Richard Dawkins backs plans for a bible in every school - Polidicks

I enjoy Facepunch's reaction to religion. You think you are less ignorant and more open minded then the everyone else, but you're still the same.

[QUOTE=werrek;36105545]I enjoy Facepunch's reaction to religion. You think you are less ignorant and more open minded then the everyone else, but you're still the same.[/QUOTE] hey captain driveby, if you're going to make a smartass comment like that you should stick around long enough to back it up.

[QUOTE=smurfy;36101620]I wish Wikipedia had a plot summary for the Bible, shit would be so much easier[/QUOTE] My favourite part is at end, where [sp]he gets betrayed, nailed to a cross (science proves this impossible), crucified, and then he respawns a few days later and tells the world he will BRB... and forgets to say when.[/sp] People have been waiting for 2000 thousand years. Man that guy sounds more and more like a troll every year.

The bible is a piece of history(guessing) and for the uninspired it will inspire you (at least it did to me and from that day forward i'v seen the world through the bibles eyes maybe not enough to tell what's happening around me but it gives a good view). [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/wrench.png[/img]

[QUOTE=FAG 2.0;36105586]The bible is a piece of history(guessing) and for the uninspired it will inspire you (at least it did to me and from that day forward i'v seen the world through the bibles eyes maybe not enough to tell what's happening around me but it gives a good view). [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/wrench.png[/img][/QUOTE] i think i speak for everyone here when i say what?

[QUOTE=werrek;36105545]I enjoy Facepunch's reaction to religion. You think you are less ignorant and more open minded then the everyone else, but you're still the same.[/QUOTE] the group of people on Facepunch who are very vocal and anti-religious is the the voice that is going to be heard the most not all of Facepunch is like that you do not base an website's entire community around the most vocal group

I don't think you guys know what being "open-minded" means. It means you're willing to listen to ideas. It does [I]not[/I] mean you can't say "that's really dumb" after you've heard them. You act as though "people here" aren't open-minded because they don't agree to you. Has it not occurred to you that most every atheist here was raised in a religious family, or surrounded by religious culture? As if to imply we haven't had the time to contemplate what we're saying, and that we had the opportunity to shut out religious upbringings of our own volition from birth. No. That isn't how it works. I met a Christian for the first time when I was born. You met an Atheist the first time on fucking Reddit or wherever. Don't tell me I'm not open-minded when I was exposed to these ideas during a time in which I literally knew nothing else.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;36105584]My favourite part is at end, where [sp]he gets betrayed, nailed to a cross (science proves this impossible), crucified, and then he respawns a few days later and tells the world he will BRB... and forgets to say when.[/sp] People have been waiting for 2000 thousand years. Man that guy sounds more and more like a troll every year.[/QUOTE] Um science has not proved that nailing someone to a cross is impossible. It was a very common form of execution with the Carthaginians, Seleucids, and Romans.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36105643]Um science has not proved that nailing someone to a cross is impossible. It was a very common form of execution with the Carthaginians, Seleucids, and Romans.[/QUOTE] It is impossible to nail someone to a cross by the hands and feet. Roman crucifixion was usually done through the wrists and ankles, with extra ties to actually keep them on the cross. Occasionally they wouldn't nail them at all, simply tying them to a crucifix and letting them starve. The bones in the hands and feet are simply too brittle to support the full weight of a human being. They'll snap and the nails would tear right through you until you fall. The bones in your wrists and lower calves are strong enough (with help) to support your weight if nails are driven between the gaps. Crucifixion was not a method of execution, it was a method of torture and deterrence. The goal wasn't to kill you. You'd starve to death eventually. The goal was to display your writhing agony along the side of the road as a warning to travelers.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36105672]It is impossible to nail someone to a cross by the hands and feet. Roman crucifixion was usually done through the wrists and ankles, with extra ties to actually keep them on the cross. Occasionally they wouldn't nail them at all, simply tying them to a crucifix and letting them starve. The bones in the hands and feet are simply too brittle to support the full weight of a human being. They'll snap and the nails would tear right through you until you fall. Crucifixion was not a method of execution, it was a method of torture and deterrence. The goal wasn't to kill you. You'd starve to death eventually. The goal was to display your writhing agony along the side of the road as a warning to travelers.[/QUOTE] I dunno man, if it ends in death then I'm pretty sure I would count it as a method of execution, no matter how brutal or drawn-out it is. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] I mean, if they didn't want to kill ya, they could take you off the cross every few days and clean you up so you could be put back on later. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] But they didn't, because ultimately the goal was to kill the condemned.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36105685]I dunno man, if it ends in death then I'm pretty sure I would count it as a method of execution, no matter how brutal or drawn-out it is.[/QUOTE] When the Romans wanted to execute someone, they had a way of doing it quickly. Crucifixion was reserved for making examples in public. Slaves and prisoners of war were its targets, primarily. Initially, it was [I]only[/I] for slaves, but it was later applied to enemies of Rome. I'm not sure, but if I recall second-year Latin, criminals such as killers were not granted the time it would take to starve. Those who were not completely disowned and disavowed by society did not get crucified.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36105728]When the Romans wanted to execute someone, they had a way of doing it quickly. Crucifixion was reserved for making examples in public. Slaves and prisoners of war were its targets, primarily. Initially, it was [I]only[/I] for slaves, but it was later applied to enemies of Rome. I'm not sure, but if I recall second-year Latin, criminals such as killers were not granted the time it would take to starve. Those who were not completely disowned and disavowed by society did not get crucified.[/QUOTE] So what's your definition of execution, then? Is it only a swift, merciful death? I mean, crucifixion isn't the only method I would consider execution that was also very brutal. The brazen bull and breaking wheel being two very prominent examples. Just because an execution method is used for deterrence, doesn't mean it isn't a form of execution. Ultimately, if the goal is to kill the condemned eventually, it is execution whether merciful or not.

Good idea, Bibles can be quite thick, and would work pretty well vs most handgun ammunition.

[QUOTE=werrek;36105545]I enjoy Facepunch's reaction to religion. You think you are less ignorant and more open minded then the everyone else, but you're still the same.[/QUOTE] Actually a pretty decent conversation going on here but actually reading and comprehending something is harder then making off-hand statements so I understand.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36105777]So what's your definition of execution, then? Is it only a swift, merciful death? I mean, crucifixion isn't the only method I would consider execution that was also very brutal. The brazen bull and breaking wheel being two very prominent examples. Just because an execution method is used for deterrence, doesn't mean it isn't a form of execution. Ultimately, if the goal is to kill the condemned eventually, it is execution whether merciful or not.[/QUOTE] You're not understanding what I'm saying. The killing in crucifixion is simply secondary. Its purpose was to inspire fear.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36106076]You're not understanding what I'm saying. The killing in crucifixion is simply secondary. Its purpose was to inspire fear.[/QUOTE] Same with public hangings and beheadings. Execution has been used for deterrence since antiquity, crucifixion isn't special in this regard.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36105011]Haha, yeah, as if the Bible has a plot. The Bible is a bunch of incoherent tangential stories about people in the desert who are too stupid to live anywhere but the fucking desert. There is no real plot. Plus, you can learn a shitload about the Bible outside of the Bible. For instance, did you know the original book of Genesis referenced multiple Gods? Judaism was originally a polytheistic derivative of pagan religions. The line "In the beginning God made heaven and earth" is (intentionally) mistranslated. The word [I]Elohim[/I] is a plural, meaning [I]Gods[/I]. The original book implied a pantheon, which was derived from cosmically-rooted deities in the pagan religions present during the genesis of Judaism. The primary deities of this pantheon were Yahweh (derived from the Sun,) Satan (derived from Saturn) and Lucifer (derived from Venus). I've said this before, but there's a reason that Satan, Lucifer and the Devil are never directly associated with one another, and remain distinct characters. That's because they were originally [I]equals[/I] to 'God' (Yahweh), and they weren't evil rebels or servants. This brings a whole new meaning to the original texts of Genesis. Yahweh was not originally a benevolent force, nor was he the supreme force. He was an overlord. The serpent that convinced Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge was not an evil interloper of Hell, but simply another god in the same pantheon that wanted to bestow knowledge and curiosity upon Humanity (ala Prometheus). And to top it all off, they had [I]all[/I] created Humanity, not just Yahweh, and they all had equal claim to Humanity's guidance. Yahweh just had a fucking hissy fit when he didn't get his way. [editline]27th May 2012[/editline] Uhh no it's an awful book and anyone who's actually forced themselves to read it realizes that. It is perhaps the most poorly written collection of historical fanfiction ever compiled. First it was written by jackasses in the desert. Then it was written by jackasses in the dark ages who wallowed in their own feces. Then it was written by rich fuckers in the Vatican who wanted to get more money.[/QUOTE] That is an interesting and possible interpretation of Genesis 1. Most Theological scholars would say that, while Elohim is indeed a plural form, it still refers to one entity, one godlike figure with the power and presence of many. It is not an easy word to interpret, so the truth will never be completely figured out. What is more interesting is that Elohim and Yahweh had different ways of speaking and different stories as well. Elohim spoke things into existence and was a voice in the sky, while Yahweh built things of is own hands and was represented as not omniscient, which could actually support the idea that Elohim and Yahweh are different entities altogether. From reading the text and studying the context, it seems more logical to me that Elohim and Yahweh are two different conceptual ideals of the same god, but written by different people in different historical periods (one before Jerusalem fell, and one after). Also, do not diss the Bible, you can learn a lot from it. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36105525][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim[/url] [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] Also it's pretty common knowledge that the entirety of Genesis is just plagiarized shit from pagan myth.[/QUOTE] You make everything sound shitty. An ancient story evolving to support a new culture and religion, or getting inspired from another culture or religion is not and should not be called plagiarism. It is not like some day some Jew read about the Babylonian creation myth and said "well shit lets turn this into Genesis 1". It is a really slow process.

[QUOTE=person11;36106580]You make everything sound shitty. An ancient story evolving to support a new culture and religion, or getting inspired from another culture or religion is not and should not be called plagiarism. It is not like some day some Jew read about the Babylonian creation myth and said "well shit lets turn this into Genesis 1". It is a really slow process.[/QUOTE] The point is there is absolutely nothing holy or sacrosanct about it. It is as much fiction as its predecessors. Also the only reason [I]Elohim[/I] is interpreted as singular is because one day Judaism became a monotheistic religion, and suddenly the plurality of the Gods did not fit the dogma. That doesn't change how it started. [QUOTE=person11;36106580]Also, do not diss the Bible, you can learn a lot from it.[/QUOTE] You realize to know this much about the Bible I've read it, right? I learned a lot about Jihad, genocide, infanticide and how to sell my daughter into slavery and/or sacrifice her life to the Lord atop a mountain. And no, not all of that is Old Testament. Jesus was bipolar as fuck, and actively endorsed violence against non-believers. I will diss the Bible as much as I want. It's a poorly written piece of literary garbage, whose renown is maintained not because it is a good book but because people who haven't even read the book have killed and continue to kill for its sake. It is not sacrosanct, and I don't need to respect it. I don't respect it in the slightest. I've learned more from the bargain bin in my local Books-A-Million.

I think if someone translated the earliest version of the bible that can be found with Yahweh and Lucifer and everyone else as equal gods, that would be pretty neat

Cherry picking the shit from the book is just as bad as only looking at the good. While the book is a collection of barely related stories that reflect older cultural paradigms, it still had a lt of cultural values & can be deeply beautiful & moral. Or we can just say its uncultured shit that tells you to mistreat everyone.

I don't know when it stopped being cool to be militantly atheist in facepunch, but no one sent me the memo, because I still think the bibles a load of shit.

There isn't a point in arguing. Some people study the same passages of the Bible through shit colored glasses, while others study the passages through beer goggles. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellduck;36106913]I don't know when it stopped being cool to be militantly atheist in facepunch, but no one sent me the memo, because I still think the bibles a load of shit.[/QUOTE] The smarter among us realized long ago that being a militant atheist brings good to nobody. It is better for everyone to be a kindly and conciliatory atheist.

[QUOTE=person11;36106866]Cherry picking the shit from the book is just as bad as only looking at the good. While the book is a collection of barely related stories that reflect older cultural paradigms, it still had a lt of cultural values & can be deeply beautiful & moral. Or we can just say its uncultured shit that tells you to mistreat everyone.[/QUOTE] No. They aren't deep or moral. Hitler said a lot of shit. Some of it was inspirational. But with the shit he did, you don't sit there and say you can learn a lot of great things from Hitler. You know the "nice" things he said were just honeyed words from a madman. It doesn't matter if there's a few choice quotations for you to say are inspirational. Those words were still written in blood, and they're nothing for you to be basing your fucking morality on. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hellduck;36106913]I don't know when it stopped being cool to be militantly atheist in facepunch, but no one sent me the memo, because I still think the bibles a load of shit.[/QUOTE] The term "militant atheist" is so fucking dumb. "Militant atheists" are atheists that say what they think, granting no false or patronizing 'respect' to beliefs. A militant muslim blows himself up in a market square. A militant christian firebombs an abortion clinic. A militant atheist, what, talks shit about the Bible on the internet? I don't know how fucking dumb you have to be to think that's a valid comparison. There is nothing militant about speaking out. It's like saying Ghandi was a militant because he said lots of things and called people fools on occasion. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;36106916]The smarter among us realized long ago that being a militant atheist brings good to nobody. It is better for everyone to be a kindly and conciliatory atheist.[/QUOTE] That's called patronizing bullshit. Who do you think you are? What, you're going to sit here like you know everything, but you're too afraid of the Christians'/Muslims'/whatever's fragile feelings, so you hold back? That's incredibly condescending and disrespectful. I don't pull punches because I don't think my counterparts are invalids who can't handle a little heat. They're human beings. I can say with a great deal of confidence that I'm not going to shatter their little psyche with my words. Lay your cards out on the table. Don't pretend you're above both atheists and theists alike with this "conciliatory" bullshit.

"militant atheism" I smile every time I see it. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] No you have to understand atheism has to unilaterally disarm itself because it might offend somebody by calling their myths out as what they are. Meanwhile Christians can preach as part of their dogma that all of us are unworthy of their God and born into sin and deserve an [B]eternity of horrible torture. [/B]

wow, what shitty bolding [quote]He added: "I have even heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that, [B]without the Bible as a moral compass, people would have no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. [/B] "The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself."[/quote] read the bolded part, then read the entirety of what he said

[QUOTE=Jackald;36102599]If the bible's wrong about homosexuality, murder, rape, slavery and racism, why would it be right about anything else? Also, isn't the bible supposed to be the infallible Word of God? (at least some of it)[/QUOTE] Fucking Mahatma Gandhi said some racist things against blacks, but doesn't mean we can't learn anything valuable from his speeches and quotations It's the same with anything, including the Bible. You're basically making a terrible Ad hominem argument

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36105291]Lot impregnated his daughters and was called a righteous man.[/QUOTE] Actually, because there was a lack of men, Lot's daughters got him drunk and then raped him while he was passed out.

May I ask, where does the Bible actually endorse murder, genocide, rape or everything else that people are claiming here, without taking anything out of context?

[QUOTE=RobbL;36109330]May I ask, where does the Bible actually endorse murder, genocide, rape or everything else that people are claiming here, without taking anything out of context?[/QUOTE] "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13 Have at it. [editline]28th May 2012[/editline] The biggest thing I don't understand about the Bible is why God has limitations. The guy has the fucking ability to bend the galaxies to his will and expand the very fabric of the universe with the snap of a finger, Yet he can't kick the ass of some whiny intern (Satan) who decided it'd be fun to moonlight from God's company by convincing men to get drunk and fuck each other. Why does he have limitations, if he controls everything? Furthermore, why can't he change those limitations? If he can't, then he couldn't have set them, and if that's the case, then there's a power even higher than God.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36109330]May I ask, where does the Bible actually endorse murder, genocide, rape or everything else that people are claiming here, without taking anything out of context?[/QUOTE] Just read the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Those 3 books have the greatest concentration of murder and rape. Genesis has some genocide in it(Noah's Ark, Sodom, etc.). If you look at the old testament, almost any book will have endorsements of pretty foul acts, or god actually carrying out pretty foul acts. 22 “Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side — 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses. 24 They will come against you with weapons,[d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire. 26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry. 27 So I will put a stop to the lewdness and prostitution you began in Egypt. You will not look on these things with longing or remember Egypt anymore. [url]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+23&version=NIV[/url]