Nobel winner slams Bible as ‘handbook of bad morals’

An anti-semite? Do tell.
Please don't bother to share it if you pulled it out from where I suspect that you did.

The only haters and bigots in this thread are you and your ilk, bielski. In fact, reading your post, I thought that you were very candidly describing yourself.

Tends to end up forming a religion if the grouping...sorry congregating is a religious function.

It eventually gets there. Unless one wants to fine tooth comb it and then we go with your version of things.

There are several independent congregational churches in my community of Eugene, Oregon that aren't affiliated with a larger religious structure and do not have a complicated creed to follow. There is a very minimal amount of asserted ideas limited to a few basic tenants. They would hardly qualify as religions unto themselves.

Because religion is a dirty word.

Religions is a dirty business!

So is being a regressive atheist.

I do believe I offended all three groups equally.

Worshiping God in groups is in the bible.

What do you want to call that? Grouping?

It is ok to assemble for a peace rally...? So is this religious? OOH, how about we all go to the super sell-your-soul-mart, is this religious? We are shopping, and we give money. Is this grouping?

It's also ok to be way off the mark.

That's why you still exist.

Hi Jubal...yes, I agree. I came from a very religious background, and have always been regarded as somewhat of a rebel...but alas, maybe it's part of my upbringing more than I realise. However, I do keep the whole thing in perspective. I also read The Prophet by Kalil Gibran at times, and I find this also serene...regards, my friend...Eden...

@Jubal: Make sure you do not confuse dogma with faith.
What offends me is people attacking a right that we have in this country.
We have the right to practice freely. That is a right!
I support the right for a gay man to marry strictly speaking on the constitution speaking on the "persuit of happiness", and I believe in the Bible.
Making a sweeping biased judgment is not a sign of fairness. But after all, perception dictates reality and overrides fact.
NOTE: @ Jubal - forgive in that I am making a blanket statement, not meaning you are biased or judging you, I am stating that allot of people just sweep all (Which is different than religion) in one mass stereotype.

@Every one: Like any sweeping generalization, it is generally wrong. I am hoping to clarify that because we believe does NOT mean that we are agreeing that blowing up a clinic or starting a crusade is EVER acceptable. I do not condone the right for any one to judge what you can and cannot do with your faith. Doing so is not in the spirit of this country. You have the right to be a:
Jew/Christian/Muslim/Atheist/"Pagan", but I cannot force an atheist to believe (nor would I try to), and I have the right to be a christian. We are ALL FREE.

@ripperzane, I have no confusion about dogma and faith. Dogma is the belief that faith affirms. They are practically inseparable. For you must have a dogma in order to have a belief.

However, there is a huge distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion is a set of rules to follow, whereas spirituality is complete freedom of belief without religion to make it conform. In spirituality the motto is "take what you like and leave the rest."

with zero proof backing such a statement that is spitting in the face of God.

I do not espouse to the Old Testament of the Bible. It does not show a loving forgiving God, but rather one that is spiteful and cruel.

Jammer, I have the proof. But you can't handle the proof.

The idea that the old testament shares that isn't something people came up with on their own. Someone said it...and so they followed. it's not at all factual and there's not a lot of backing.

Don't expect anyone to bother sharing any backing because they'll spend too long sharing what can be stated to be something less than what they thought.

Jubal---

I have a friend that does that, shares cheesy made up movie lines because he thinks they are witty....especially when I irritate him. He hopes that it'll bring levity and forgetfulness into the fray.

Maybe your reasons are similar, but I do know that what I stated previously has not been refuted in any way shape or form and as amusing as I do find movie lines that are cheesy-lee altered it's not good enough.

OK I was being Cheeky with the movie line from "A few good men", but I have watched you for two years now here on current and I know what you are all about. Its pointless to prove anything to you because you are an oppositional and defiant person who has very little to offer by way of stimulating conversation. You mostly just contradict for the sake of contradicting.

It brings to mind another saying, and this one happens to be in the bible. "Cast not your pearls before swine."

Trying to prove anyting to you is like trying to prove pigs could fly.

And what makes you any different than what you just said?

What proof have you accepted on this site and changed your view?

People who state what you state are worse culprits of what you're accusing me of.

The moment you shift your views dramatically you may prove what you're stating as worthy of being shared. Otherwise you're just stating what all do and only making it insulting because that's what you like to do.

...and that's something else jammer is good at: accusing others of using his tactics. Even if they don't.

It is one of the few debating tactics he knows - but don't tell him it never works, he might pick a better one next time!

You're too broad and therefore didn't make a point.

It's ok. You can try again if you're able to get back up from that fall.

Awesome post RFI! Hadn't seen this one, so thanks!

Did you see the Invention of Lying?

What was the point?

Because it wasn't humor.

Try it with several beers and a few less prayers

Jammer stop being such a stick in the mud! It was funny...geez don't take this stuff so personally.

Don't post it with the intent to make people take it personally.

Whatever Jammer, whatever. Reasoning with you is a slippery slope indeed.

Reasoning with Jammer is impossible, because his has been turned off!

Guess you can go on the stalker list.

You begged for it.

Nothing you said is mentioned in the Bible.

Therefore my statement still stands.

Jammer...have you read the Bible? More specifically...have you read the Old Testament? You are really going to stand on 'the Bible has never been proven wrong'?

Jammer, for someone hellbent on assuring everyone that us hateful atheists haven't a clue of what's in the bible you sure aren't all that well read in it yourself.

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

Psalms 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on the earth or sea or against any tree.

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.

Job 38:4-6
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone?

Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Mark 9:17-25
A man in the crowd answered, "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not."... When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil spirit. "you deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again." The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out.

But don't take my word for it...

And?

That proves what? That you can pull from a website to quote scriptures?

I am going to stand by it's never been proven wrong because even with two poorly constructed answers it still hasn't been proven wrong.

Jammer, you are a piece of work!

The man just quoted to you the exact places where your statement was proven wrong, and you STILL presume to say he's wrong?

Go back and read the bible, maybe some of that stone age thinking will enlighten you!

@rwahrens, isn't he a piece of work!

We are all a piece of work.

It's time to get over it and move on.

Oh and quoting scripture is nothing without stating why you're using it. In this case...misusing it.

Okay Jammer you do understand that atheists aren't one big group right? We don't all go out to eat together or anything (although I'm available, call me!). Besides many atheists don't like 'atheist' they much prefer 'anti-theist'.

Since I still keep hope alive for Thor and Odin I can't even say that I'm an anti-theist. Sigh.

You do understand that there are some that actually are reasonable and that you're not part of that group, right?

Humans are the same be it now or 2,000 years ago. The only difference is technology. Humans don't change as dramatically as one thinks....socially it's the same or Shakespeare would be so outdated.

It would help the readability of your posts if you would use some punctuation and line breaks.

Paragraphs are wonderful inventions!

Two points. Number one, I fail to see how Shakespeare is comparable to the Bible in age, and therefore, fail to see how that is a fair comparison as to the supposed static state of the human condition. Number two, I don't think my compostion affects my message, so comments on the lack of paragraphs is not relevent.

I didn't SAY it affects your message. My point is that your message is harder to read and understand if one uses no paragraphs to format it better.

You know, separate different thoughts or points? It just makes it easier for your readers to understand your thoughts.

People that post long diatribes without some formatting often get ignored, as people get tired of trying to figure out what you are saying as the thoughts runtogetherandyouhavetofigureoutwhattheyaresaying.

The ancient greeks used to write like that, and while it is a bit extreme to use the no spaces between words as an example here, does it get the point across?

I didn't compare the two.

You did.

While you did not explicity compare the two, you used the relevence of the works of Shakespeare as a measure of how little humans have change. That is not a valid argument if you hope to legitimize the relevence of the Holy Bible, as it is a much older set of documents. Shakespeare's works may indeed be relevent to the human condition, but that doesn't necessarily prove humans haven't changed since the time the books of the Bible were written, unless you mean to say the Bible was written during Shakespeare's time, and I know that's not your point.

And to say I compared the two is inaccurate and bizarre, to say the least. I merely expanded on the subject you brought up about the relevence of written works which post date the Bible. Had you not brought the works of Shakespeare into the argument, I would never have mentioned them.

Finally, I ask why it bothers you so when others disagree with you. I also would like to know if you plan on making any relevent, logical arguments throughout the course of this post.

How are humans different than thousand years ago? Was there murder?
Was there war?
Was there love?
Was there cheating?
Was there leaders?
Were there followers?
Were there workers?
Were there popular people?
Was there violence?
Was there hate?
Was there anger?
Was there failure?
Was there drama?
Was there innovation?
Was there entertainment?

Do tell how they were so different than how we are now aside from technology and language how are they socially different?

I'll just name a few major social changes off the top of my head. Before you argue semantics, I realize "social changes" and "social differences" aren't entirely, 100% the same. I offer you changes as a way of illustrating that we are indeed different than humans "thousand years ago" as you so eloquently put it.
The spread of democracy. The sexual revolution. The rise and fall of a number of governmental systems (ie. communism, socialism, facism) which have left their mark on the social landscape. The widespread rise of recognition of basic human rights. Civil rights, specifically here in the United States. The feminist revolution. The Gay rights movement. The Women's Suffrage movement (worldwide, not only in the United States.
All these changes set us apart from our counterparts thousands of years ago. Remember that when the Bible was put together, women didn't have the right to vote, own property, or, in some cases, leave the house. Slavery was actually accepted, and premarital sex was punishable by death. The developed world, while still riddled with its own problems, has left behind the barbaric practices outlined in much of the Bible.
Granted, I'm sure you'll not be satisfied with this explanation, as it's not convenient for you since it opposes your own, I'll leave the above points of social change for you to ponder.

I know those changes. I do love history.

Greece had it's own gay persons in powerful positions. They had sex with men and boys. It was not an open as in people discussed it....but it was known that it was going on. Almost like pages and Congressmen. Think that was the first time they did it?

There was no voting in the bible. People were anointed. Also there were women prophets. Women treated highly they were not given massive responsibilities because that was what the men were used for. It was a form of not only respect but of love because they could worry about other things than what the men had to worry about. They were naturally care givers...as in they have the ability to show emotion and care for more than most men. Not always the case---but it is mostly the case.

When Jesus was resurrected he went to who? The 12 men he spoke to constantly the last 3 years of his service? No. He went to women and told them to tell the 12 that he had returned. When he went to the well a woman (from a different nationality that Jews did not speak to) was getting water and he spoke to her with respect and care.

As for the slaves they were not the same as slaves in Civil War or any other time.

You go onto debt now you're slaves to the people you owe. Same kind of slave. The only difference was that those slaves in the bible were treated so much better and cared for or the master would suffer the consequences.

Those changes you mention didn't alter the way people have been cheating in work or in relationships. How they manipulate people. Gossiping. Hate speech. Anger. Love. None of that changed. Just because the camera angle can switch in mid scene doesn't mean what is going on is any different than before. You just see it from a different position.

Wow, what a great way to say absolutely nothing while taking up so much space. I really would like to believe you researched your answer prior to making it, as that would make me all the more amused, as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't doubt a few of your facts, but your ability to interpret those facts and draw a conclusion is roughly the level of a five year old. You also manage to contradict your point about slavery in three sentences, which is impressive, as well as sad.

You also manage to completely ignore the point of the debate, which is the relevance of the Bible in the modern age. You manage to paint a picture of Biblical times (be it somewhat inaccurate) and used a few of the points I had previously mentioned, but arrived at no real conclusions based on them.

Simply restating your point, again with no arguments, and pulling some pseudo facts about the bible which don't support it, is not the appropriate way to perform public discourse. I would look up debate and argument as a discipline, and do some research, then come back.

You did nothing but attack and didn't refute what you found wrong.

Could be because you're afraid.

Glad you can make paragraphs. Didn't bother me, but since you're into being snide, I think I'll join in and do it too.

Thank you for proving the quote true.

It proves nothing.
There is no satan.
It's another ridiculous fairy tale for simpletons who need to put a human face on everything their fevered imaginations and a lifetime of indoctrination can conjure.
Like Santa Claus and Easter bunny stories for children

Do you know why atheist don't exist?

God doesn't believe in them.

Did you learn that talking point in evangelical Sunday school this week?

I don't go to Sunday school.

Got any more lies you believe? You see to be sharing them a lot.

RFI I do believer you pissed Jammer off by accusing him of attending Sunday School. Nothing to be ashamed of Jammer.

If lying is your game, you two play very well.

The greatest trick the god ever pulled was convincing the world he does

At least be better than the quote you're stealing from.

Were he real, (for those who don't quote pop culture movies) "the devil's cleverest trick is to persuade you that" his voice was the word of god.

But the pop culture movie quoted the quote.

And twisting it doesn't make it wrong. You're still using it as it was intended.

I apologize for the original potshot. The quote is technically worded unlike either of us have stated as the original piece was french. Primary translations worded the phrase many different ways. Yet the original text of "Mes chers frères, n'oubliez jamais, quand vous entendrez vanter le progrès des lumières, que la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!" does not lend itself well to literal translation (most beautiful ruse?)

Nobel Prize winner must not have read that book.

...why can't the Nobel Prize go to someone who takes in children from disadvantaged homes, feeds them, and educates them...so many out there who are not known around the world who deserve this award...sigh...clunk...I fell out of bed...dreamin' again...reminds me re: BS abounds when we give an honorary doctorate to a hollywood actor...

Yeah, why does it have to be an award that looks for publicity.

Quite right - morons and imbeciles such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Plank, et al! LOL!

Morons like Jimmy Carter, Arafat, and Al Gore.

"after TAURUS come PISCES, the fish"???

Yes, but since Taurus is the second sign in the Zodiac and Pisces is the twelfth or last, Pisces comes after all the others - in order, the signs are Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces - so between Taurus and Pisces are Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, and Aquarius.

Oh, my god! a profit! He made a profit! Hang him, string him up! Stone him! Draw and quarter him!

Oh, wait, that's capitalism, never mind.

Thanks for explaining the obvious.

Nothing wrong with capitalism.

Exploiting religion for profit, now that's another moral question.

This is the authors attempt at witty, profound, and provocative content and it is most certainly for profit. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be approached with that in mind.

Uh, why?

As far as I know, EVERY author has that in mind, even the guys that write about religion as believers.

Unless, of course, you are independently wealthy and have money to throw away to a good cause.

Now can we forget about profit and just listen to the message?

It's like Michael Moore speaking out against the very thing that is paying his bills...capitalism.

This guy is speaking out against the Bible, yet profiting on stories from the Bible.

Not only profiting, but getting those that hate the bible like he does to read his work.

So his are most likely haters and ignorant--for they do not understand the source material just as the writer does not.

In his old age one would expect some form of wisdom. But he's one of the few that it apparently eludes.

Very well said. If it is a religion that requires you to form your own ideas about what's good and what's bad then why use the book in the first place? Why not get rid of the contradictory terms and just go with what is good for all human beings? Why should we try and adapt 2000 year old moralities to a modern day world when we are more than capable of starting from scratch?

The key to good and bad lies within us all based on the world around us and a respect for our fellow human being, not within overpriced and long since outdated children's story books.

Precisely.

Here are a few of the principles of Humanism. See if these have any contradictions, violence or stone age barbarism in them:

* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. "

Fail.

You have faith in yourself.

You have not tested yourself and provided data that would prove your worth trusting.

People have to have a leap of faith to trust you even know what the hell you're talking about.

Based on who recommended your post your stock goes down.

They had those out to anyone that speaks against religion. Untrustworthy.

I think in part this is also inevitably a problem with public education. Seeing as how religious beliefs are negatively correlated with both general IQ and obtained education levels if we want to raise up the masses from their deistic slavery.

This man is definitely not the first or last Nobel laureate to blast religions, as a group they are comprised of a disproportionate amount of nonbelievers.

1. My church does not equate money with forgiveness, and neither does my Bible.

2. Rome wanted to control the masses by fear. Jesus freed the masses with love. You know the post you just wrote? Even though you wrote against them, no politician, church, pastor, or corporation will jail you, threaten you, kill you, kill your family...you're free. If anyone even attempts to do so, let me know, and I, along with the church I attend, will do everything in our power to stop it.

3. This is an honest question. What is your definition of a good person?

4. I have examined the inner workings of a church, because I was curious about it. Logic is essential to everything I do, and if I ever completely abandon logic (which my God invented), I hope someone can help me. There is corruption in the church, along with everywhere else in this world. Pastors, priests, bishops-all of them make horrible mistakes. But more abundantly than anywhere I have seen, there is love in the church. What drew me to faith in Jesus was not what the church said. It was what I saw in Christians who had sold out to Christ-I saw joy and love beyond anything I have ever seen.

We are all gods among gods, we are all gods children, all equal - one creative active force. IMHO

There are those among us who take the words of men and manipulate the minds of others through fear they imprison the mind. Its not only religion, it's also political ideologies, it's nationalistic fervor, and even more recently, corporatist fascism and media mind manipulation. There is a war on for your focus, your mind. They want to steal your imagination, your creativity, your individuality, your divinity.

or like you do to make people feel stupid for being in a religion?

How is it that you point out that something is bad but end up showing an example of it as well? It's very kind of you.

If all of us were gods then why do little children die in Africa from malnutrition? That was it for them? Why were they born there? Why did they suffer? Why was it them that had to feel pains for a situation that they didn't create? How is that fair and why do you think you have the answers?

Jammer, I am going to answer you this once about this topic. The reason the little gods of Africa are dying is because the selfish gods of the Western Nations want it that way. They are indirectly killing them through their indifference.

Guess they weren't so godly or important.

Guess your caring doesn't save anyone. Where do they go when you can't save them?

Wait don't answer that. Ignore it.

I'll just ask until you answer it...every time you mention "god".

RUN THE INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN WILL GET YOU!!!

Do you actually think that an all-powerful, all knowing deity would give a damn if we mocked it? What kind of god would expend time and energy worrying what its creations said about it. I wish it would spend more time fixing all the freakin' problems it 'created'.

You and what army?

Its everyone who are entitled to their opinion...

Atheists shall succeed!~

Atheists shall exceed at what exactly?

Of the their awareness, they are growing numbers, after all...

Can you explain that a little better ( your grammar is a bit wonky)

If the Bible is the word of God, then God is not very intelligent and pretty ignorant.

So many people have never actually READ the bible.

There is a difference in listening and hearing. There's a difference in reading and READING.

Everyone hears. Not everyone listens.

Everyone can read. But not everyone reads.

Anyway:

If Evolution is right why did it pick an idiot like Charles Darwin to explain it?

That's your argument against evolution? If the Bible is true why'd God pick such a bunch of idiots to write it? Let's play your small minded game, Jammer.

I've read the Bible, many, many times. I've read it as a believer and as a non-believer. So I've read it and I've READ it. What's your damn point? So many Christians like to trot that out like it exempts the bible from any criticism.

Well Mr. Jammer why don't you go ahead and confound me with your intimate grasp of the holy word of God. Open my eyes to what I haven't grasped in the multiple times I've read the bible, or in the time I've spent studying its history.

Yes jammer explain to us how a scientist with a lowly IQ estimated to be in the high genius range even was capable of writing a book in the first place. I'm sure that won't be a difficult task for someone who knows the difference between "reading" and "all capital letters reading".

I've read the Bible..It explains morals that I already knew..

What morals?

Great post. Its amazing how much "the word of God" 'borrows' from other cultures. In modern days God would have gotten his ass sued.

What exactly do you use for moral guidance?

Using BUT negates all things before it as not true. So you're not sorry. Why did you even choose to use that word?

They ripped off from the bible.

I can state many statements without backing as well. It's something fairly easy to do---you history changer.

Jammer are you that stupid that you want to keep having Saladin decimate you over and over again?

I enjoy your posts but why do you feel its necessary to antagonize him? He has proven time and time again that he can argue circles around the majority of us, so are you just a glutton for punishment or a sadist?

You agree with him.

Agreeing that's what he does isn't pointing out anything important.

Who is "you" and "these posts?" Be more specific.

And people are entitled to their opinion. If their answers frighten or enrage you, you should cease asking scary questions.

You say is hate and what here is only opposition..Ha.

By "you" I mean those who are constantly post these articles . I have absolutely nothing wrong with other beliefs or lack of belief. You must know people are going to respond negatively are you trying to create conflict?

And metal it is hate look at what others have been saying

Do they actually say hate?

No. Its only expression of ranting about how religion is.

Do they show love?

No because it's mainly saturated in hate.

That's exactly right.

It's the organizational structure and mythology of religion that causes so much misery. Plenty of secular organizations have done the exact same thing.

Nationalism in France, Communism in Russia. Same basic organizing principles and similar mythologies about mankind that lead to catastrophe.

But, at the same time, we don't really need extra systems like that do we?

just about every war ever faught on earth, religion played a major part in it.

Great name. Catch 22 is one of my favorite books. I don't think it's a hatred of religion, it's a mistrust. Religion is used to control people. Some are able to transcend the brainwashing and lead happy loving lives, but in my experience they are the vast minority amongst the practicing religious.

"It's the organizational structure and mythology of religion that causes so much misery."

Yeah. I think the structure really just allows religions (or governments, or organizations, or gangs, etc) to exploit human nature. Because of the way we're wired, it's extremely easy to see an entire group, or nation, or religion, or political party as good or evil based on really trivial things.

I find that most people that do not believe in a religion or a god have a deeper respect for life than people that believe in an afterlife.

There is a big difference in sending kids to war when you truly believe that they will go to heaven if they die than if you are not so sure of that.

It is impossible to remove systems in totality. There's o such thing as freedom from such. You choose who and what controls you and you are part of a system no matter what you do.

There is no such thing as anarchy.

Its "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

You are clearly not a scientist. A scientist uses correct English, and does not misquote.

To begin with, "do unto others..." is not even in my Bible. It is a line in Catholic Catechism, but whatev. The concept stands.

Secondly, there are heretics in the Christian church (i.e. people that do not follow the Christian faith), and everyone on earth who has done anything wrong is a sinner. That would include Christians, by our own deafening admission. However, the main idea of Christianity is grace. Jesus came and died for everyone, and anyone, regardless of race, gender, previous faith, history, social status, education, intelligence, or Scrabble score. There is nothing in the New Testament (the part that still applies), that suggests that anyone should "put down" non-believers.

As for your side note, the Bible predates modern science in many cases.

Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier. (taken from http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml, which you should have a good look at.).

In addition, evolution is taught in schools because the US government decided it should be. The issue almost every Christian has with evolution centers around the idea that God did not create the universe. I have yet to find one scientist who can provide any evidence to support that theory. They have come up with a theory, evolution, which explains how man came from nothing, but there is no theory as to why the First Law of Thermodynamics (that matter cannot be created or destroyed), does not apply to that nothing. Where did the something come from? Perhaps man did evolve from apes; the Bible provides for that possibility. Our question is, where did the apes come from? And an even bigger question: why should a theory, the theory of evolution, be assumed as fact in modern biology, and why should it be taught as such in public education? I'll tell you why: politics and money.

Finally, arguments are, by their nature, emotional. I agree with you that they should be rooted in fact, but there must always be some element of emotion in every argument.

It is frustrating to some Christians (ignorant sinners, mind you) that so many people take one casual glance at the Bible and summarily condemn it, while scholars have dissected the Bible for years, unraveling its mysteries, and have found no fault in it.

^Speaking of a non-scientist. Creationists are really great at completely confusing the Big Bang theory with evolution. Where exactly in the description of how one organism mutates into another do you find the massive birth of our universe??? THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC STANCES. Also, the Big Bang theory actually makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO reference towards the lack of a deity. Its actually a theory that fits soundly with most religious beliefs, it doesn't require that you grow out of your imaginary friends at all!

While we're on the science lessons how about that mention of blood of yours. Knowledge of blood was NOT something discovered by the bible, it was borrowed from the many civilizations before it that practiced blood worship and bloodletting (both present before the bible) as it was incorporated into MANY other religions before the bible. William Harvey's contribution to science wasn't that he "discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life" seeing as how people knew that long before your bible, he mapped out the circulatory system and discovered exactly what each of the veins/arteries did. He found something that wasn't described anywhere in the bible.

One final science for religious zealots fact: What's taught in schools isn't the "theory of evolution". It's not a theory, it's a natural phenomenon. Evolution moved beyond it's theory status many years ago when scientists stopped arguing with fans of the dark ages and actually studied it. Evolution takes place all the time around us; it is observable in the lab and in nature, no need for fossil records.

I often times wonder which is a greater sign of ignorance: Not wanting to know what created us, or not wanting to know how it created us. Fine, we get it, you need the comfort of your ancient security blanket, but why do you also insist on not showing any interest in HOW your creator worked his juju?

PeaceStartsHere wrote:

"To begin with, "do unto others..." is not even in my Bible."

Does not your Bible have Matthew? "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12

as he said "Do unto others" isn't in the bible. You just proved it with that passage.

The meaning wasn't stated to NOT be in the bible. The wording was what was in question.

He quoted it wrong therefore proving he never really read a bible in his life if he can't get an easy quote right instead of pull from what has been created.

Just like famous movie quotes have been distorted to say something that the movie line did not state...this is no different.

Again...apparently the wisdom boat left him behind.

Oh so it's the 'interpretation' that's the problem? So there is a 'core' to the Bible that provides strict moral guidance without needing any interpretation?

But its a terribly edited one with hundreds of plot holes, random stories mashed together and terrible character development. There are many preteen novels out that would actually provide a more mentally stimulating read.

I'm hoping in 100 years they're using the Harry Potter novels as scripture. It would be a giant step up.

So your wit would be if you thought longer before posting.

Books are good, indeed. I've read the Bible many times and don't think it's a great (or even good) work of literature, but I understand what you are saying and can't disagree. Put it on the shelf right beside 'Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health', and the Quran and Harry Potter (no hating - I love Harry Potter).

I really don't think that it is reasonable to expect someone to know the contents of the bible unless they are a practicing christian or catholic. it would be just as wrong to expect a christian to know the qua'ran or a jew to know of buddhist teachings. Let's face it, not everyone is christian, and not everyone should be expected to know the bible unless they are christian. i certainly don't feel the obligation to study it. using that justification, everyone should listen to the most popular music in the world right now, or watch the most popular movie, whether they like it or not. I don't think that's a fair assumption.

It's a matter of cultural literacy. I am not promoting anything Christian. I am only saying that to be culturally literate one would have to have read history's number one selling book, etc. etc. We should not be afraid of its contents.

No, but we should be wary of those that are incapable of telling the good from the bad, or the parts that are old, outmoded stone age barbarity from truly decent suggestions for good living.

This is the best selling book simply because so many are bought by christian institutions to go into their sanctuaries - because so few christians these days carry one of their own into church!

They are also bought as missionary aids - to give away, also bought by the Giddeons to put into hotel rooms.

To say that the bible is the # 1 seller is disingenuous. because that alludes to it being a popular read - which of course, is what most christians want you to believe.

Yet, the dirty little secret is that fewer Americans read the bible than everybody thinks. A Gallup poll in 2000 noted that the numbers had declined alarmingly since the 80's, so that only 16% read it weekly or more often. I'd bet that if I searched a bit more, I'd find that the numbers have just gotten lower since.

I'd bet that if one counted up the numbers of the Koran sold in Muslim countries, you'd see quite a different story!

You mean the Nigerian witches who eat albinos and leave twins in the forest to die?

Also, I don't think those there verses means what you think they mean.

Good? Bad? Depends who's reading it.

No I mean these "witches"

http://current.com/items/91230699_children-denounced-as-witches-are-tortured-kil...

That part bothered me too . I do think it so deeply terrified me , that I just went into sort of a denial " as a young person . "God wouldn't want that!" I thought to myself . I think good people do that to stay in their social support groups . It is Horrific . It effects the psyche .

1. If "Christians" in Africa are perverting that obsolete verse and killing people, they are clearly not Christians at all. There is nothing in the New Testament, the one that applies to today, to support what they are doing, period.

In context, God commanded the Old Testament Isrealites to kill any witches among them. As far as I know, there were no Isreali witches killed in the OT. At that time, a witch would subvert the people, and they would be rampantly having sex with each other, killing themselves, etc... This was the same God that, later, invented the concept of total forgiveness that those African "churches" take for granted today.

2. Again, in context, Lot, not God, was asking men to rape his daughters instead of raping the two angels with him. Where did it say, "but God was cool with that?" In just about any culture, including Jewish culture, daughter rape was not a good thing. Lot was a friend of Moses, but he was not someone God particularly exalted. In fact, after that incident, Lot's wife turned to salt, his own daughters "raped" him, and Lot had two illegitimate sons. Those sons founded the nations of Moab and Ammon which constantly fought against the Jews and lived immoral, evil lives. Have you seen Moab or Ammon on a map recently? That's called genocide, and in that instance, for that time period, it's probably a good thing.

Now, you'll say, there are some passages which support rape in the Bible. Really? There are some in the OT where God gives the strictest laws on concubines and slaves-He said, basically, if you don't treat them better than anyone else treats their "property," I will kill you. Maybe He knew that they would take slaves and concubines whether He forbade it or not. Parents and teachers do the same kind of thing. In the NT, however, it is abundantly clear that, unless you would like to be enslaved or raped, you shouldn't enslave or rape anyone. This is what modern freedom is based on.

3. "St Paul balls's it up"? Where? Can't wait to hear about it.

4. Fahrenheit 451.

@Peacestartshere,

As for your numbers 1 & 2, I would note that in Matthew 5:18-19 it says the OT law is to remain in effect until heaven and earth pass away.

That pretty much obliterates your assertion that the NT no longer supports slavery, etc., or that the admonition against witches is "obsolete".

You see, this is where we get into that old bugaboo where one christian says "god says 'this' " (where 'this' is one interpretation of a verse) and another christian says "god says 'that' " (where their interpretation of that same verse is lightyears away from christian #1).

Yes, both interpretations are different, yet stem from the same verse. Christian #1 says the passage is valid, yet #2 says it is outmoded and no longer valid.

A good example are the verses about homosexuality. Between the two of them, they say that god says it is an abomination, and anybody doing it should be put to death.

Many liberal christian sects go so far today as to disregard both, and even allow homosexuals to be ordained. Most of the more fundamentalist sects reject that interpretation, and insist that they are still a valid couple of verses, not outmoded at all.

Yet, I'd bet that few would call for their parishioners to start killing gays, at least not openly.

So where's the beef? How do we tell which verses are still valid, and which are "outmoded" stone age barbarity?

What are the criteria that help you, the average christian, to decide for yourself (or your pastor to determine what he/she will teach) in using this "good book" as a day-to-day guide to better living?

Remember that verse from Matthew? THAT says it is ALL still valid! All of it, the stoning, the slavery, the diet restrictions, the male genital mutilation, the whole seething, nasty ball of wax.

If you can find another verse that directly contradicts that one, then things just get worse, don't they?

And no, modern freedom is based upon the Greek custom of all the freemen in their cities having the vote in a system that allowed a wider civil say in home rule. NOTHING in the bible at all espouses anything to do with modern freedoms.

And yeah, Paul does muck it up.

He started all that crap about women staying shut up, not asking questions in church, keeping their heads covered in church, not being able to have authority over men, etc.

Yeah, he mucked things up quite a bit, since when he got through with it, christianity was never the same.

But, I'd agree with you in your reference to Fahrenheit 451 - burning books is bad mojo, even if you ARE talking about the bible. You just call attention to them.

You are right, people don't need much of a reason to behave badly.

But is that a reason to give them another set of reasons? Yes, the bible HAS given people reason to do these things - how about the guy that shot that doctor - IN CHURCH! And he has shown no remorse nor regret.

Please, tell me why you describe an atheist as a "hater"? What gives you that impression?

I agree. I never criticize people that are aetheists, or any other religion for that matter, and I find it rude and condescending when my religion (Christianity) is attacked.

What is going to get accomplished by mocking someone else's beliefs? Anger? Because we already have enough of that.

You see, that's the problem with religion, not just christianity.

Just because it's religion, we are not supposed to be critical, and we're supposed to leave it alone.

ANY other belief can be criticized, examined in detail, dragged through the mud, and hung out to dry in the open air of critical examination, but not religion.

As soon as someone says anything about invisible beings, we have to back off and let people have their little comfortable nests of thought.

In politics, we can get as nasty as we can, light people up and insult them as we please, but in religious subjects, such is taboo.

Sorry, but that is changing. I'll try not to insult YOU for believing (that's your right), but your religion is fair game.

rwahrens hit it right on the head. Religions have been intolerant for as long as they've been around but they get all pissy when someone comes along and says 'I don't buy it'. Criticism should be applied rigorously to religions since they exert such power over so many.

Generalizing is walking the line of bigotry. Be careful.

Oh Jammer please do explain....

I hate to say it, but Jammer has a point, as did the blogger he linked to.

But I will also note that when I attack religion (or any of the myriad specific instances thereof) I am not attacking individual christians, but the belief system, including the organizations that take advantage of the gullibility of the average human being, especially the less educated among them.

On the other hand, yes, I've made a few general statements as above, which, due to this conversation, I will take note and try to limit them to things I think really ARE warranted, and not just a slippery slide away from that bigotry.

Thanks, jammer.

You're welcome.

If you can keep doing that and not be regressive. About 3 hours later you slipped.

Spirituality is completely different from religion. IMHO Spirituality is a natural, earthly, organic field of energy referred to in Eastern philosophies and Chi or Xi. There is scientific evidence that suggests that paranormal phenomena is real and happens among humans. Basically its like an electromagnetic field your being projects like a beacon. There are seven regions in the body that generate the energy that radiates outward from all of us.

I believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual entity that exists, I am sure his story and the bible was distorted and manipulated, faith is within one self, no rules, no doctrine, just you and your God as one.

I think we can both agree to this, it just explains it beautifully:

"Religion is not identical with spirituality; rather religion is the form spirituality takes in civilization."
By William Irwin Thompson

You are a good example of why this book is so unreliable.

You are lucky to be taught in a church that believes in tolerance. Some preachers do, and they teach their flocks that trait. And that's good.

However, many christian denominations do not.

Have you heard the Pope recently? He has reiterated repeatedly since his elevation that only Catholics will go to heaven, even while trying to "reach out" to other religions!

If the Pope is talking that way, you can bet the farm that other christians are talking the same way.

And you wonder why atheists are not so fond of christians? When we are, in a poll, considered the least trustworthy group to the religious?

Many christians seem to take any criticism of their religion as "hate". Nothing could be further from the truth, at least for most atheists. While there is a small and growing faction of atheists that are getting more vocal and confrontational, most atheists are not, and only protest when we feel it is really necessary.

Hate is a strong word, while I would describe many atheists as more wary of religion, based upon past or continuing experience with practicing christians.

Myself, I respect your right to believe, but reserve the right to ridicule the religion itself based upon its holy writings vs. what people teach from those writings and the hypocrisy that results from its practice.

I typed all this stuff up but, hell, rwah as usual did a much better job then I could. So I'll just agree with him!

What makes you tolerant of other people is how you have decided to live your life out of respect for your fellow human beings, not what is said in a book that advocates stoning people who talk to you funny.

If you fancy yourself a christian because you can come up with your own conclusions about how others should be treated in spite of what certain passages of the bible tell you, why don't you just throw away the outdated and hateful book and keep drawing up your own (from the sound of it successful) conclusions about life?

The hatred that most atheists have is merely a fervently passionate drive to eradicate an amazingly destructive psychological virus that infects those around them thereby dragging down the quality of life for all creatures, this is done out of love for others and hope for freedom for a better tomorrow.

Sounds like the hate is in you more so than who you're talking about.

So much for tolerance.

You can't be tolerant if you don't understand someone's beliefs. You do not understand and hate a book you have never read, but pull talking points from people that haven't read it either.

That is the kind of thinking that taints the world....so you are right, but the problem is that not just fake Christians litter it. So do people who speak of tolerance and then use the word hate to scare people into thinking like them.

"So do people who speak of tolerance and then use the word hate to scare people into thinking like them."

Uh, yeah, that DOES sound like a lot of christians I've known!

Technically you don't have to die to win a Darwin. You just have to make sure you can't reproduce and that you haven't already reproduced or that you destroy any offspring you have sired in the event of either killing or sterilizing yourself.

Well, yes, that's true, but most are posthumous, I gather.

At any rate, they are all deserved.

how are they the same?

Well you get paid for the nobel, and you get paid... oh, never mind.

Well you typically make some kind of breakthrough that significantly furthers the human race for a nobel prize. For a Darwin award you typically have to do something really stupid that a normal person would think is really stupid and/or dangerous and accidentally remove yourself from the gene pool without successfully passing on your DNA before you do.

So really they are both about furthering the human race, one just has fewer winners and pays better.

They are both meaningless and typically liberals win these awards.

Yeah, I can see how that would make a wingnut just a wee bit jealous and dismissive.

Of an award that continues to depreciate?

Well the Darwin Awards have been getting pretty bland as of late.

You're completely wrong in your argument, we as humans actually do think of ourselves as the top of the food chain.

We are at the top of OUR food chain , kind of difficult to be humble about that , until you consider viruses and bacteria and such .

never heard a statement that ignorant before.

we are the top of the food chain! not always great to think about, but it doesn't take much to realize.

I agre with you on Saramago, he's really worth reading; I don't think Zeigeist is a very reliable source, though... Don't get me wrong, it might in fact help expand one's horizons but I think it should be seen with extreme caution and constant questioning. Just sayin'...

ur right, its not the most viable source, but it sure does make a hell of an argument. i'm not saying listen to the whole movie as truth, but you simpoly cannot deny the patterns of the universe. the universe is the only true god. its what people are wroshipping even when they think they're worshipping an actual person.

poeple also need to start celebrating themselves instead of this totally fucked system of lies and manipulation

???

If the source isn't reliable, then why rely on it at all?

If it falsely leads people to worship a false deity, that's ok?

Sorry, that makes no sense.

i take what i said back. zeitgeist IS a credible, reliable, viable source. its a simple explanation of the phenomenons of the universe which are the underlaying of the first pagan rituals and beliefs. every religion has pretty much just given different names and titles for the SAME events that happen.

the fact that this nobel prize winner is slamming the bibnle is actually very reassuring cuz it shows that not just "crazy" people denounce the bible. the bible is simply a tool of manipulation that is used by the ruling class, church, politicians, etc, to control the masses.

problem is most people are too ignorant, or just dont want to believe that they're part of this corrupt system. they figure paying the church with weekly dues will forgive them of their sins... but what they dont think about is why they should be seeking forgiveness for their lack of curiosity in the church and ITS credibility...

worship the sun, not the son (of god), worship the seasons, cherish the planet, live life to the fullest, dont go to church, just be a good person and all else will just work itself out.

Let me just put this out there...a historic Jesus never existed. The book 'The Jesus Puzzle' by Earl Doherty lays it all out using the Bible itself. Very illuminating. Or just listen to 'Bible Geek' podcast with Robert Price. That dude forgets more about the Bible and Christianity then most people have ever known.

Thank you, hp, it's about time someone had the courage to say it!

The only thing that really needs to be said here is that Zeitgeist's first part is so filled with inaccuracy and poor scholarship that it is quite thoroughly useless.

The individual concepts (such as a pagan origin for certain aspects of Christianity) are not necessarily unarguable, but the fact of the matter is that the video mangles this and other fringe theories and tenuously strings it all together.

Please do some independent research into the claims made by the video, and you will find that the vast majority of the theories included in some way, shape or form have been discredited or disregarded by the scholarly community and are held only by scholars on the fringe or by those who flock to theories of conspiracy.

I love penguins...they have their own book...

I have found a ancient scroll in my backyard that reads.......'Noah threw them off the ark because of their wild ways and strange sexual inclinations.'

"just a book"?

Not what the christians say. They call it the greatest story ever told, the world's best seller, and other bombastic names.

Its content HAS affected the world's history, to major affect, and not always to the good. Hardly a book to be dismissed as unimportant.

Any book so badly written so as to require "expert" interpretation is always going to be controversial and get distorted. The US has, what, 30,000 different denominations, each interpreting the bible in its own little parochial way. Not to mention that if you get ten christians and give them the same verse, you may likely get ten different interpretations of that same verse.

Not a book to instill a lot of confidence in an open minded, rational reader.

I know a lot of liberal christians dismiss the stuff they morally disagree with. In a modern, educated society, that is only to be expected, but in reality, if one looks at the things it really contains and the attitudes it displays towards those that do not adhere to its structures, its moral compass is a little skewed by modern standards.

Ask yourself: what standards do liberal christian denominations use when they dismiss the "bad" stuff? You know what I mean, the verses that promote slavery, stoning adulterers, killing snarky teens, not eating certain foods, and so forth.

If those standards are not in the bible, if we are going to ignore some stuff but adhere to others, WHERE do those standards come from? What is the rationale?

If the book is going to promote outmoded values such as slavery, stoning and outright conquering of neighboring States, then why do we speak of it as being a good moral compass?

Of the Ten Commandments, depending on which version of the bible you use, only the last 3 or 4 have anything to do with real morality pertaining to human interactions or relationships. The rest ALL pertain to religious restrictions such as keeping the Sabbath, not worshiping other gods, and so forth.

Of those three or four, NONE of them were introduced as NEW by the hebrew religion, or the christians who co-opted the Talmud as their old Testament.

So tell me again, just how IS the bible any kind of a moral teacher, other than of Stone Age values?

Jeez, that rant was totally uncalled for. I never said it's a moral teacher. I said you should blame the people who wrote the book and the people who use the book as a means to show their own hatred. The book is inanimate, the people do the harm.

But without the book, where would that excuse come from? (I am not targeting you here, particularly, but I want to get this in here for general information.)

Yes, its the people, but at some point, the continued use of it as an instrument of oppression stains it beyond repair.

My point is to point out the harm that is possible, and why that harm comes from - a book. it isn't that it is "just a book", but what things are taught in that book that do the harm.

Yes, anything can be misinterpreted, but the more antiquated the language, the more open to misinterpretation it is - and THIS book is unique because of the lack of real evidence as to what the content was when it was first put together, and the amount of changes that have been made to it over the centuries.

In reality, it is not a book, but a compilation of documents, very few of which we actually know who the authors were. Many of them are KNOWN to be forgeries, and have been so acknowledged as such by biblical scholars for over a century in some cases.

Take the writings of Paul, for instance, Of some 19 letters (if I remember correctly) only 7 are thought to be actually written by Paul. The others are acknowledged to be forgeries, written by we don't know who. Of those seven, even today, some three or so are beginning to be seen as possible forgeries, though that is disputed hotly.

In addition, the ONLY place where we have any information about Paul is - wait for it - from Paul's letters! I don't count Acts, because Acts is now acknowledged to have been written AFTER those letters, by one of the authors of one of the forgeries, and may have been the same guy that wrote one of the late gospels.

There is no information anywhere on just who Paul was. No verification of his birthright, where he was born, whether he really was a roman citizen, or any contemporary records of his existence at all. Just in christian writings.

Same thing with all of the others. The gospels weren't written by the disciples, either, they were anonymously written at different times, perhaps as much as a hundred years apart.

The guy that wrote Revelations was said to be a church bishop, but that isn't known for sure, and anyway, even in the early church, he was considered a loon. The book wasn't added to the canon until the thirteenth century!

So why would anybody see this as a "moral source" at all?

It isn't even good literature, except for a couple of the old testament books, and I'd bet that they've lost quite a bit upon translation!

"But without the book, where would that excuse come from?"

The blame put on religion for being such a motivator of injustice when used/misused by its recipients is really much too strong. The idea that without religion, some sort of relief would be found is an illusion. Mankind is inherently divisive, and if not for religion, the cause would likely fall on what is, in reality, the true cause of most of the conflict found in humanity's history: the finite nature of resources, such as real estate, arable land, and in the most general sense, wealth.

Even beyond that, behavioral studies in children show that we tend to adopt an "us vs. them" mentality, even when the reason is superficial and nebulous.

Yes, this book can be used to cause harm. Religion in general can be used to cause harm. But it is relatively rare that this alone is the cause of conflict, if at least on a historical scale (and saying so would be like saying the involvement of the United States in the wars of the past century were really all in the name of "freedom" and the promotion of democracy).

There will never be an absence of cause, unless by some means we can make resources unlimited and freely accessible. And who knows beyond that?

"Yes, anything can be misinterpreted, but the more antiquated the language, the more open to misinterpretation it is"

Yes, but this ignores the simple fact that the elements, when written, were not at all antiquated (and most often were written in the language of the common people). The main issue, then, is the preservation of archaic language against living ones, which does make interpretation more of a task.

However, that is why there is an emphasis in traditional branches of Christianity on the preservation of historical interpretation- that is, the idea that the Church holds the meaning of the words clearly because it not only interpreted them in the context of the time and the language of the time, but in the very fact that the creeds of the ancient Church were established before the books found in the Bible were assembled into their known form and canonized.

I don't want to get too far into the subject, because it really does get dull and rather wordy at points, but the book(s) were intended to be without separation from their interpretive body. Think what you may about that idea, but that was the intention.

"Take the writings of Paul, for instance, Of some 19 letters (if I remember correctly) only 7 are thought to be actually written by Paul. The others are acknowledged to be forgeries, written by we don't know who. Of those seven, even today, some three or so are beginning to be seen as possible forgeries, though that is disputed hotly."

The total is 14. The authenticity of the 7 is not actually 'hotly disputed', although that may have been the case in the mid-nineteenth century when suggestion of only 4 being authentic arose.

The only letter with near unanimity in its identification as a forgery is Hebrews, and another 4 are considered so by a majority of scholars. 2 others are split down the middle in terms of how they are placed.

"The gospels weren't written by the disciples, either, they were anonymously written at different times, perhaps as much as a hundred years apart."

I know of no scholars that seriously consider this to be the case. Amongst the majority of scholars the latest date for the composition of the Gospels (John, specifically) is 110.

"[Revelation] wasn't added to the canon until the thirteenth century!"

This is untrue. Though its inclusion was contested at the time, it was ultimately included in the canon along with the rest of the New Testament in the 4th century.

Well, that's all I wanted to point out. I don't really intend to argue with you, but since I spent a bit of time studying this subject I wanted to point out what I saw as a few clear errors (other ideas you put forward are arguable) in your post.

Of course, the first response was mostly my own analysis of things.

The assignment was for 4 pages, double spaced. Turtle, I'll have to knock off a grade point since yours is only 3. Rwahren, yours is complete.

However, you both turned it in to the wrong place.

... and bible-lovers aren't?

Pot, kettle, black.

LOL!!

Nope. They aren't. Not if they actually understand what they believe instead of using it to control other people or make themselves feel better. I have a lot of friends who are gay or strong "non-believers" in whatever sense, and they all know exactly where I stand. But, we're still all friends. I except them the same way they have to except me.

except or accept?

... Likewise, I know what I believe, and I don't force my beliefs on others, unlike this person here who is trying to force his religion of atheism onto my beliefs.

Atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of religion.

Nice point Nettle. Sad that has to be explained time and time again.

"Atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of religion."

While I agree with you here, I think the real problem is the semantics of the statement.

Opposition to the above wording is justified, but replacing 'religion' with 'belief' will net nearly as much uproar without any real cause.

In those cases, I'm afraid that non-religious individuals tend to see 'belief' as being a bogeyman term which unduly categorizes them with those that profess a belief in a God or whatever may be beyond that concept.

The common claim is that one is not a possessor of an element, but the non-possessor. However, actual non-possession is only possible to those completely alien to the concept of belief itself.

If you are aware of a concept, and warrant enough credit to oppose it intellectually, then you still possess a belief, or a creed if you choose.

The separation between believers and non-believers, in those terms, is an illusion of context. If the base idea was that there is no divinity, then those who held to the idea of the existence of such an entity would be the non-believers.

What a mess of words this all is. I suppose the point is that while it is quite a stretch to place atheism in the category of a 'religion' (though for some individuals the difference is merely superficial), the opposition to atheism as a 'belief' is without such strong support. I don't bring this up to accuse you of suggesting anything I'm speaking against here, but I'm simply moving along with the idea as I have a fervently atheist friend who opposes the use of all such terms.

Anyway, I hope I made sense.

No. It didn't. Sorry.

Atheism is a belief/religion. Because there is no absolute proof that there is or that there is not a God makes both of our beliefs faiths. Insult the enemy as much as you want. Facts are facts... you place faith in a religion.

You're not anyone's enemy.

Atheism - "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Religion - "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism =/= Religion

You've clearly never read the Bible, and have never talked to a normal theist. Shame.

The Bible teaches love for your fellow man. It teaches that hard work is rewarded. It teaches kindness, compassion, faith, and above all, to treat people how you want to be treated.

If these are "bad morals," I'd love to hear what this asshole thinks are good morals...

So the moral of, "let the horny and potentially violent village folk rape my own daughters rather than the angels who came to visit," is a good moral? Or am I taking that story out of context?

When you read Of Mice and Men, did you take from it that you should go out and kill people if you have mental instabilities?

When you read Fight Club, did you think it was OK to blow up a credit building to level the slate for everybody?

When you read The Alchemist, did you think it was OK to make arab women wait on you hand and foot?

The mature, objective reader takes away from the Bible what is applicable to their own life, in their own time, just like you do with *all books*.

The problem is that the bible is supposed to be a book with lessons that guide peoples lives. Fight Club and Of Mice and Men were not, nor do people take them that way.

seems as if you are a practicing bigot towards people of faith. Thank you for contradicting yourself

"Fight Club and Of Mice and Men were not, nor do people take them that way."

Who says that's true? You can take anything away from a book that you want to. I know that Fight Club certainly gave me a new perspective on worry, material possession, and passion.

The Bible is a book that has taught many people solid life lessons, so it has that description constantly attached to it. It was also written a LONG time ago, so of course the culture was different then.

You actually got moral insight from Fight Club that advanced your life in some significant way? I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that nobody went out and blew up abandoned buildings because of a message that was read from the story.

As far as the bible goes, people have been prosecuted, executed and tortured because of stories in the book. Witches have been burned because the book says witches are evil. Science had been held back for centuries because it was unthinkable to question the books concepts of origins and knowledge of how the universe works. What other books that are not of a religious context have done so much potential damage to the evolution of the human society?