darth_ender

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Now consider the nature of much older societies. They found stability in their societies in different ways than today. Some found homosexuality to be wrong and sex with fourteen year-old females to be acceptable (and in fact preferable, when the life expectancy was much shorter). Who are you to tell an ancient society what is right or wrong?

Well, it’s kind of our job to see what was right and wrong in ancient civilizations.

It was not always wrong. It was in fact the better thing at the time. Where is the universal law that says pedophilia is wrong? There is none. It is wrong because we believe that sex should be consensual between those capable of making intelligent decisions (adults). But in ancient times, fully (or even mostly) developed frontal lobes were of secondary consequence, and survival of humanity took a front seat. Hence, marriage to young females was okay. My point here is that we cannot judge ancient societies by modern standards, and that they were within their right, as a society, to define what was sexually acceptable and what was not. We have changed in our modern interpretation, and that interpretation will likely change more over the centuries, where you may one day look like a backwards barbarian, but the fact remains that societies can define sexuality as they define all other rights and wrongs, and you should not measure them by your yardstick.

I think it’s OK to judge the actions of a previous generation based on our modern yardstick. Isn’t that the whole point of history?

Then there has not been a good human alive till the early 20th century.

No, man! You can’t judge them by your standards. If I owned a black slave, you could rightly call me an evil man. But if you call Thomas Jefferson an evil man, I’ll slap you silly! Different products of different times.

People 100 years from now will call you evil because your morals will differ from theirs. Do you think they will be right?

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

So how would you portray God? Do you take issue with other people’s interpretations?

Yes, but do I hate them for it? I know you do.

I only hate them for it when their interpretation promotes hate.

I’m sure you can at least agree with Jesus when he said, “Love thine enemies.” You don’t have to hate them just because you disagree with them. You don’t have to hate them, even when they hate you, or hate gays, or anyone else who doesn’t deserve their hate.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

So how would you portray God? Do you take issue with other people’s interpretations?

Yes, but do I hate them for it? I know you do.

Woah, where did I say that?

This is really my trying to drive my point that those who think, “I have many religious friends, I just hate religion,” is not bigoted. You said you hate religion. I say that such is bigotry.

It’s like saying, “I have many black friends, I just hate their culture.”

This has been my analogy from the get go.

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

I’m just saying that I believe the Bible is the word of God as conveyed by mortals, and thus may be subject to human error.

I’m not sure that you got my T. Rex reference, but it’s all good, get it on (bang a gong). In all seriousness though, how can the Bible be the word of God if it’s corrupted by mortals? You have no idea what is and isn’t properly preserved.

Did God write the Bible with his own hands?

No, mortals did. I believe it to be true, but I also believe it to be the work of his flawed creations. Clearly you cannot believe it to be literal and flawless in every way.

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Let me ask you an honest pair of questions. Yes, of course there will be follow-up, though it may be several days before I can spare a few minutes to return to this. Here they are:

Has religion contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Evil things are done in the name of religion, but that does not make them speak for all religion. Nor do all religious or religious people bear the sins of those who have committed evil in their name.

Also, just because crimes are committed by people who are religious does not mean you can ascribe their crime to being religious.

So ultimately, while evil has contributed evil to this world, I caution you not to paint all of religion as evil based on what some have done with it.

Has atheism contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

Not that I know of, but I assume you’re gonna refer to the Communist regime of Stalin. As far as I know, the actions of Stalin were not committed in the name of atheism, he did it because he wanted power. Stripping people’s religion from them was an effective demoralization tactic, so that’s what he did. And it’s not like communist Russia was a godless society, their god was the state. Bear in mind, I don’t know a whole lot about communist Russia.

Now there are points where I would bring up Communist regimes like the USSR, but I wasn’t planning on doing so yet. Since you brought it up, however, let’s go ahead and address it.

First, it’s always easiest to state that the Soviet Union exercised a religion wherein the state was the object of worship. Really that would be more accurate of Fascism/Nazism, whereas there was more of a personality cult surrounding Lenin and Stalin, and there was an ideology that demanded exclusive devotion. One could not be a member of any political party except the Communist Party, and anything else was seen as disloyal. But such excuses do not pardon the fact that this was a nation that actively fought against belief in God or other organized “traditional” religion. There were no rites, holy books, or prayers. What existed was propaganda, suppression of dissension, and cover-ups of the crimes of the leaders and the Union as a whole. But the nation was, for all intents and purposes, actively atheist.

Which leads to my second point: any ideology can be used for evil. How many atheists have called for the destruction of religion. Look at the likes of Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others. They cling not only to an ideology, but in fact are so firm in their conviction, so aggressive in their stance, so negative in their rhetoric, so once-sided in their arguments that…one could almost consider them a religion! Sure, they are not as severe as the USSR, but really the same ideological purity exists on a lighter level there. But how tolerant are they of other viewpoints? Do you think they put up with atheist fortune tellers? Atheist Jains, Buddhists, or Confucianists? Atheist conspiracy theorists? No, they demand that their viewpoint is correct, and others are, for lack of a better term, heretical. Really, in a world where their viewpoint took hold, I don’t believe it’s too slippery a slope to anticipate a slide towards Soviet levels of atheist purity. Either join with our ideology, or be persecuted!

Such are the dangers of ideological purity, and thus the flaw in thinking that atheism is somehow immune to this by virtue of not being a religion.

But to return to my original reason for asking these questions, let’s recap:

Yes, there is evil committed because of religion.

However, as atheism is not an ideology (supposedly), there cannot be any evil because of it.

But then it begs the questions:

What good has religion contributed to the world?

And if atheism is not an ideology and cannot contribute evil, then how can atheism contribute any good?

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

moviefreakedmind said:
Until a group of insane Christians occupy territory the size of small countries and start flying planes into buildings, let’s stop with the ISIS comparisons.

Yes, because the Crusades…never happened

This is the mindset that irritates me. You can’t take historical documents and evaluate them based on today’s moral standards and then wonder why they aren’t as pretty as John Lennon’s Imagine.

I’m pretty sure the merit of a deity’s moral code should be immune to the passing of time. Pretty much if his morals were right then they should be right now because he’s God.

EDIT:

Also I’m sure it was Al-Qaeda that brought down the WTC

Let me pose a separate set of questions here.

These questions weren’t directed at me, but what the heck.

I don’t know your family situation, but let’s assume you have young children. What do you teach them about lying? Stealing? Modesty? Strangers? I’m guessing you lay down some pretty concrete rules for your kids. All these things are always wrong.

Now let me ask you, are there times when lying is not only acceptable, but in fact the higher law? What about stealing? Is nudity acceptable at times that your kids are unaware of, especially as an adult? Do you talk to strangers?

Yes, there are times when these things are better than the other options. In an ideal world, there would always be another way, but it’s not an ideal world, so you might have too do thee things.

So why the difference in the rules? Perhaps your children don’t have the understanding of complex situations that adults do.

True.

Now you are right, God must have a universal set of morals, his highest existing laws. But throughout the past, and even today, is it possible that mankind has not been, and even now is not, ready for his ultimate highest set of laws? Is it possible, assuming God exists, that he works within a moral framework that his mortal followers, who really are like uncomprehending children to him, can understand?

Well, humanity has screwed up a lot of things over the years, so I think if God did exist, we have never been and will never be able to understand his ultimate moral compass.

I am happy to see we agree on this. Assuming God is real, we will never understand his ultimate moral set. But he gives us what we can handle. The ancient Hebrews could not comprehend what we, as older children, but still exceedingly young and immature children (per my analogy), can today.

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:
I appreciate you at least starting to use that noodle of yours, since you’re obviously so much more intelligent than the ignorant morons who profess a belief in the divine.

Unwarranted assumption is unwarranted. I have never said or even fucking alluded to any of that so you are once again pulling things from ass.

You’ve clearly assumed it, but whatever, I’m too busy to find examples right now, so let’s just assume you really are giving religious people, myself included, fair consideration as intelligent human beings.

However, are you obstinately devoted to your view?

Nope. Like everything my view is subject to change. In this case it is very very unlikely that someone could convince me that a book the calls for the death of everyone who is not a straight believer of Yahweh, demeans women, is a perversion of reality as Science has so clearly pointed out etc. is anything worth while in this day and age.

I am not referring to your ignorant generalizations of the Bible, I am referring to the fact that you literally said, “I hate Christianity.”

Are you intolerant of religion (and by extension, its adherents)?

This is the part where I say I hate Religion and not it’s people due to the fact I have had a multitude of friends and former girlfriends who are religious and my family members who I love dearly are nearly all religious. And then you’ll pull out that “so you hate sin and not the sinner” and to that weak argument I have only this to say.

“Its” should have no apostrophe here.

I don’t have time for a youtube video. I will simply say that if it was racist of me to say I hate black culture, it is equally hateful of you to hate religion. That was why I used my dramatic example. I have little time to post here, so I wanted to get some attention and draw the parallel that if you hate the chosen culture of a people, you in many ways are hating on the people themselves. Sorry youtube video, and sorry Lord Haseo.

That’s like me saying that someone who hates GoT must hate all of it’s fans by proxy which is shows you have the inability to accept other people’s opinions regarding what you’re fond of. Something like that is akin to a mindset of a child which is rather sad because there’s a good chance you are far older than I am.

Boy, you sure know a lot about me for having interacted with me so little and really not understanding my posting history. Nice assumptions.

Furthermore, that baffling argument is not even comparable to something like murder, rape or thievery which are truly detestable acts and simply being religious is not even close.

Not even sure why you bring this up, honestly. I am calling your hatred of Christianity bigotry. Why did you even say this?

Are you expressing prejudice based on your perspective and a limited sample?

If I hadn’t of said that there were good things about the Bible and just fixated on the negative then yes. But on the other hand I have also said those things can be found in other mediums.

I’m naturally an English perfectionist, but I’m trying not to even come off snarky. I had to delete some corrections here. My apologies.

But here I want to reassure you that I didn’t call you a bigot for hating the Bible. I am calling you a bigot for literally stating, “I hate Christianity.”

Are you singling out a particular group?

A book is a group. Since when?

Christians are a group (which happen to fall under that umbrella of Christianity, which you hate).

Have you expressed hatred towards that group?

^

The answer to each question is yes. And then you have the audacity to say that the definition doesn’t support my accusations.

Most humorously, however, is your insistence on my sensitivity. While at times I’ve become quite upset on these very boards for what some have written, I have not even had my pulse quicken. I may have been harsh in my wording, but such was not out of anger. I actually can see decent conversations with an atheist like Jeebus. I have enjoyed many conversations with CP3S in the past, a very adamant atheist. But you literally offer nothing useful in your debates thus far. And you literally, in very definition, are a bigot. I’m sorry, but this you have demonstrated quite vividly, and your sensitivity to my use of the term only further highlights the reality of that bigotry in your heart.

Sensitive ass lol

Citation please? Just because I call it like I see it doesn’t mean I’m being overly sensitive. I have far harder discussions in real life with atheists. Why would I be too sensitive to handle featherweight arguments on an Internet board with people I will never meet in real life?

That said, it would be a lie to say I never get upset on these boards about this topic. In the past I have. But here I truly have not. In the past, I partly attribute it to my over-involvement with the site. But as my life has steered me so much away from here, I find myself caring less and less about others’ opinions here.

EDIT:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

True that. I would prefer intolerance over violence any day.

Yes, you’ve well established your preference for intolerance many times.

^

I guess Star Wars isn’t the only subject that reverts the minds of seemingly mature people into that of entitled, sensitive, pompous and irrational children.

No, I think any firmly held belief can do that. Including atheism.

See: Lord Haseo 😉

Jeebus said:

I think it’s funny when two people go at each other calling each other mad.

“Why are you so mad, dude, calm down.”

“I’m not mad, you’re obviously mad and projecting your madness onto me, just calm down dude.”

“Woah dude, calm down, no need to get so mad.”

Seriously man, look at our two ends of the conversation. I admit I am deliberately insulting, but I also fail to use strong language. I don’t swear, don’t berate, don’t resort to simple attack. I insult him a bit, then I debate him. I read his posts and I sense a great deal of anger in the words he puts up there.

That said, it is a poor example of me to be so insulting. I really don’t like his attitude. He simply has this, “I’m right, so there,” kind of approach. But I should still strive to be the bigger person. But you on the other hand are a much more enjoyable debating opponent, and I hope you’ll continue to contribute.

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:
I appreciate you at least starting to use that noodle of yours, since you’re obviously so much more intelligent than the ignorant morons who profess a belief in the divine.

Unwarranted assumption is unwarranted. I have never said or even fucking alluded to any of that so you are once again pulling things from ass.

However, are you obstinately devoted to your view?

Nope. Like everything my view is subject to change. In this case it is very very unlikely that someone could convince me that a book the calls for the death of everyone who is not a straight believer of Yahweh, demeans women, is a perversion of reality as Science has so clearly pointed out etc. is anything worth while in this day and age.

Are you intolerant of religion (and by extension, its adherents)?

This is the part where I say I hate Religion and not it’s people due to the fact I have had a multitude of friends and former girlfriends who are religious and my family members who I love dearly are nearly all religious. And then you’ll pull out that “so you hate sin and not the sinner” and to that weak argument I have only this to say.

That’s like me saying that someone who hates GoT must hate all of it’s fans by proxy which is shows you have the inability to accept other people’s opinions regarding what you’re fond of. Something like that is akin to a mindset of a child which is rather sad because there’s a good chance you are far older than I am.

Furthermore, that baffling argument is not even comparable to something like murder, rape or thievery which are truly detestable acts and simply being religious is not even close.

Are you expressing prejudice based on your perspective and a limited sample?

If I hadn’t of said that there were good things about the Bible and just fixated on the negative then yes. But on the other hand I have also said those things can be found in other mediums.

Are you singling out a particular group?

A book is a group. Since when?

Have you expressed hatred towards that group?

^

The answer to each question is yes. And then you have the audacity to say that the definition doesn’t support my accusations.

Most humorously, however, is your insistence on my sensitivity. While at times I’ve become quite upset on these very boards for what some have written, I have not even had my pulse quicken. I may have been harsh in my wording, but such was not out of anger. I actually can see decent conversations with an atheist like Jeebus. I have enjoyed many conversations with CP3S in the past, a very adamant atheist. But you literally offer nothing useful in your debates thus far. And you literally, in very definition, are a bigot. I’m sorry, but this you have demonstrated quite vividly, and your sensitivity to my use of the term only further highlights the reality of that bigotry in your heart.

Sensitive ass lol

EDIT:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

True that. I would prefer intolerance over violence any day.

Yes, you’ve well established your preference for intolerance many times.

^

I guess Star Wars isn’t the only subject that reverts the minds of seemingly mature people into that of entitled, sensitive, pompous and irrational children.

Well, I literally am out of time. But I can’t help but laugh at your (over)reaction. Mark my words, I’ll give you a good reply. But meanwhile, rest assured that I am calm, and you are not, which is an indication of who is truly overly sensitive.

Note to ywhx, this last bit is ad hominem, as it does not address the issue, but merely attempts to defeat argument by attacking the man. I point this out to you because you, feeling like Lord Haseo, would not point out his faults. To really hold a legitimate point of view, you must be willing to challenge your own views. I do not see you as willing to do so.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Just because a Christian perceives homosexuality as sin doesn’t mean he is justified in any level of intolerance, and just because an atheist/agnostic knows a Christian sees it as sin doesn’t mean that Christian is hateful. See _ender, darth.

The point is that calling it a sin can (in certain deranged people’s minds) justify hate and violence, and that makes it hate by extension at the least.

I really hope that the modern-day Pharisees will come to see things differently. I believe loving our neighbors should always prevail as God’s second highest law (to loving him of course), trumping any interpretation of what is sin.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

That’s what I would say, and I’m sure what joe meant. If God exists, he/she/it is not an asshole by definition. But the God that many people choose to believe in sure seems like an asshole about certain things.

Fair enough. But most atheists hate God, hate the belief in him, hate religion, and chalk it all up to hate, in their own hypocritical, hate-filled generalization. And that’s what his comments came off as to me. God is quite loving. We humans are at fault.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

joefavs said:

Is no one going to bring up how insane it is that religion allows people to feel entitled to any opinion at all about other people’s sexuality?

Actually it doesn’t do that. Religion tells people what to think about other people’s sexuality.

Do you tell anyone what to think about their sexuality? I bet you do.

Do I?

Please enlighten me.

Do you support statutory rape laws? Do you allow your daughters to engage in sexual activities with other minors? Do you support polygamous marriages? Do you believe children’s cartoons should be restored to their original form with large-breasted, barely covered female characters? Do you believe that women should not be idolized as sex objects? Do you believe clothing should be worn in public? Do you support abusive sexual relationships?

Now while these do not equate to consensual homosexual sex

You’re right, they don’t.

For the record, the answers to your questions are yes, not relevant yet but no, yes, don’t care but think it’s stupid, yes but don’t think it should be law, yes but it wouldn’t bother me the other way if that’s what society decided was appropriate, no.

the fact I am trying to point out is that you do in fact try to tell people how their sex lives should be. Now consider the nature of much older societies. They found stability in their societies in different ways than today. Some found homosexuality to be wrong and sex with fourteen year-old females to be acceptable (and in fact preferable, when the life expectancy was much shorter). Who are you to tell an ancient society what is right or wrong?

I’m not. I’m telling current society what is wrong.

And that is okay. Just don’t hate the religion for a few sticking points. Society is changing and people are becoming more tolerant. And my points are valid for good reason. We have to define right and wrong as a society, and our definition is in the midst of great change. And I’m okay with that. But there is still so much good religion contributes as its adherents struggle to make sense between their understanding of a changing society and interpretation of God’s intent. Even if they oppose homosexuality as an action, Jesus was very clear that the sin is not as important as the person, and Christians should be as willing to dine with sinners as Christ was. It was the intolerant, rigid interpreters of the law that Christ condemned.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

darthrush said:

Frink is right about religions promoting hate. As a ex Mormon I found many of our principles promote hate. Though we say to hate the sin and not the sinner, if the sin (homosexuality) is inherently apart of that persons identity then you can’t cover up the fact that you are promoting hate.

As an active Mormon who is very tolerant, I disagree.

In your estimation how many Mormons would you say are intolerant? In the context of this discussion, one individual doesn’t matter. We need a a large sample size.

I’ll leave the statistical analysis to you. All I have is anecdotal evidence, and you love to crunch numbers.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah it’s a sin, but if you don’t believe that then what does it matter?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final

18.7 percent were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation.

Giving people reason to hate is not a good idea. See Trump, Donald.

I happen to be very sympathetic to the plights of the LGTB community. I do believe in tolerance. I in fact hold the opinion that gay marriage should be legal for many reasons which I do not have the time to discuss here. I agree with Frink wholheartedly on this post.

Believing something is sinful, however, is not the same as justifying bias against sexual orientation. How many adulterers are victims due to what Christians consider a sin? How many fornicators? How many liars?

Just because a Christian perceives homosexuality as sin doesn’t mean he is justified in any level of intolerance, and just because an atheist/agnostic knows a Christian sees it as sin doesn’t mean that Christian is hateful. See _ender, darth.

Well, you can’t change people, and many people think that just because they perceive homosexuality as a sin, they are justified in intolerance.

Sadly you are right. I believe we can still teach intolerant religious folks to be more tolerant without hating the religion and the good it does and the many noble qualities of many of its believers.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

So how would you portray God? Do you take issue with other people’s interpretations?

Yes, but do I hate them for it? I know you do.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

I have insulted him, then systematically argued his points.

You did.

Someone get this man a medal!

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

joefavs said:

Is no one going to bring up how insane it is that religion allows people to feel entitled to any opinion at all about other people’s sexuality?

Actually it doesn’t do that. Religion tells people what to think about other people’s sexuality.

Do you tell anyone what to think about their sexuality? I bet you do.

Do I?

Please enlighten me.

Do you support statutory rape laws? Do you allow your daughters to engage in sexual activities with other minors? Do you support polygamous marriages? Do you believe children’s cartoons should be restored to their original form with large-breasted, barely covered female characters? Do you believe that women should not be idolized as sex objects? Do you believe clothing should be worn in public? Do you support abusive sexual relationships?

Now while these do not equate to consensual homosexual sex, the fact I am trying to point out is that you do in fact try to tell people how their sex lives should be.

‘Do you support regulations on food safety? You’re telling corporations how to do business!’

Very good. You see my point, whether you realize it or not.

Now consider the nature of much older societies. They found stability in their societies in different ways than today. Some found homosexuality to be wrong and sex with fourteen year-old females to be acceptable (and in fact preferable, when the life expectancy was much shorter). Who are you to tell an ancient society what is right or wrong?

Well, it’s kind of our job to see what was right and wrong in ancient civilizations.

It was not always wrong. It was in fact the better thing at the time. Where is the universal law that says pedophilia is wrong? There is none. It is wrong because we believe that sex should be consensual between those capable of making intelligent decisions (adults). But in ancient times, fully (or even mostly) developed frontal lobes were of secondary consequence, and survival of humanity took a front seat. Hence, marriage to young females was okay. My point here is that we cannot judge ancient societies by modern standards, and that they were within their right, as a society, to define what was sexually acceptable and what was not. We have changed in our modern interpretation, and that interpretation will likely change more over the centuries, where you may one day look like a backwards barbarian, but the fact remains that societies can define sexuality as they define all other rights and wrongs, and you should not measure them by your yardstick.

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Christianity (or at least Christianity based solely on the Bible) is inherently “anti-gay” in the sense that it claims homosexual relations are ungodly. I don’t see how any churches can honestly get around the fact that it’s made clear in both New and Old Testaments.

If you interpret it as the literal word of God as it fell flawlessly from his lips to parchment, then it is. But many faiths actually hold more liberal interpretations. I’m sure you don’t believe women shouldn’t speak at all in church.

All I believe for sure is that you won’t fool the children of the revolution. I don’t see how verses relating to homosexuality in the Bible could be interpreted any other way than as condemning. I’m under the impression that the line in 1 Tim. is referring to woman pastors/church leaders. There are instances in Acts relating to female missionaries and church servicewomen.

I’m just saying that I believe the Bible is the word of God as conveyed by mortals, and thus may be subject to human error.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

Jeebus said:

[Jeebus] said: (post/id/963229)

The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.

How is that anti-religion or bigoted at all?

Because he’s religious and the only way in his mind that he can see people hating religion is being afflicted with the symptoms of being a zealot or having dogmatic hatred. So I guess if you hate the feminazi rhetoric that means you’re bigoted because reasons.

Very intelligent post. Since you do not actually argue my points with any skill, I’ll just continue believing I was right about you.

There’s nothing to really argue. You’re throwing out baseless claims because you’re overly sensitive about your religion.

Nothing to argue? More likely you’re too lazy or stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

And not all religions, even within Christianity, are as anti-gay as you portray. But then, that would avoid stereotyping religion.

There were some branches of Hinduism that didn’t mind it. Greek paganism and the British end of Quakerism but generally speaking almost all religions are down on homosexuality, even the Buddhists.

Many atheist groups have been in the past as well. But that doesn’t mean any of them have to stay that way. I personally hope for much more tolerance.

Lord Haseo said:

True that. I would prefer intolerance over violence any day.

Yes, you’ve well established your preference for intolerance many times.

darthrush said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The Crusades are a go-to thing to complain about.

For good reason.

Let’s all generalize how evil atheists are based on the crimes of the Soviet Union and North Korea, everyone!

Lord Haseo said:

moviefreakedmind said:
Until a group of insane Christians occupy territory the size of small countries and start flying planes into buildings, let’s stop with the ISIS comparisons.

Yes, because the Crusades…never happened

This is the mindset that irritates me. You can’t take historical documents and evaluate them based on today’s moral standards and then wonder why they aren’t as pretty as John Lennon’s Imagine.

I’m pretty sure the merit of a deity’s moral code should be immune to the passing of time. Pretty much if his morals were right then they should be right now because he’s God.

EDIT:

Also I’m sure it was Al-Qaeda that brought down the WTC

Let me pose a separate set of questions here. I don’t know your family situation, but let’s assume you have young children. What do you teach them about lying? Stealing? Modesty? Strangers? I’m guessing you lay down some pretty concrete rules for your kids. All these things are always wrong.

Now let me ask you, are there times when lying is not only acceptable, but in fact the higher law? What about stealing? Is nudity acceptable at times that your kids are unaware of, especially as an adult? Do you talk to strangers?

So why the difference in the rules? Perhaps your children don’t have the understanding of complex situations that adults do.

Now you are right, God must have a universal set of morals, his highest existing laws. But throughout the past, and even today, is it possible that mankind has not been, and even now is not, ready for his ultimate highest set of laws? Is it possible, assuming God exists, that he works within a moral framework that his mortal followers, who really are like uncomprehending children to him, can understand?

darthrush said:

Frink is right about religions promoting hate. As a ex Mormon I found many of our principles promote hate. Though we say to hate the sin and not the sinner, if the sin (homosexuality) is inherently apart of that persons identity then you can’t cover up the fact that you are promoting hate.

As an active Mormon who is very tolerant, I disagree.

This is why religion is harmful to society. People will justify crazy actions because “God” commanded them to do so (ISIS). And now we are seeing certain Christians apply this thinking. Religion hinges on throwing logic away. The bible preaches that you should show trust to Gods commands no matter the consequences. For example, God commanded a man to kill his own son to prove his loyalty. Apply that on a 21st century basis. Some old crackpot Christian says he will kill his son to prove his allegiance to God. That is some sick shit.

Most of Gods actions in the Old Testament prove how much of a asshole he is if he exists.

Let me ask you an honest pair of questions. Yes, of course there will be follow-up, though it may be several days before I can spare a few minutes to return to this. Here they are:

Has religion contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.
Has atheism contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

As a side note, I’d be interested in seeing how impartial you can be, while still promoting your POV.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah it’s a sin, but if you don’t believe that then what does it matter?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final

18.7 percent were targeted because of bias against sexual orientation.

Giving people reason to hate is not a good idea. See Trump, Donald.

I happen to be very sympathetic to the plights of the LGTB community. I do believe in tolerance. I in fact hold the opinion that gay marriage should be legal for many reasons which I do not have the time to discuss here. I agree with Frink wholheartedly on this post.

Believing something is sinful, however, is not the same as justifying bias against sexual orientation. How many adulterers are victims due to what Christians consider a sin? How many fornicators? How many liars?

Just because a Christian perceives homosexuality as sin doesn’t mean he is justified in any level of intolerance, and just because an atheist/agnostic knows a Christian sees it as sin doesn’t mean that Christian is hateful. See _ender, darth.

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.