure to apply standards objectively. We may all slip into this, but it is not a natural state.

Nevertheless, problems that arise from a population should be identified and addressed. For example, we KNOW that inner city minority children staistically have lower educational opportunities than others. We COULD SAY, that because this is not specific to individual miniority children that we should therefore do nothing. That would be, IMHO, the exact wrong thing to do.






Oh, I know there are some obnoxious atheists out there. I won't deny that. But I don't think that atheism is the cause. It's just one person's particular disposition manifest in any subject they might be passionate about, and the focus just happens to be atheism, Christianity, (insert arbitrary thing that you didn't agree about with Mr. Know-It-All, so now he wants to punish you into submission)

And I know that's in the culture of some online atheists. I've been to Youtube. But I've also seen them boys and girls earn the right to be smug on some very tough points and be clear, to the point and spot on. Some of the bad mouthing they done with absolute precision.

Personally, I think the more aggressive approach is just in response to fundamentalism... two coins for one ride.

Not that I think it makes it okay.

I do believe that we will see a substantial decline in militant atheism as a direct response to a decline in literalist Christianity, especially if that means it aint up in the air whether kids will be taught that Noah brought the dinosaurs as a counter theory to evolution in the classroom.


Just basic fight or flight behavior when you get down to it.[/QUOTE]

 

Sorry you felt I was being rude. The sudden conversion you describe seems circumstantial to me, that's all.

And for what it's worth, I don't know that I wouldn't react the same way in the situation. I would be terrified and might very well reach out to any port in a storm. The phenomenon is completely predictable. Seeing what you see there would create an intense need in me to desperately seek a way to make sense of the atrocity. Another predictable phenomenon resulting from being "in country" during war are the suicides that skyrocket among troops. It is another desperate coping mechanism. War leads to extreme reactions in all kinds of ways.
Just so you know, I'm not an atheist. Also, anecdotal evidence isn't a pejorative term. It is merely descriptive. It is the impression of individuals, not scientific research, that's all. Not a put down, just a description. Sorry you took my comments personally. It was not my intent.

 

Who care whether you consider it circumstantial or not. How many battlefield have you been on? What basis would you choose to question that report? And why on earth would I lie about it?

It's not anectodal - its fact. The number of Soldiers attending services once we hit combat went by at least an order of magnitude. Yet you doubt? So doubt, but understand you foubt reality at this point.

 

Slow down there Buzzsaw!!
No one doubts you. I'm sure what you saw is absolutely true. I never said you lied or what you said wasn't absolutely factual. Anecdotal simply means it is the reportage of an individuals recollection. It can sometimes be suspect, but I doubt that to be the case here. I'm quite sure you are reporting the increase in attendance at worship accurately. Relax. You are responding from emotion, but not accurately to what I said.
You must also know that cases of AWOL, suicide and drug abuse skyrocket during the stress of deployment in a hot zone. Extreme circumstances produce extreme reactions, and they vary from person to person. That fact doesn't speak to the efficacy of the reactions, just that they happen. The fact that they happen doesn't make the case that the reactions are wise, noble or even reflective of what that person would do under normal circumstances. They are extraordinary reactions to extraordinary circumstances.
That is really the only point that has been made so far, not that increased attendance in a war zone is any evidence for it being the wise course of action. It may or may not be, but it hasn't been shown to be true.

 

In like manner, it has not been proven to be false.

 

That is a restatement of what I posted.
We agree.
Did you have a point, or just being churlish?

 

Not really a restatement of what you said. You said "It may or may not be, but it hasn't been shown to be true." speaking toward proof of or showing of 'truth'; whereas what I stated spoke toward proof of or showing of falseness. Those are opposites.

 

A distinction without a difference. Both show that nothing has been proven. We agree.
You just want to argue.
You see Neutral was making the case of it proving something, which it doesn't, so that had to be refuted. He was not making the case that it didn't prove anything, so that didn't need refutation.
Another very silly post based in your misuse and misunderstandings of semantics.
seeya.

 

Back to the semantics. Above you state as a matter of fact that Neutrals comments prove nothing. Yet you offer no proof of what you have claimed. Just your opinion. Then you go on to further the accusation against me while at the same time, I show where it is you that is misusing the science of semantics.

 

Agh yes, the ever changing line of questioning ...

It speaks to the veracity of the belief. The direct challenge is whether or not those driven by finger pointing and accussation find such animosity to be ... useful, when the chips are down.

I'd wager that people in natural disasters probably have the same conclusions? I could point fingers and blame everything, or ... I could get my butt in gear and fix this. Or, as per Soldiers, I'll make sure my head is on straight as I go about my business.

 

But which soldiers are you referring to? The ones that kill themselves, go AWOL or suddenly find God? You have chosen the ones that have made a sincere choice, not shown that they have. Nothing has changed. You haven't given evidence of the authenticity of faith, just that you personally have it.
I don't begrudge you that, but you haven't made some kind of compelling argument for it for others, that's all.
I guarantee you people in disaster scenarios experience similar responses.
Like I said, extreme circumstances lead to extreme reactions.

 

Yes, so solly. That infernal Norton and his Symantec confused me at the critical moment and I *horrors* misspelled a word.

So, now, back to you and your semantics..

 

What would you know about atheists in foxholes? Many people aren't exactly hardcore one way or the other about god and religion, and when facing death they may indeed turn to religion for comfort. I would argue (as ever) that this is due to a weakness in the human psyche, or rather a holdover from childhood, when we depend on our parents for support. What about an injured, dying soldier lying on the field and calling out to "mommy"? Is he suddenly "religious"? No, of course not. His mind has regressed from a reasoned state, however, into deep trauma and emotion. That is the same sort of phenomenon which would drive a surge in religion among the soldiers when facing death. It's there for comfort. That obviously doesn't make any particular god/religion they turn to true, any more than the dying soldier's mother will be standing beside him when he calls to her.

As for pacifism, I honestly can't say where a majority of atheists stand, but I and Dr. Dawkins are both pacifists. In fact, it's a desire to end religious conflict that drives him to write books about, and debate against (unreasonable & fundamentalist) religion as he does.

 

Yet you still avoided answering the questions that were directed at your previous comments. FAIL on your part.

 

The one in combat. Infantryman. No one goes AWOL in Afghanistan. What's changed is that the ones so quick to make fun of faith ... suddenly find themselves silenced. And the science says, much to the chargrin of atheists, is that those with faith tend to handle very trying circumstances, like combat, better.

 

Our religion is on our records. Its on our dog tags, and if you think you spend days and days with people and have no idea whether they are religious or atheist ... well, you fool only yourself. You ask me how i know? I've lived it several times. Do you have any valid basis to doubt? Other than to doubt for doubts sake?

And the problem with YOUR stance on war and pacifism is that you will not spell it out - not 'atheisms', for some Christians are avowed Pacifists like Jehovah's Witnesses. Take a position and defend it, you will find in this complex area there is no 'right' answer, only wise and foolish answers leading to good and bad policy.

 

That's funny. I just googled it and found plenty of examples of those AWOL in Afghanistan.

Same is true about suicide. For the second year in row, more US soldiers killed themselves than were killed in combat. In 2010, 468 soldiers took their own lives, compared to 462 killed in fighting.

I'm not making fun of faith. Just putting your argument in perspective. Your not responding to what I'm saying and getting angry doesn't really help your case.

 

Yet you are responding by making claims that are not even substantiated by you providing a link to your research findings.

 

There is exactly ONE guys that went AWOL while he was in Afghanistan. Lots of cowards go AWOL before , and I have seen a lot more Americans killed by IED's and had multiple limbs ripped from their bodies ... Lets just say there is more going on that over here then there are suicides.

But again, what are arguing? THat church attendance and those seeking it does not spike? It does. That atheism somehow provides a benefit similar to religion? It doesn't. In fact the science, in resilancy training, states very emphatically to find a faith any faith - from secular humanism to Scientology - we, as an organization do not care what it is - but as an organization we want to arm you with the best weapons to defend and take care of yourself before we drop you in battle.

But when these things don't point toward atheism .... suddenly science is not so unbiased?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-06-07/military-troops-suicide/55453990/1

http://search.usa.gov/search?input-form=advanced&affiliate=DL_releases&query-or=suicide

http://www.adn.com/2012/06/08/2496587/suicides-among-us-troops-outnumber.html

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2006/08/40000-us-troops-awol-since-2000/

http://globalgrind.com/news/oh-my-us-soldier-goes-awol-and-merks-16-afghan-civilians-photos

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/29/soldier-admits-awol-afghanistan

Let me know if you need more. I can teach you how to use google, too, if you like.