• Religious people trust atheists as much as they trust rapists, study finds.
    365 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33572619]1. The crusades weren't responsible for the slow progress made during the middle ages, feudalism was. Do I agree with the crusades? No. The people who were in charge of them and participated them are mostly terrible people who would have known better, if they could actually read. If more people could read and had copies of the Bible, they would have clearly been able to tell that what was going on with the crusades was wrong. However, not many people did. If anyone spoke out against them, the church labeled them as a heretic and had them killed. Was this Christianity's fault? No. It was the corrupt church. 2. He was implying that a face to face interaction is more likely to gain converts. Simple. 3. Posting a billboard that says "God is not real." right by a church is cruel. It is that simple. Why not post them somewhere else in town? 4. I didn't see him making generalizations, I'm sure he was just trying to make a point. Atheists are just like any other religious demographic. You have the good and you have the bad.[/QUOTE] 1. Religion involves believing things by faith, rather than on evidence. When people are encouraged to think this way, why would you expect anyone to question the statements of people that are believed to be mouthpieces for a deity? How is that not Christianity's fault? Also, it's not like reading the Bible has unified all Christians, so I seriously doubt having them read the Bible would've actually stopped the Crusades, although it may have thinned the ranks a bit. 2. I think discussion is likely to gain converts. In any case, discussion on the internet does not preclude face-to-face talks. 3. I can't find any news reports about this supposed billboard, so I'll just take this hypothetical douchebaggery as only hypothetical. 4. I felt pretty generalized.
Well this study is wrong. I have more atheist friends than theist friends.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33572733]But religion's entire dogma is about how dangerous it is to not be religious, and the fact that the mere concept of hell exists is proof of this. Religion is so pervasive that atheists are reminded about how they'll "burn in hell" in a near hourly basis. Why is it okay for them to point out what they perceive as dangerous but not for us to do the same? (I know the answer to this, it's because religious people have a sense of entitlement from being pandered to for thousands of years and the minute they start to see equal standards in place they take it as an attack)[/QUOTE] The atheism thing isn't so much being right or wrong, but not looking like dicks as a whole. At this point, the only way not to be dicks is to not attack religion, even though it's a case of a big kid beating on a little kid, but when the little kid throws a punch, the big kid tells the teacher that the little kid hit him
[QUOTE=Ladowerf;33572421]i like how as soon as this kind of thread pops up it becomes apparent that facepunch is not happy with religious people believing in their faith. What the fuck, guys?[/QUOTE] I really love how in every single thread like this there are actually more moderate atheists and theists calling out radical atheists for generalising all religious people than there are actual radical atheists. FP isn't as homogenous as people think. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;33572833]Well this study is wrong. I have more atheist friends than theist friends.[/QUOTE] plural of anecdote etc
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33572792]1. Religion involves believing things by faith, rather than on evidence. When people are encouraged to think this way, why would you expect anyone to question the statements of people that are believed to be mouthpieces for a deity? How is that not Christianity's fault? Also, it's not like reading the Bible has unified all Christians, so I seriously doubt having them read the Bible would've actually stopped the Crusades, although it may have thinned the ranks a bit.[/QUOTE] If people read the Bible and believed in what was said in it, they would have not participated in the crusades. If they did, they weren't Christian, didn't matter what they said or what God they did it for. It'd be like a Buddhist killing in the name of Buddha. Whoever does that is a dumbass and clearly is not Buddhist.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33572897]If people read the Bible and believed in what was said in it, they would have not participated in the crusades. If they did, they weren't Christian, didn't matter what they said or what God they did it for. It'd be like a Buddhist killing in the name of Buddha. Whoever does that is a dumbass and clearly is not Buddhist.[/QUOTE] Defining all Christians to be against the Crusades is a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman]No True Scotsman[/url]. Those people that were in the Crusades definitely thought they were Christian. The lack of uniform Christian belief in the face of relatively consistent versions of the Bible also defies the idea that no "true" Christian would fight in the Crusades. Also, does that mean an illiterate person can't be a Christian?
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33572897]If people read the Bible and believed in what was said in it, they would have not participated in the crusades. If they did, they weren't Christian, didn't matter what they said or what God they did it for. It'd be like a Buddhist killing in the name of Buddha. Whoever does that is a dumbass and clearly is not Buddhist.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to follow all teachings in the Bible because it contradicts itself. Therefore there are no Christians. :downs: instead of rating me dumb please explain how my ad absurdum is any logically any different than your post
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33572925]Defining all Christians to be against the Crusades is a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman]No True Scotsman[/url]. Those people that were in the Crusades definitely thought they were Christian. The lack of uniform Christian belief in the face of relatively consistent versions of the Bible also defies the idea that no "true" Christian would fight in the Crusades. Also, does that mean an illiterate person can't be a Christian?[/QUOTE] Hmm. Good one (the no true scotsman). That does not change the reasoning that anyone in the Crusades was conflicting with the core principles of Christianity. If you're doing that, you're not much of a Christian. And tell me, you honestly think that if a greater number of people were literate and the bible was being mass produced at that time, that the crusades would have still occurred? My guess is not, because shortly after the crusades, the printing press was invented and people became literate. Shortly thereafter, the church started falling apart because people started to actually read the Bible and realize how corrupt the church was, and thus church reformation occurred and the protestant church was born. You would be right, that there would still be potential for a crusade, as the Catholic church certainly did not dissolve, but the chances of it being anywhere near as big or brutal would be substantially smaller.
So, if I rape a religious woman with a pro-atheism shirt on, can I pull the "they should have seen it coming" card?
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573058]Hmm. Good one (the no true scotsman). That does not change the reasoning that anyone in the Crusades was conflicting with the core principles of Christianity. If you're doing that, you're not much of a Christian. And tell me, you honestly think that if a greater number of people were literate and the bible was being mass produced at that time, that the crusades would have still occurred? My guess is not, because shortly after the crusades, the printing press was invented and people became literate. Shortly thereafter, the church started falling apart because people started to actually read the Bible and realize how corrupt the church was, and thus church reformation occurred and the protestant church was born. You would be right, that there would still be potential for a crusade, as the Catholic church certainly did not dissolve, but the chances of it being anywhere near as big or brutal would be substantially smaller.[/QUOTE] Oh, I have plenty of problems with how people believe in Christianity. Luckily, most of my problems relate to how watered down their beliefs tend to be, which is good for the rest of us. If people of the time were literate, history would have been completely different, and probably not primarily due to the nature of religious belief. The sheer increased ability to learn, remember, and trade when a person is literate is so vastly improved that we might've reached the industrial revolution centuries sooner. The crusades ended around 1300. Literacy in, for example, France, was only 30% by ~1700. The printing press was certainly a big step toward literacy, but there was tons of progress that had to be made. I suppose, really, the situation that permitted the Crusades could not have arisen if society was generally literate at the time, so it's a bit of a moot point.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573058]Hmm. Good one (the no true scotsman). That does not change the reasoning that anyone in the Crusades was conflicting with the core principles of Christianity. If you're doing that, you're not much of a Christian.[/QUOTE] What are the core principles of Christianity, seeing as 'christianity' is an umbrella term (much like 'cancer'), that refers to a bunch of different conflicting religions?
And an illiterate person can be Christian. I was just trying to make it a point that the church took advantage of their followers by preaching false doctrine and stuff like that. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jookia;33573151]What are the core principles of Christianity, seeing as 'christianity' is an umbrella term much like 'cancer' that refers to a bunch of different conflicting religions?[/QUOTE] You do make a very good point. Even the core principles are debated among Christians of all denominations. The general consensus is to believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind and to try your best to not sin. [b]Churches have warped this beyond belief.[/b] I am a Christian, but I am not the biggest fan of churches. Churches have largely transformed Christianity into a sin based religion, where you spend most of your time worrying about if you sinned, how to avoid sinning, and the such. It's quite terrible really. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33573146]Oh, I have plenty of problems with how people believe in Christianity. Luckily, most of my problems relate to how watered down their beliefs tend to be, which is good for the rest of us. If people of the time were literate, history would have been completely different, and probably not primarily due to the nature of religious belief. The sheer increased ability to learn, remember, and trade when a person is literate is so vastly improved that we might've reached the industrial revolution centuries sooner. The crusades ended around 1300. Literacy in, for example, France, was only 30% by ~1700. The printing press was certainly a big step toward literacy, but there was tons of progress that had to be made. I suppose, really, the situation that permitted the Crusades could not have arisen if society was generally literate at the time, so it's a bit of a moot point.[/QUOTE] So have we found some concurrence? :v: I don't mind debating with you, as you are a formidable and polite opponent, but I think we found an end point to this particular topic. haha
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573152]You do make a very good point. Even the core principles are debated among Christians of all denominations. The general consensus is to believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind and to try your best to not sin. [b]Churches have warped this beyond belief.[/b] I am a Christian, but I am not the biggest fan of churches. Churches have largely transformed Christianity into a sin based religion, where you spend most of your time worrying about if you sinned, how to avoid sinning, and the such. It's quite terrible really.[/QUOTE] Is there a list of sins that we can use to determine if somebody is following core principles?
[QUOTE=Jookia;33573253]Is there a list of sins that we can use to determine if somebody is following core principles?[/QUOTE] Just because you sin doesn't exactly mean you aren't following the core principles. You're taking on that church state of mind. Christianity is not sin based. It's an honest attempt at not sinning that is important. Going around killing people in the name of Jesus Christ isn't exactly an honest attempt at avoiding sin. It's not a very Christian thing to do.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573280]Just because you sin doesn't exactly mean you aren't following the core principles. You're taking on that church state of mind. Christianity is not sin based. It's an honest attempt at not sinning that is important.[/QUOTE] Well what are the core principles?
[QUOTE=Jookia;33573296]Well what are the core principles?[/QUOTE] I would say to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and to make an honest attempt at avoiding sin and living a Godly life.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573312]I would say to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and to make an honest attempt at avoiding sin and living a Godly life.[/QUOTE] Yes, but what are the sins that you must avoid?
Man... US is so extreme on this religious vs atheists thing... In Norway, nobody gives a shit what u believe in. Unless ur a muslim ofc.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33573324]Yes, but what are the sins that you must avoid?[/QUOTE] There's quite a few. I do not have them all memorized. Not many people can memorize all of them, this is why daily repentance at least once a day is generally a good idea. Read the New Testament if you'd like, they're all in there. Please be aware that Christians no longer live under Mosaic law, so the old testament rules don't apply anymore.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573358]There's quite a few. I do not have them all memorized. Not many people can memorize all of them, this is why daily repentance at least once a day is generally a good idea. Read the New Testament if you'd like, they're all in there. Please be aware that Christians no longer live under Mosaic law, so the old testament rules don't apply anymore.[/QUOTE] Flicking through the compilation of scriptures (the bible), it seems that there's nothing really against rape in here. So does that mean it's not a sin?
[QUOTE=Jookia;33573464]Flicking through the compilation of scriptures (the bible), it seems that there's nothing really against rape in here. So does that mean it's not a sin?[/QUOTE] Christians were to 'deaden' their sexual desire for fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire....this would ofcourse, include the act of rape.(Colossians 3:5-6) [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] Old Testament has some pretty brutal things about rape going on, but again, we no longer live under mosaic law. New Testament is what applies. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] And if you're raping someone you're not married to, that already plainly falls under adultery. Raping your wife is still wrong because it is a hurtful desire and you are supposed to love your wife as Jesus loved the church. The church back during the Jesus movement was nothing like the church we have today.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573518]Christians were to 'deaden' their sexual desire for fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire....this would ofcourse, include the act of rape.(Colossians 3:5-6) And if you're raping someone you're not married to, that already plainly falls under adultery. Raping your wife is still wrong because it is a hurtful desire.[/QUOTE] I know it's under adultery, I mean rape in particular. It's just that Yahweh seems to encourage rape in some cases. Anyways, I was going to ask this earlier but the whole 'old testament doesn't matter anymore' kind of put me off. Many Jews believe that Yeshua (Jesus) wasn't the messiah purely because he didn't fulfil the prophecies, like world peace (Isaiah 2:4), or build a temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). What's your take on this?
[QUOTE=Jookia;33573639]I know it's under adultery, I mean rape in particular. It's just that Yahweh seems to encourage rape in some cases. Anyways, I was going to ask this earlier but the whole 'old testament doesn't matter anymore' kind of put me off. Many Jews believe that Yeshua (Jesus) wasn't the messiah purely because he didn't fulfil the prophecies, like world peace (Isaiah 2:4), or build a temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). What's your take on this?[/QUOTE] I have yet to run into the encouragement of rape in the new testament. And I'm not going to say the Old Testament doesn't matter, it is very important, but we no longer live under its law. And I will be frank with you, I am a new Christian. I have a lot to read and a lot to take in to develop my consensus on these topics. Sorry. Trying my best to answer your questions.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573058]Hmm. Good one (the no true scotsman). That does not change the reasoning that anyone in the Crusades was conflicting with the core principles of Christianity. If you're doing that, you're not much of a Christian.[/QUOTE] So by that same idea, would you also agree that the Soviet Union was not Communist because it did not follow Communist ideals? That seems like the same sort of situation.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33573782]So by that same idea, would you also agree that the Soviet Union was not Communist because it did not follow Communist ideals? That seems like the same sort of situation.[/QUOTE] I would agree with that, yes. Don't get me started on how socialism turned into a dirty word here in America. It is quite irritating.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573712]I have yet to run into the encouragement of rape in the new testament. And I'm not going to say the Old Testament doesn't matter, it is very important, but we no longer live under its law. And I will be frank with you, I am a new Christian. I have a lot to read and a lot to take in to develop my consensus on these topics. Sorry. Trying my best to answer your questions.[/QUOTE] Isaiah 13 shows that Yahweh calls an army to go slaughter babies and rape women. Also, in the original Hebrew texts Mary wasn't a virgin. It seems it was tampered with in order to match the old Pagan beliefs. Don't get me started on the lack of evidence of Yeshua's existence though.
I remember this video or image or something that said: "One day, I prayed to God for a ferrari. Then I realized He didn't work like that, so I went out, stole a ferrari, and asked for His forgiveness." I think it may be a comedian but it's as true as it is funny. I am in no right an Anti-Christian, but anything that has to invoke fear to promote good, and ask for forgiveness for the bad isn't my idea of religion.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33573835]Isaiah 13 shows that Yahweh calls an army to go slaughter babies and rape women. Also, in the original Hebrew texts Mary wasn't a virgin. It seems it was tampered with in order to match the old Pagan beliefs. Don't get me started on the lack of evidence of Yeshua's existence though.[/QUOTE] Isaiah is old testament. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;33573882]I remember this video or image or something that said: "One day, I prayed to God for a ferrari. Then I realized He didn't work like that, so I went out, stole a ferrari, and asked for His forgiveness." I think it may be a comedian but it's as true as it is funny. I am in no right an Anti-Christian, but anything that has to invoke fear to promote good, and ask for forgiveness for the bad isn't my idea of religion.[/QUOTE] And that is the problem. Churches have warped Christianity into that.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33573891]Isaiah is old testament.[/QUOTE] So? Yahweh still did that.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33573929]So? Yahweh still did that.[/QUOTE] And by Mosaic law, that was the way to deal with them. We no longer live under Mosaic law, so it isn't okay. If you want better answers than the ones I can provide, you are going to have to find an Old Testament scholar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.