Jump to content

Would the world be a better place without religion?


Itoero
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It depends on the country and religions involved but what does that matter?

You can't even understand your own arguments?

You said that religion crossing [cultural] boundaries woudn't help break down boundaries between religions. I gave an example where that seems obviously false.

Rather than explain why it is wrong, you pretend you don't know what you are talking about. Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Wow. Victim blaming. Impressive.

Similarly, if the gypsies [not a religon] hadn't left India, then Hitler (and others) wouldn't have killed millions of them, either.

And if mankind had never left Africa in the first place ...

You are not making much sense here, you know.

Yes I am. The evidence shows that the spreading of religion is not a good thing.

 

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nearly all Islamic terrorism takes place in Islamic countries. (And the ultimate cause is the political and economic interference of other "western" countries; so perhaps it is more of a problem when political culture crosses boundaries.)

You are not getting it. If islam did not spread then there would be no Islam countries.

 

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

The spreading of religion created hospitals and universities. 

Why not drop the bigotry and try to think rationally.

You obviously think good things (hospîtals and universities) are due to religion but bad things are not. R Hitchens' title was well chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

But then  what is religion? Can you give an example of religion that crosses boundaries?

 

Well, I can give you a simple example from a recent first hand experience I've had. I met a group of Buddhists a couple of months ago in India. Some of them were Tibetan, some were Spanish, some French, some Italian. A few of them support communism or socialism, others vote conservative political parties. Some of them were considerably wealthy, while others were middle class and some of them live on the breadline. And they all sat together, talked to each other despite their differences and shared their food. I think it was pretty cool. And the only common variable they shared (aside from their humanity), is that they all follow the spiritual teachings of the same master. Had it not been for that, their lives wouldn't have probably intersected. 

Of course, you may debate whether Buddhism counts as a religion or not, but the example is still relevant, because I suspect something similar occurs also in other congregations, for example people among church-goers who volunteer together to do community service or support a charity. 

What I am saying is that religion can be a pretext for division just as much as it can become one for inclusion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The Pharisees practiced those actions as well.

There is a story that's quite well known to Christians.

Happy to volley with you on this point, but sincerely and respectfully feel you are arguing the losing side:

http://www.evilbible.com/do-not-ignore-the-old-testament/

Quote

I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored.  Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be obeyed until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,…” (John 1:17).

9) “…the scripture cannot be broken.” –Jesus Christ, John 10:35

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Yes I am. The evidence shows that the spreading of religion is not a good thing.

1

Yeah. It's those stinking jews fault, they shouldn't have moved to Europe in the first place. Spreading religion is bad. 

While you believe that, I'll continue to believe that Nazi's shouldn't have been killing Jews in the first place.

 

Also, the holocaust included more than just Jews. You're talking about ethnic cleansing. Perhaps you're saying different races should be blamed for having moved?

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Happy to volley with you on this point, but sincerely and respectfully feel you are arguing the losing side:

http://www.evilbible.com/do-not-ignore-the-old-testament/

 

Most of those are taken out of context. Like this one:

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

Jesus said that back in a sarcastic manner. Reading the verses around it reveals context which helps point it out. 

 

Also, the guy who owns that website is a crackpot. He believes Hitler was a Christian as well, and when historians criticised him about it(nonchristian historians) he basically called them all blind idiots. He has his own sets of belief, and they won't be changed by evidence. He also picks and chooses his own evidence, ignoring contrary points. ANd he loves to take things out of context, sometimes even dropping words from the scripture without mentioning it, and then being like "one or two words don't make that much of a difference". Anyways, this is off topic. The short point is, this guy isn't credible. Even if you aren't a Christian. 

 

 

Also,  this: Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

That particular verse is talking about the commandments God gave Moses. You know. The 10 commandments. The "Thou shall not lie" stuff. 

 

Additionally, the book of Romans is a very good book to read if you're wondering why we don't follow all of the old law. It explains it very clearly. 

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Most of those are taken out of context

As evidenced by the countless many sects even just within christianity, what makes you the arbiter on what is and is not appropriate context? 

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Also, the guy who owns that website is a crackpot.

Despite this, ad hominem is a fallacy and fails to rebut the core points.

Taking this back on topic: How do you know which parts of the bible to ignore and which parts to follow if the bible itself is your source of morality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iNow said:

As evidenced by the countless many sects even just within christianity, what makes you the arbiter on what is and is not appropriate context? 

Appropriate context is IMO the entire section you're looking at, and the chapters around it.

When it gets to the point that reading the verses before/after don't change your logical conclusion because they no longer pertain to the subject, you have found the appropriate context.

 

Basically, this definition from google:

con·text

ˈkäntekst/

noun

the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Taking this back on topic: How do you know which parts of the bible to ignore and which parts to follow if the bible itself is your source of morality?

 

The bible tells you.

Look at the Book of Romans. Outlines it pretty clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Basically, this definition from google

Thx, but I know what context means. My question is why your interpretation is supposed to be treated as any more valid than the interpretation of other people, like mine?

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The bible tells you.

Look at the Book of Romans. Outlines it pretty clearly.

So, how do you know which part of the bible to follow and which to ignore... you read the bible? So, how do I know to follow what's in the book of Romans and not the other books? You're not making sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iNow said:

Thx, but I know what context means. My question is why your interpretation is supposed to be treated as any more valid than the interpretation of other people, like mine?

If you add more context and the interpretation changes, I feel like the second interpretation would be more accurate.

Your interpretations were based on the website and what it said, and most of those were taken out of context. If I looked at some scientific article, picked out individual statements, and then stated how I PERSONALLY interpreted it, context would trump me. Same logic applies.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, how do you know which part of the bible to follow and which to ignore... you read the bible? So, how do I know to follow what's in the book of Romans and not the other books? You're not making sense.

 

Romans basically outlines who the law applies to.

There's nothing in the bible that says some people shouldn't be following stuff in romans.

Romans basically says you should know what it says, but you don't have to follow it because things have changed since Jesus died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I feel like the second interpretation would be more accurate.

The problem with your argument is right there in this sentence. It's an interpretation. There are different interpretations available. Yours is just one.

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Your interpretations were based on the website

No they weren't. I just used that as a quick reference because I'm doing this while on a conference call.

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Romans basically outlines who the law applies to.

Do you know what a tautology is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bible is your source of morals, then how do you know which parts to ignore and which to follow? It does not follow. It seems obvious that your morality is sourced from elsewhere and that is what allows you to know better than to follow the bullshit parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

That would be God. Through the Bible.

 

It may conceivably be God, but it certainly can't be through the Bible.

The Bible tells you where to get your slaves from, and how to keep them.

Do you believe that slavery is acceptable?

There's nothing in the Bible which specifically indicates otherwise.

So, if your only guide to right and wrong is the Bible, you must think slavery is OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

The evidence shows that the spreading of religion is not a good thing.

Then perhaps you could present that evidence.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

If islam did not spread then there would be no Islam countries.

And if the sky were green there would be no apples.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

You obviously think good things (hospîtals and universities) are due to religion but bad things are not.

Of course not. Only an idiot would take such a biased perspective on the world.

p.s. Your circumflex is in the wrong place.

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

Crossing boundaries?

I came across this

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-43557836/jews-and-arabs-living-side-by-side

 

So let's follow the example and stop hurling red points about, whilst we applaud something to be encouraged.

And, from the history I have read, that happens more often than not.

50 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Perhaps you're saying different races should be blamed for having moved?

Or even living next door to each other. (Yes, Serbia, I am looking at you.)

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thx, but I know what context means. My question is why your interpretation is supposed to be treated as any more valid than the interpretation of other people, like mine?

Because he appears to know more about the subject and isn't just cherry-picking quotes?

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

The problem with your argument is right there in this sentence. It's an interpretation. There are different interpretations available. Yours is just one.

I hate to say it, but you have taken that sentence out of context. :)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It may conceivably be God, but it certainly can't be through the Bible.

The Bible tells you where to get your slaves from, and how to keep them.

Do you believe that slavery is acceptable?

There's nothing in the Bible which specifically indicates otherwise.

So, if your only guide to right and wrong is the Bible, you must think slavery is OK.

Here comes the fun part.

 

The Bible says slaves that can get away from their masters they are to be set free(Deuteronomy 23:15-16), if you injure a slave you have to set them free(Exodus 21:26-27), and slaves cannot be forced to work every day of the week, they get days off(Exodus 20:10), and they could own their own home, have a wife and kid of their own, they could not be sold(Leviticus 25:39-43), and you couldn't be severe with your slaves (Leviticus 25:39-43). Additionally, the slave's kids are not yours and neither is his wife if he gets them while he's serving you.

Now, those are what applies to ALL slaves. Slaves who are Hebrew have to be released after 7 years, while all the slaves in the entire land have to be freed every 50 years. I'll admit, that's a bit racist.

Also, the bible doesn't let you just kidnap a slave. If someone steals from you and doesn't have enough money to pay you back for your items, they are your slave. If someone becomes impoverished and offers themselves up as a slave, then you can buy them. Sailing across the ocean and kidnapping Africans? Not okay.

 

Also, the impoverished aren't being taken advantage of here to become slaves, because the tithes to the church in the old testament were used to feed the poor(Deuteronomy 14:28-29). They also weren't trapped with loans by rich people making interest, because they weren't allowed to charge interest on loans(Exodus 22:25). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Here comes the fun part.

 

The Bible says slaves that can get away from their masters they are to be set free(Deuteronomy 23:15-16), if you injure a slave you have to set them free(Exodus 21:26-27), and slaves cannot be forced to work every day of the week, they get days off(Exodus 20:10), and they could own their own home, have a wife and kid of their own, they could not be sold(Leviticus 25:39-43), and you couldn't be severe with your slaves (Leviticus 25:39-43). Additionally, the slave's kids are not yours and neither is his wife if he gets them while he's serving you.

Now, those are what applies to ALL slaves. Slaves who are Hebrew have to be released after 7 years, while all the slaves in the entire land have to be freed every 50 years. I'll admit, that's a bit racist.

Also, the bible doesn't let you just kidnap a slave. If someone steals from you and doesn't have enough money to pay you back for your items, they are your slave. If someone becomes impoverished and offers themselves up as a slave, then you can buy them. Sailing across the ocean and kidnapping Africans? Not okay.

The bible lets you sell your daughter into slavery, the bible lets you buy slaves of other cultures and keep them as chattel, even to the point of leaving them to your children. 

The list of things the bible allows that modern society does not is long and often horrific. If you followed biblical laws to the letter you would be imprisoned in any first world society.   

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Also, the impoverished aren't being taken advantage of here to become slaves, because the tithes to the church in the old testament were used to feed the poor(Deuteronomy 14:28-29). They also weren't trapped with loans by rich people making interest, because they weren't allowed to charge interest on loans(Exodus 22:25). 

Tithes to support the poor? Yes those poor evangelicals that need multiple multi-million dollar  houses, private jets, scores of expensive cars and luxuries their own congregations can only dream of not to mention vast mega churches that are so pricey that just one of them takes enough money to build could take care the homeless in our country. Those crazy christians that want to impose their religious views in schools to all children no to mention teach their favorite fairy tale along science as equal to science. 

These people are responsible to the gutting of public schools either directly or indirectly to support private schools where their religion can be taught as fact instead of what it really is.. iron age mythology... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

That would be God.

By this logic, atheists are unable to be moral. Surely, that's not what you think, is it?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

he appears to know more about the subject

It's really a red herring to my core point, anyway. Let's look at this another way... If the source of all of my physics knowledge is one single textbook, then how will I know which part of that textbook is teaching correct physics and which part is teaching wrong or inaccurate or outdated physics? I couldn't. It's just not possible. I'd need another source to make such a determination.

The same very much applies to the bible. We have a pretty classic misattribution error happening here. It's not the source of morality. It merely borrows from an already existing morality that itself stems from our existence as a tribal species; a tribal species where reproductive success is increased by avoiding ostrasization from the broader group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

By this logic, atheists are unable to be moral. Surely, that's not what you think, is it?

 

No, it's not what I think.

But I also don't see how saying I get my morals from the bible means atheists aren't able to be moral.

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Tithes to support the poor? Yes those poor evangelicals that need multiple multi-million dollar  houses, private jets, scores of expensive cars and luxuries their own congregations can only dream of not to mention vast mega churches that are so pricey that just one of them takes enough money to build could take care the homeless in our country.

3

And so your only complaint about the bible saying to give to the poor, is that there are some rich people who claim their Christians and don't give to the poor?

Are you serious?

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

the bible lets you buy slaves of other cultures and keep them as chattel, even to the point of leaving them to your children. 

 

If the person chooses to sell themselves you can, yeah. It's not like you can just kidnap them and sell them. Also, guess who gets the money when you buy a slave? The slave. 

 

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The bible lets you sell your daughter into slavery,

 

No, it doesn't. The verse people commonly quote to say it does, Exodus 21:7, is taken way out of context. 

 

And I'm getting tired of the context debate. If I am a lawyer, I have to look at the whole law. I can't take one sentence from it and then start yelling about how it's ridiculous. Same common sense applies here.

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Also, the bible doesn't let you just kidnap a slave.

You can if they are children of slaves.

But that's hardly the point.

Since slavery is unequivocally wrong, guidance about keeping them is evil.
 

So, cut to the chase; would you want to be a slave?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

You can if they are children of slaves.

But that's hardly the point.

Since slavery is unequivocally wrong, guidance about keeping them is evil.

 

And again, no you can't. You can't just say the bible allows something when it doesn't. Look at my entire previous post about slavery.

 

 

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

So, cut to the chase; would you want to be a slave?

No. Do I want to work the rest of my life? No.

Your point?

 

Again. You can't just randomly kidnap someone and force them to be your slave. That. Is. Wrong. Even in the bible.

The person who becomes a slave by being sold, sells themselves. Those who are forced, are only forced to because they stole someone from the person they're a slave to and couldn't pay them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, it's not what I think.

But I also don't see how saying I get my morals from the bible means atheists aren't able to be moral.

And so your only complaint about the bible saying to give to the poor, is that there are some rich people who claim their Christians and don't give to the poor?

Are you serious?

If the person chooses to sell themselves you can, yeah. It's not like you can just kidnap them and sell them. Also, guess who gets the money when you buy a slave? The slave. 

 

No, it doesn't. The verse people commonly quote to say it does, Exodus 21:7, is taken way out of context. 

 

And I'm getting tired of the context debate. If I am a lawyer, I have to look at the whole law. I can't take one sentence from it and then start yelling about how it's ridiculous. Same common sense applies here.

Are these over one thousand examples of cruelty and violence in the bible also all taken out of context? Or maybe the website owner is a crackpot too? Hint, he isn’t, look up Matt Dillahaunty as he is the reason for this website to exists:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Feel free to adress all ogf these in detail Raider. When you’re done we can move on to other „moral wonders” of the bible.

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

No. Do I want to work the rest of my life? No.

You don’t even know what slavery is.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Tell that to the 5,000,000 non-Jews who died in the Holocaust.

Maybe Itoero thinks it was their own fault for not staying at home.

Ironically (again) victim blaming is common in some religions (eg claiming that the reason for that devastating earthquake that killed your children was because you didn't pray in the right way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.