Christianity is Poison

[CoinCube]

Hey, a testable prediction! Can you give us an estimate of when exactly you think Moloch's self-destruction will close in on him? I'd like to check it for accuracy.

Questions such as this one sometimes require observation over a few generations to decisively answer.

I think you confuse, "Low Fertility", with choosing to not have lots of children...
...
Since when is having 1 child instead of 5 a bad thing?  I don't even see how this is a negative trait

I could argue that fewer children is a good thing...

Intelligent parents have no need to produce dozens of brainwashed children...

[1713581827]

1713581827

[organofcorti]

Hey, a testable prediction! Can you give us an estimate of when exactly you think Moloch's self-destruction will close in on him? I'd like to check it for accuracy.

Questions such as this one sometimes require observation over a few generations to decisively answer.

I'm happy for BADecker to provide a confidence interval for his claim. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

[BADecker]

Hey, a testable prediction! Can you give us an estimate of when exactly you think Moloch's self-destruction will close in on him? I'd like to check it for accuracy.

Questions such as this one sometimes require observation over a few generations to decisively answer.

I'm happy for BADecker to claim a confidence interval for his claim. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

Consider Revelation 9:6:

During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

Revelation is a little bit difficult to understand. Some of it is literal, and some figurative. Some of it talks about the future, some about the past, some about all times.

Some scholars consider that the above passage refers to the next age... the New Heavens and the New earth "time," which is also the Lake of Fire "time," which is the time of the eternal hereafter.

Personally, while I am not entirely decided, I think the above passage talks about a present universe time that is coming up shortly. I think that God will allow modern research to discover a method whereby people can medicate themselves in some marvelous way, so that they live indefinitely.

What might this indefinite life include? It might include the ability to grow new limbs where old ones are lost. It might include the capability to increase the abilities of certain organs to do their job and function, such as night-sight in those who opt for it. It might include something as complex as short-distance telepathy.

Modern science and medical research is already a ways into developing some of these things. Consider, for example, the M1 and M2 "genes." Deactivate the M1, and you automatically live 50% longer, provided you can deactivate it simultaneously throughout your whole system. Control the switching on and off of the M2 gene, and your cells will continue to divide indefinitely in a good way.

The M1 and M2 gene controls are coming. They need to be absolute controls, or there will be side effects. But the knowledge of these genes and some of their operations have been around for more than two decades. And the controls are coming. These genes are only two little research areas that might free people from death when they are finally controlled.

The point is, Moloch would be one of those who would opt for this kind of life-without-end. It might be available to him within his lifetime. This means that nobody would be able to tell for sure when Moloch's self-destruction would actually finalize. Of course, it would be set in place - and maybe is already - because he might have already locked himself irreversibly into his resistance against God.

Moloch's actual destruction would, then, come at the Judgment Day. Jesus tells us that nobody knows exactly when that time will be... the time of His return.

A thought regarding the Revelation passage above: Will there ever come a time that people will want to die, but won't be able to? Almost nobody really wants to die. But a few people have been in such great pain or trauma that they have thought that they wanted to die, and have wished for it.

Imagine that you are medicated to live indefinitely, and that you actually cannot die because of it. Imagine that you remain alive through the pain and trauma of a Mexican drug cartel, or an ISIS dismembering. Imagine that you are burned in a literal fire, and wherever your molecules go, you remain alive with them, feeling the pain of complete "dissolution" without any way to stop it. Imagine riding yourself out like that, within a nuclear blast.

As things stand right now, nobody comes back from true death, even though doctors may seem to bring people back from death now and again. Now, think about the pain that you have when you get a cut on your finger. Or, remember the pain of a broken bone that you had in the past. We don't know for a scientific fact that dead people are not experiencing total-body pain through all time to come after they die. What would it be like if the doctor could fix you to live forever, bodily, even if you were totally obliterated?

[Moloch]

Revelation is a little bit difficult to understand. Some of it is literal, and some figurative. Some of it talks about the future, some about the past, some about all times.

This isn't simply a problem with Revelation... it's a problem with the entire bible...

How do you decide which part is literal vs metaphor?  I read the bible... God did not include any hints or footnotes about what is meant to be literal vs metaphor...

Who are you to decide that God meant something metaphorically, instead of the way He literally wrote the bible? (Is God the author, or you?)

Do you really think you are qualified to be God's editor/interpreter of the bible?

[BADecker]

Revelation is a little bit difficult to understand. Some of it is literal, and some figurative. Some of it talks about the future, some about the past, some about all times.

This isn't simply a problem with Revelation... it's a problem with the entire bible...

How do you decide which part is literal vs metaphor?  I read the bible... God did not include any hints or footnotes about what is meant to be literal vs metaphor...

Who are you to decide that God meant something metaphorically, instead of the way He literally wrote the bible? (Is God the author, or you?)

Do you really think you are qualified to be God's editor/interpreter of the bible?

Let me use the example of our legal laws in the United States. When you read the laws, they mean what they say. Over and over courts and judges have taken little pieces of previous court cases, and interpreted what the actual words say, to be applied to their particular new court case.

Regarding the Bible, while it might be difficult to understand what is being said regarding literal and metaphorical, usually the explanation is right in front of us. For example, if the Bible says something like, "I saw what looked like a ...," the wording itself is stating that the following parts are figurative. They state it in the words "look like." Then, when you watch the punctuation for a new thought, and it says something like, "Then I saw an angel coming down...," there is a change from the figurative to the literal.

Unfortunately, God is so much greater than we are, that His operations can barely be made simple enough for us to understand. For example, playing chess is relatively easy. Knowing how to win or at least draw from every "play" is not so easy. We are finding that computers can be built to beat even the greatest chess masters, in every game. So, why would we think that we can understand everything that God says in a universe that is many times more complex than a chess game?

The point about the Bible is, there is that which is literal, and can be understood by almost anyone. There is part that is figurative and can be understood by almost anyone. But there are going to be parts that will not be understood easily, and maybe a few that will not be understood at all, but are there just to show the greatness of God.

[mprep]

Revelation is a little bit difficult to understand. Some of it is literal, and some figurative. Some of it talks about the future, some about the past, some about all times.

This isn't simply a problem with Revelation... it's a problem with the entire bible...

How do you decide which part is literal vs metaphor?  I read the bible... God did not include any hints or footnotes about what is meant to be literal vs metaphor...

Who are you to decide that God meant something metaphorically, instead of the way He literally wrote the bible? (Is God the author, or you?)

Do you really think you are qualified to be God's editor/interpreter of the bible?

How do you decide which part is literal vs metaphor?  I read the bible... God did not include any hints or footnotes about what is meant to be literal vs metaphor...

By interpreting it in different ways and  creating new branches and sects of Christianity when there is a major/serious disagreement.

Who are you to decide that God meant something metaphorically, instead of the way He literally wrote the bible? (Is God the author, or you?)

God isn't the author of the Christian bible, numerous followers of his were, followers that lived more than 2000 years ago in an environment with a completely different culture and common cultural moral code.

Do you really think you are qualified to be God's editor/interpreter of the bible?

Anyone is. We're all humans after all. Otherwise there'd be no Christianity because everyone would not "deem themselves worthy" to interpret the Christian bible, even completely literally and to the word (in my opinion, the worst possible interpretation of any cultural or religious document (one that relies on the surrounding environment, current traditions and coomonplace behavior) written in times before our culture)

P.S. The fact that you are actually pursuing a discussion with BADecker (@BADecker No offense, but you seem to be leaning towards the aforementioned "zealously religious fundamentalist nut" with quite a few of your statements and your generally "enlightened" tone) regarding religion already shows that you seem to be picking easier targets just so you could win somewhere

P.P.S. Moloch, king of cherry-picking and master of ignoring arguments, you seem to have forgotten to answer to the following arguments, based on actual sources, after throwing out yours so boldly, some of which without anything to back it up:

Slavery:

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property.

More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

Rape:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

Homosexuality:

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.

Witches:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Murder your own child:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Is that enough, or do you need more quotes from the bible before you will believe me?

Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy are all part of the Old Testament (also often referred to as the Hebrew Bible), which is overwritten by the New Testament in many branches (and/or sects) of Christianity. The Old Testament was meant as a holy book for the time (not for eternity) and became obsolete in many situations. Also, in terms of cherry-picking, that's why different branches and sects of both Christianity and other religions exist - there's constant debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) on what is accepted and what is not, especially as time progresses and our culture changes.

Sources (in terms of what I based the arguments upon):
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws/506#506
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3733/does-the-new-testament-override-the-old-testament

Question:  If God asked you to murder your own child... would you?

God asked Abraham to do this, and Abraham was ready to kill his son... would you blindly murder your own child if God commanded it?

I really doubt the following written in the Old Testament was literal, just like with Adam and Eve being interpreted as 2 actual people, rather than a metaphor for humanity.

<...>

OK, guess it's time to pitch in:

Do you really want to compare the 2000 year history of christianity murdering half the world...

Source? I do agree that Catholic church has done quite a few horrible things during the Middle Ages, however your claim seems rather bold with no evidence to back it up.

...with the 1,000,000 year history of atheists making advances in science, medicine, philosophy, morality, etc, etc, etc?!?

You do understand that quite a few scientists were or are Christians - Blaise Pascal (Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem (math)) and Isaac Newton (Physicist, discoverer of gravity) to name a few. Also, some of these scientists (namely Theodosius Dobzhansky) criticized creationsim and argued that science and faith does not conflict (which is a stance I can firmly stand behind).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

I'm sorry you don't understand history... or much of anything...

The Dark ages had a single cause... Christianity... Christians attacked anything that was non-christian for 300 years!  Don't pretend it didn't happen!

I'd have to disagree. Although the Catholic church did a lot of heinous things during the Dark Ages, which did harm the spread of knowledge, I think the much bigger reason was the fall of the Roman Empire:

It emphasizes the demographic, cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29

The main issue in terms of knowledge is the fact that after the fall of the Roman empire, quite a lot of research and literature was lost, setting back science rather far back. The first answer by Humphrey Clarke, MA in Modern History - University of St Andrews in this: https://www.quora.com/Did-Christianity-cause-the-Dark-Ages  gives quite an interesting analysis. I suggest reading through as it goes through several possible arguments such as the Catholic church not accepting science.

The conclusion is rather relevant to the discussion as well:

To conclude then, the two Christianity guilt theories suffer from a lack of evidence. They persist purely due to their illustrious pedigree and the fact that people insist on making the past fit into a modern framework.

Atheists invented morals and values... don't be silly...

You already admitted that christians did not invent "christian values"... it's only a small step to realizing that they came from either another religion, or non-religion (all religions came from non-religion, so obviously, atheists invented morals)

I'd say that your logical deduction isn't as logical as you'd think. Religion might've been created by humans in the primitive times to act as a placeholder for science, but as times progressed, these religions morphed and changed to analyze something either non-material such as morality or above the materialistic universal order (that being governed by natural laws such as gravity, the existence of light and various parameters that it follows when interacting with materials, the fact that materials are comprised of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made up of..., etc.), which science tries to figure out. If you were to ignore the developments that took throughout history (developments that science has gone through too as various scientific theories previously made were debunked and replaced by new, more accurate ones) and attribute all that to a specific demographic, I'd say that it isn't exactly accurate representation of history.

In fact, I'd say the the current definition of religion would be the search for who created the system we are living in. I think the best way to describe it would be comparing it to computer software: imagine an extremely complex computer simulation, with it's rules and parameters, running constantly with the objects (with a crap ton of variables, methods and other OOP features implemented) inside acting independently (but predictably due the fact that author of the program knows what code he wrote and how it performs) based on their variables and the surrounding objects. The self-aware objects inside decide analyze the system and due to being withing that system and unable to detect anything outside it, deducted that since they can't detect anything within the system that there is no creator outside it. Seems familiar?

You are correct in that atheists don't have a written moral code, like the 10 commandments, but you are incorrect that we don't have values... Atheists are the only ones who took the time to think about morals on their own... we decided right from wrong based on the impact on society, not from some dusty old book...

I do agree that Atheists do have morals, however those morals were impacted, be it by indirect historical influence or (doesn't seem like in this case) directly by providing a base, by the "dusty old book" you are talking about.

Atheists believe in facts and evidence over feelings... just because a story "feels good", does not make it true... you need facts and evidence... that is what atheists believe in... reality... facts... evidence... not unsupported fairy tales

In science, this is quite important but if you were to only base everything on fact outside science, philosophy, art and possibly certain scientific advances which first were devised as hypotheses (unproven speculations only later to be debunked for the time being or confirmed) would probably not exist.

If some "God" told me to murder my child... I'd tell that asshole to FUCK OFF!... What would you do?  Murder your son?

There's a few theological speculations on why, one of them being that it is a symbol of the sacrifice of Christ: https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-did-god-tell-abraham-kill-his-son-isaac. If I were asked that, I'd probably refuse, since in this day and age, anything can be staged by someone with enough cash.

This is a common misconception...

We have already established that do not steal/murder are based in atheism/philosophy, rather than christianity...

I propose that all morals are based in such things... christians also did not invent the concept of the golden rule, "treat your neighbor as yourself", etc...

Provide solid evidence otherwise your claim is rather pointless.

The only influences that christianity has had on society are negative... all of them... there is evidence to back up this claim

[X]All previous arguments in my post ignored
[X]Bold statement with no evidence

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...

[X]Bold statement with no evidence
[X]Previous arguments dismissed

The entirety of christian history is nothing but war and murdering "the other"...

[X] The fact that these wars were often based on greed for fame, land, money and/or power ignored.
[X] The current status where modern major branches of Christianity (non-extremists) that live in peaceful co-existance rather than "killing the non-believers" ignored.

You want to talk about the most savage murderer of all time?
God... no contest... God murders countless people in the bible... literally...
How do you count how many people God killed in the flood?
In just the places which give numbers, God is responsible for murdering 2,400,000+ people (not counting the flood, 10th plague of Egypt, and other uncountable genocides at the hand of God)...  Which war had more than 2,400,000 deaths?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

[X] Possibility of it being a metaphor for humanity that has plunged itself into it's own demise due to the lack of control of themselves ignored.
[X] The possible total count of murders committed throughout history including all wars, genocides and singular murders ignored and dismissed.
[X] Use of clearly biased source, that mocks the other side, while attempting to look professional.

What sort of all-knowing God creates a planet only to declare everyone evil, wipe it out with a flood, and start over?

Couldn't he see that coming, and create humans slightly less evil the first time?

[X] Ignore possible different religious interpretations of an extremely old book. Like God saving the non-violent remains of humanity from the catastrophe the violent population caused themselves: https://redeeminggod.com/why-the-traditional-understanding-of-the-flood-is-wrong/.
<...>

[BADecker]

...

P.S. The fact that you are actually pursuing a discussion with BADecker (@BADecker No offense, but you seem to be leaning towards the aforementioned "zealously religious fundamentalist nut" with quite a few of your statements and your generally "enlightened" tone) regarding religion already shows that you seem to be picking easier targets just so you could win somewhere

...

Check #6 of the definition of "religion" at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. Everyone is religious. Perhaps people in a coma are most religious, being adamantly stuck in the way they think.

[mprep]

...

P.S. The fact that you are actually pursuing a discussion with BADecker (@BADecker No offense, but you seem to be leaning towards the aforementioned "zealously religious fundamentalist nut" with quite a few of your statements and your generally "enlightened" tone) regarding religion already shows that you seem to be picking easier targets just so you could win somewhere

...

Check #6 of the definition of "religion" at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. Everyone is religious. Perhaps people in a coma are most religious, being adamantly stuck in the way they think.

I prefer the Cambridge University Press' traditional (#1) definition of "religion":

the ​belief in and ​worship of a ​god or ​gods, or any such ​system of ​belief and ​worship

Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/religion

I don't consider a set of beliefs that doesn't include some sort of belief in an entity (entities) that are responsible for the creation of the universal system (I'll repeat what I already mentioned: that being governed by natural laws such as gravity, the existence of light and various parameters that it follows when interacting with materials, the fact that materials are comprised of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made up of..., etc.) we live in.

Let's keep it on-topic though.

P.S. BADecker, your "enlightened" tone is not going to get you anywhere in a discussion against Atheists or moderate / rational Christians: you won't prove anything to me nor to anyone else, that isn't already in agreement with you.

[BADecker]

...

P.S. The fact that you are actually pursuing a discussion with BADecker (@BADecker No offense, but you seem to be leaning towards the aforementioned "zealously religious fundamentalist nut" with quite a few of your statements and your generally "enlightened" tone) regarding religion already shows that you seem to be picking easier targets just so you could win somewhere

...

Check #6 of the definition of "religion" at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. Everyone is religious. Perhaps people in a coma are most religious, being adamantly stuck in the way they think.

I prefer the Cambridge University Press' traditional (#1) definition of "religion":

the ​belief in and ​worship of a ​god or ​gods, or any such ​system of ​belief and ​worship

Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/religion

I don't consider a set of beliefs that doesn't include some sort of belief in an entity (entities) that are responsible for the creation of the universal system (I'll repeat what I already mentioned: that being governed by natural laws such as gravity, the existence of light and various parameters that it follows when interacting with materials, the fact that materials are comprised of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made up of..., etc.) we live in. That's why Atheism is not religion, but rejection of religion.

Atheism is a religion for this simple reason, if nothing else. Science and nature have proven that God exists. Atheism has not proven God does not exist. When atheism sets itself up against the facts in the light of having no facts to sustain itself, it is calling itself "God" in one way or another. Perhaps this would not be so if the point were not regarding God. This makes atheism a religion of non-religion, a self-contradictory religion.

Let's keep it on-topic though.

P.S. BADecker, your "enlightened" tone is not going to get you anywhere: you won't prove anything to me nor to anyone else, that isn't already in agreement with you.

Okay. The only thing that I was trying to prove is, that I am not trying to prove anything. Sounds like I might have proven it to you.

[Moloch]

P.P.S. Moloch, king of cherry-picking and master of ignoring arguments, you seem to have forgotten to answer to the following arguments, based on actual sources, after throwing out yours so boldly, some of which without anything to back it up:

I try to avoid tl;dr posts...

If you have something in specific you would like to debate, please be specific and short... I will not debate 20 different topics each post... 1-2 tops

If I did not respond to something in your 3 page long post... it's probably because I didn't read most/any of it



As for cherry-picking... that's not me, that's the bible... it says both good and bad things... how is it cherry-picking if I point out a few bad things?

It's cherry-picking for someone to claim the bible is good/holy, because they ignore all the bad stuff it says...

I could easily point out 101 things that are immoral in the bible... yet people ignore all that immoral stuff, and call it a book of morals?

[BADecker]

I just did a search through the whole Bible. I didn't find the word "cherry" even once.   

[mprep]

P.P.S. Moloch, king of cherry-picking and master of ignoring arguments, you seem to have forgotten to answer to the following arguments, based on actual sources, after throwing out yours so boldly, some of which without anything to back it up:

I try to avoid tl;dr posts...

If you have something in specific you would like to debate, please be specific and short... I will not debate 20 different topics each post... 1-2 tops

If I did not respond to something in your 3 page long post... it's probably because I didn't read most/any of it



As for cherry-picking... that's not me, that's the bible... it says both good and bad things... how is it cherry-picking if I point out a few bad things?

It's cherry-picking for you to say the bible is good/holy, because you ignore all the bad stuff it says...

I could easily pick out 101 things that are immoral in the bible... yet people ignore all that immoral stuff, and call it a book of morals?

I try to avoid tl;dr posts...

If you have something in specific you would like to debate, please be specific and short... I will not debate 20 different topics each post... 1-2 tops

A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat"

If I did not respond to something in your 3 page long post... it's probably because I didn't read most/any of it

The fact that a Christian (be it a moderate one) happens to use actual reason and scientific (in this case historical) proof (with sources) to refute someones claims more than an Atheist does amaze me.

As for cherry-picking... that's not me, that's the bible... it says both good and bad things... how is it cherry-picking if I point out a few bad things?

Cherry picking as in ignoring the claims I provided counter arguments to. Also, title:

Christianity is Poison

"Good and bad", eh? Also, the guy you were annoyed with changed the name of the topic BTW.

It's cherry-picking for you to say the bible is good/holy, because you ignore all the bad stuff it says...

Umm, the problem is I'm not saying the Christian bible is entirely good: it's a book written thousands of years ago. If it was completely undeniably "good", there wouldn't be as many branches of Christianity as today.

I could easily pick out 101 things that are immoral in the bible... yet people ignore all that immoral stuff, and call it a book of morals?

I have no objection in you picking out the antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible, I do however object calling the entire religion "poison" and as such provide counterclaims to what you say.

P.S. Your claims, in general, seem to reveal this "all or nothing" mentality which suggests that you are leaning towards gnostic atheism, which, taking all the old scientific theories debunked and replaced by new, currently more accurate ones, seems silly.

A chart for an easier explanation:

[organofcorti]

<snip>
I have no objection in you picking out the antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible, I do however object calling the entire religion "poison" and as such provide counterclaims to what you say.
<snip>

On the "antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible" part, does this mean that to you the bible is not infallible? I know this varies from Christian group to group, (sect? not sure of correct terminology there, no offense meant) and I'm interested in which groups believe the bible is infallible and which do not.

[frankharmon57]

All of this is very different from “the dream of God” as we encounter it in the major voices of the Bible and earliest Christianity. Of course, Christianity is about individuals and our relationship to God as individuals. But when it is most authentic, it is also about God’s dream for a world of fairness (justice) and peace. It is about “the common good” and not just my individual good.
 

[organofcorti]

A chart for an easier explanation:

Rather than "I believe" or "I know", my beliefs could be best described as "I don't care". That is: "Since an omnipotent god is by definition unprovable, I can't prove gods do or do not exist. However I have no interest in unfalsifiable propositions, and so do not care about/have no interest in gods and their religions".

That doesn't really fit into the two-axis belief system you've described, and I think generalising beliefs in such a way is likely to cause confusion by over-simplification.

[mprep]

<snip>
I have no objection in you picking out the antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible, I do however object calling the entire religion "poison" and as such provide counterclaims to what you say.
<snip>

On the "antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible" part, does this mean that to you the bible is not infallible? I know this varies from Christian group to group, (sect? not sure of correct terminology there, no offense meant) and I'm interested in which groups believe the bible is infallible and which do not.

Yes, I see some parts of the bible, specifically from the Old Testament, as obsolete, written for a time that passed long ago (considering the Old Testament was meant as a prophecy (also known as gospel) for the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Testament is considered as the Christian bible by most) and quite a lot as just not meant for literal interpretation (both from the Old and the New Testament). Technically, I don't belong to any group/sect/branch of Christianity, though still consider myself Christian. I used to be a Roman Catholic (the most popular religion in my country) but due to quite a few ideological differences and the ever present stagnation as time goes by I decided to just roll on my own, with a somewhat similar ideological basis to the branch I believed in. I don't specifically know which groups/sects/branches consider the entire bible (both Testaments) to be infallible, but I think this quite well describes the core beliefs of Christianity, while everything else is up to interpretation:

The central teachings of traditional Christianity are that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that his life on earth, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven are proof of God's love for humanity and God's forgiveness of human sins; and that by faith in Jesus one may attain salvation and eternal life (see creed). This teaching is embodied in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, but Christians accept also the Old Testament as sacred and authoritative Scripture.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/christianity-central-beliefs.html

A chart for an easier explanation:

[image snip to link]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EvHeyazlRKY/VjkPh-b47fI/AAAAAAADBbU/hncK9Vr8QdI/s640/qYQAjBK.jpg[image snip to link]

Rather than "I believe" or "I know", my beliefs could be best described as "I don't care". That is: "Since an omnipotent god is by definition unprovable, I can't prove gods do or do not exist. However I have no interest in unfalsifiable propositions, and so do not care about/have no interest in gods and their religions".

That doesn't really fit into the two-axis belief system you've described, and I think generalising beliefs in such a way is likely to cause confusion by over-simplification.

Then it seems you lie on the agnosticism axis right in between theism and atheism. To be honest, that's better than any kind of gnosticism, be it religious or atheistic IMO.

[RayBrady]

There's a BIG difference between spirituality/connection/belief, and what atheists think Christianity is.

You're covering a dog with a pig mask, and calling it something it isn't. I think the memes you posted are more relevant to islam, not Christianity. For example, Jesus doesn't care if we pray all the time, that doesn't make us closer with him. That's an islamic idea. Prayer isn't to change Jesus' decisions to get what we want either.

It's not a poison. The moment you snap and realize all the puzzle pieces fit, rather than trying to jam things in and say it's poison, you'll understand it far better. Why does the Bible "restrict" or "recommend" you to not have sex outside of marriage? Why does it oppose doing what you want (drinking, smoking, drugs). Because all these things ruin our lives, and degrade and spoil them. There's a reason for everything. It's not a lifestyle, it's how humans were meant to be, people who take the route of living their own lives will only have to wait to see what is after.

It's a poison if you believe fully that the things of this earth and life is the best it gets. Imagine America without greed, drugs, and things that degrade us. It's no doubt that Christianity advises you to live life the proper way. I guess it's all perspective, some see the worms-eye view, others birds-eye. If you want to look at it like a joke and pretend like it is all "fake" and made-up, let it be so. What is love if you are forced to love?


(this post is my opinion, feel free to discuss any point)

The guidelines you reference where altered by the governing powers of the day usually the church to control people. They really are not to benefit humans but to push the agenda of the current time. They did not want people killing themselves in mass due to hard living during famines. That is why hell is such a scary place created to deter people from pulling the plug. You can pretty much point to any religious guideline and it can be countered with a historical point where people where needed to be controlled.
You have a pope that preaches still in the same manner from up high and does not walk what he preaches. Wash a few prisoners feet and active on twitter does not make you cutting edge. Its a desperate attempt to stay relevant in a technological time where people do not give a shit anymore if the church puts out a creed.

Just as a side note, there's a pope for Catholics and Orthodox believers. I would not call myself either.

[Moloch]

A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat"

Also, title:

Christianity is Poison

The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month...  If you read the OP you would know this...

It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh?



As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that...

Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking...

If you would like to debate a specific claim... let me know which one you most object to, and I will provide supporting evidence...

If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why?
If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen

[Sithara007]

Empathetic one....nowadays our technology as well as education system is developed well. But it is not reflecting in our thoughts. My opinion is all are humans only. Try to change our view of life. Love each other and don't measure them based on their religion.

[mprep]

A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat"

Also, title:

Christianity is Poison

The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month...  If you read the OP you would know this...

It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh?



As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that...

Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking...

If you would like to debate a specific claim... let me know which one you most object to, and I will provide supporting evidence...

If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why?
If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen

The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month...  If you read the OP you would know this...

And as I mentioned in the post of mine you just quoted ("Also, the guy you were annoyed with changed the name of the topic BTW."), the OP changed the title to "Atheism and Health", as apparently his intent wasn't to attack Atheists.

It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh?

I don't have any experience of such statues being put up on public space, so can't really comment on that except it seems to have been done by fundamental Christians which I don't really agree with on a lot of situations.

As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that...

And as did I: I wanted to specifically debate on every topic brought up by you in your posts that I refuted in mine. If you don't want to debate on multiple topics, don't put out multiple claims.

Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking...

Sigh, OK, let me go through it yet again (I'll ignore my answers which are open to theological and/or philosophical discussion as you can't really prove those by definition):

Evidence-less claims:

Do you really want to compare the 2000 year history of christianity murdering half the world...

Source? I do agree that Catholic church has done quite a few horrible things during the Middle Ages, however your claim seems rather bold with no evidence to back it up.

This is a common misconception...

We have already established that do not steal/murder are based in atheism/philosophy, rather than christianity...

I propose that all morals are based in such things... christians also did not invent the concept of the golden rule, "treat your neighbor as yourself", etc...

Provide solid evidence otherwise your claim is rather pointless.

The only influences that christianity has had on society are negative... all of them... there is evidence to back up this claim

[X]All previous arguments in my post ignored
[X]Bold statement with no evidence

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...

[X]Bold statement with no evidence
[X]Previous arguments dismissed

Counter-arguments provided to source-less claims:

...with the 1,000,000 year history of atheists making advances in science, medicine, philosophy, morality, etc, etc, etc?!?

You do understand that quite a few scientists were or are Christians - Blaise Pascal (Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem (math)) and Isaac Newton (Physicist, discoverer of gravity) to name a few. Also, some of these scientists (namely Theodosius Dobzhansky) criticized creationsim and argued that science and faith does not conflict (which is a stance I can firmly stand behind).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

I'm sorry you don't understand history... or much of anything...

The Dark ages had a single cause... Christianity... Christians attacked anything that was non-christian for 300 years!  Don't pretend it didn't happen!

I'd have to disagree. Although the Catholic church did a lot of heinous things during the Dark Ages, which did harm the spread of knowledge, I think the much bigger reason was the fall of the Roman Empire:

It emphasizes the demographic, cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29

The main issue in terms of knowledge is the fact that after the fall of the Roman empire, quite a lot of research and literature was lost, setting back science rather far back. The first answer by Humphrey Clarke, MA in Modern History - University of St Andrews in this: https://www.quora.com/Did-Christianity-cause-the-Dark-Ages  gives quite an interesting analysis. I suggest reading through as it goes through several possible arguments such as the Catholic church not accepting science.

The conclusion is rather relevant to the discussion as well:

To conclude then, the two Christianity guilt theories suffer from a lack of evidence. They persist purely due to their illustrious pedigree and the fact that people insist on making the past fit into a modern framework.

If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why?

Just because I disagree and provide counterclaims to yours, doesn't mean I'm trolling. That's a discussion.

If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen

Your only view of religion seems to be in regards to, as I mentioned, "zealously religious fundamentalist nuts" who interpret the everything in the bible literally, force others to follow their religion, attempt to restrict freedom of speech, etc.. You seem to ignore the fact that there actually are rational/moderate religious people, who defend the right to freedom of speech, analyze and discuss on possible interpretations of  whatever religious document they have, discuss with the critics of religion rather than silence them and whose faith doesn't clash with science. An example would be my view as previously stated in one of the posts in this thread:

In fact, I'd say the the current definition of religion would be the search for who created the system we are living in. I think the best way to describe it would be comparing it to computer software: imagine an extremely complex computer simulation, with it's rules and parameters, running constantly with the objects (with a crap ton of variables, methods and other OOP features implemented) inside acting independently (but predictably due the fact that author of the program knows what code he wrote and how it performs) based on their variables and the surrounding objects. The self-aware objects inside decide analyze the system and due to being withing that system and unable to detect anything outside it, deducted that since they can't detect anything within the system that there is no creator outside it. Seems familiar?