Um, Why Was "If you believe in God, You're a retard" Locked?

[jcribb16]

To set the record straight, qon, our God is NOT based on the god of Islam.

Yes he is.  All three of the "desert dogmas" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are Abrahamic religions.  Learn something new everyday, eh?

Want to see some of the scary similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible?  http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html#creation (start reading at Creation and go through the 10 Commandments, basic concepts, similar practices, and moral codes)

Tell me what you think of the side-by-side comparisons and then try to tell me again that one of you worships the right god and the other the wrong god. 

*Desert dogma - A derogatory term given to the belief systems of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam;  because these three religions originated in the desert region of the Middle East and are known and criticized for their dogmatic ideologies; term was popularized by a well-known British atheist on YouTube named Pat Condell    (Courtesy of "Urban Dictionary")

Three of the world's major religions -- the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism.

Because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all recognize Abraham as their first prophet, they are also called the Abrahamic religions. 
(Courtesy of "Global Connections")

I will continue in the next post.

[jcribb16]

Post #2, continued:

Judaism's views of Christianity and Islam

Jews do not believe in the prophets after the Jewish prophets, including Jesus and Muhammad. Therefore, they do not subscribe to the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God, nor do they believe in the teachings of Islam.


Christianity's views of Judaism and Islam

Although Christianity developed out of Judaic texts, Christians do not follow Jewish law. Instead, they believe that the ritualistic Jewish law was abrogated in favor of a universal gospel for all of humanity and the Christian teaching, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Christianity has also had a problematic relationship with Islam. Christians do not accept Muhammad as a prophet. While many Christians in the Middle East converted to Islam during and after the seventh century, the Church hierarchy in Rome and Constantinople considered Islam to be both a political and theological threat. The Crusades were an unsuccessful attempt to reverse the Islamic conquest of the eastern Mediterranean and the holy places of all three monotheistic religions.



Islam's views of Judaism and Christianity

Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam, revelations given within the same tradition by Allah but misunderstood over time by their followers. Muslims see Islam as the final, complete, and correct revelation in the monotheistic tradition of the three faiths.

The Islamic tradition recognizes many of the Jewish and Christian prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (although he is not considered to be the son of God). Many non-Muslims mistakenly believe that Muhammad is the equivalent of Jesus in the Islamic tradition; in fact, it is the Quran that stands in the same central position in Islam as Jesus does in Christianity. Muhammad himself is not divine, but a prophet chosen by God to deliver his message and an example of piety to emulate.

(Courtesy of "Global Connections")

****** I say, once again, that as a Christian, OUR God is NOT based on Islam; Islam is developed from Christianity and Judaism.

[shernajwine]

Lessening religion's impact won't cure the world of all its ills, but it will certainly  improve things.  What I meant is that when you have people living in a fantasy world and couple that with destructive nuclear technology, we could all be wiped out.  Will the fairy tales be worth it then?

I think believing the fantasy that there is no God is much more harmful to society.

You like to bring up examples such as the Inquisition and the Crusades. Many other Christians were brought before the Inquisition because they were teaching from the Bible instead of from "officially sanctioned" Roman Catholic Church materials. In addition, the Crusades resulted in "holy" wars between "Christians," Jews, and Moslems. In more modern times, wars have been fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. However, common to all this violence was an underlying struggle for power. Today, some people kill abortionists in the name of God. Are these people unwilling pawns of religion or using religion to justify their own evil agendas?http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

You like to talk about how Hitler was Catholic. Have you read about Hitler's spiritual journey? Have you read anything about Hitler's dabbling in the occult? Are you aware that Hitler persoanlly presented the writings of Nietzche to Stalin and Mussolini? Are you ignoring the fact that others who were not Jewish were also slaughtered by Hitler? Did you read *bleep* mastermind Adolf Eichmann's last words that refused repentance and denied belief in God? Do you know how many Russians were killed by the *bleep* machine? Do you recall Hitler's words inscribed over one of the gas ovens in Auschwits, "I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel"? Do you know that Hitler's point was that the destruction of the weak is a good thing for the survival of the strong and that "nature intended it that way", as is taught by atheistic evolution's tenet of natural selection--"the survival of the fittest". None of these signs of the Holocaust point back to Christianity.

How conveniently the atheist plays word games. When it is Stalin or Pol Pot who does the slaughtering, it is because they are deranged or irrational; their atheism had nothing to do their actions.

Vox Day, in  The Irrational Atheist, lists 22 atheistic regimes that committed 153,368,610 murders in the 20th century alone:
Murders by Atheists (20th Century)
Country   Dates   Murders
Afghanistan   1978–1992   1,750,000
Albania   1944–1985   100,000
Angola   1975–2002   125,000
Bulgaria   1944–1989   222,000
China/PRC   1923–2007   76,702,000
Cuba            1959–1992   73,000
Czechoslovakia   1948–1968   65,000
Ethiopia   1974–1991   1,343,610
France   1793–1794   40,000
Greece   1946–1949   20,000
Hungary   1948–1989   27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia   1973–1991   2,627,000
Laos           1975–2007   93,000
Mongolia   1926–2007   100,000
Mozambique   1975–1990   118,000
North Korea   1948–2007   3,163,000
Poland   1945–1948   1,607,000
Romania   1948–1987   438,000
Spain (Republic)   1936–1939   102,000
U.S.S.R.   1917–1987   61,911,000
Vietnam   1945–2007   1,670,000
Yugoslavia   1944–1980   1,072,000

Yes, "Christians" have committed atrocities against other religious and non-religious people. However, atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined (see more statistics on the web page). Even so, the key factor in these atrocities has been totalitarian power, rather than religion, which has resulted in these hundreds of millions of murders. The Bible says that people are evil, but that they can become transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit to live lives of love, joy and peace.

You can't judge a philosophy by it's abuse.  The decisions and actions of each individual are determined by what is important to that individual. The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violations of or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief.

[shernajwine]

I say, once again, that as a Christian, OUR God is NOT based on Islam; Islam is developed from Christianity and Judaism

I agree jcribb. And in doing studies of Islam and it's origins, I learned that Allah was actually one of several gods who actually had a female consort named Allat. Ironically Allat was regarded as the most powerful and Allah was  a nearly disregarded and forgotten god. Muhammad wished to make conversion to his "religion" easier and in the original writings in the Koran, he wrote verses talking about al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. These became known as "the satanic verses".

Surah 53 reads
     Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
    And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)

Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:

    These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
    Whose intercession is to be hoped for.

But Muhammad soon retracted the reconciliation—how soon is not clear. For the account continues that Jibril (Gabriel), the angel of revelation, informed Muhammad that Satan had used Muhammad's desire for reconciliation with the pagan leaders to insert into the revelation of God the verses about the interceding cranes, otherwise called "the satanic verses". http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/satanicverses.htm

Allah is a pagan god whose roots can be traced to pagan gods talked about in the bible. His name changed over time (but still retains the root name from his ancestors). Muhammad get much his material from the bible and thus the parallels however, the god they worship is not the God of the bible.

[Falconer02]

I think believing the fantasy that there is no God is much more harmful to society.

You can't have a fantasy if there's nothing fantastical within the reasoning.

You like to talk about how Hitler was Catholic. Have you read about Hitler's spiritual journey?

If I recall, that was just a rebuttal to your Kirk Cameron reasonings for tying Darwin to Hitler which ultimately made no sense. Both had other presentations of thought.

"I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel"

Ah yes. No doubt an obvious atheist code of conduct! They're all secretly out to make us terminators!

Murders by Atheists (20th Century)

Yes, "Christians" have committed atrocities against other religious and non-religious people. However, atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined (see more statistics on the web page).

Christian is acting in violations of or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief.

This is like saying "Murders by people who like bread". People don't kill over atheism like they do religion-- you put it on the same node as a religion here. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist in the name of atheism is like being killed by a fat person in the name of fatties. I've been in this argument with that Rwdeese guy and I recall we both agreed most wars in the 20th century were caused by other big agendas by absolutely insane assholes with power rather than just free-thought or religious beliefs. The problem you're capitalizing upon is accountability. You're acting as if the person who does not have a god believes they are not accountable for anything which is is a completely naive and bogus statement. Those who are sane and have standards believe they are accountable for their actions. Especially when you live in a society that promotes such conduct with freedom; atheists don't need imaginary browny points going towards an eternal reward for good behavior.

[shernajwine]

If I recall, that was just a rebuttal to your Kirk Cameron reasonings for tying Darwin to Hitler which ultimately made no sense

Descent of Man By Charles Darwin
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).

A few paragraphs further reads:

Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.

Thomas Huxley, a close friend of Darwin and a fierce advocate of evolution writes:
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).

Hitler frequently appealed to Darwinian logic. Here are a few examples from one chapter of Mein Kampf:

. . . the most patent principles of Nature’s rule. . .

. . . it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level . . .

. . . the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . .

Enough said.

Those who are sane and have standards believe they are accountable for their actions.

And you did just what I said atheists do, they play word games. They like to blame insane and irrational acts of people who do evil things in the name of religion, on the religion. But bring up people who committed atrocities who were atheists, and it has nothing to do with their worldview, they are just insane.

[jcribb16]

I say, once again, that as a Christian, OUR God is NOT based on Islam; Islam is developed from Christianity and Judaism

I agree jcribb. And in doing studies of Islam and it's origins, I learned that Allah was actually one of several gods who actually had a female consort named Allat. Ironically Allat was regarded as the most powerful and Allah was  a nearly disregarded and forgotten god. Muhammad wished to make conversion to his "religion" easier and in the original writings in the Koran, he wrote verses talking about al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. These became known as "the satanic verses".

Surah 53 reads
     Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
    And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)

Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:

    These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
    Whose intercession is to be hoped for.

But Muhammad soon retracted the reconciliation—how soon is not clear. For the account continues that Jibril (Gabriel), the angel of revelation, informed Muhammad that Satan had used Muhammad's desire for reconciliation with the pagan leaders to insert into the revelation of God the verses about the interceding cranes, otherwise called "the satanic verses". http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/satanicverses.htm

Allah is a pagan god whose roots can be traced to pagan gods talked about in the bible. His name changed over time (but still retains the root name from his ancestors). Muhammad get much his material from the bible and thus the parallels however, the god they worship is not the God of the bible.

Thank you, Sherna!!!!

[queenofnines]

atheists have committed far more atrocities than all religious groups combined

That's impossible from statistics alone.  Only a very small percentage of people are even comfortable labeling themselves an "atheist", and the non-religious in general have maxed out at only 20% of the world's population so far.

Like Falconer said, though: "People don't kill over atheism like they do religion-- you put it on the same node as a religion here. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for."  

Those who have killed and not happened to have been associated with a religion probably weren't very much associated with atheism, either.  Their evil came from within, just like a Christian's can come from within, but you're forgetting an entirely separate branch of evil which is bad things done specifically in the name of god that could not be justified without a belief in said god.

[queenofnines]

As for Darwin being a racist with flaws in his theory, yes, that's very possible.  But remember the time he lived and you'll realize such a stance wasn't uncommon; also, there are going to be flaws in his theory from back then because the fossil record was incomplete and DNA hadn't even been discovered.

Such events do not discount the fact of evolution one bit.  Scientists that have followed Darwin have simply picked up where he left off and improved things, further strengthening the solid evidence for common ancestry.

[shernajwine]

People don't kill over atheism like they do religion

People don't kill over religion either, common to all this violence was an underlying struggle for power.

The difference between someone who calls himself or herself a Christian and yet kills and slaughters and an atheist who does the same thing is that the Christian is acting in violations of or her own belief, while the atheist's action is the legitimate outworking of his or her belief.

People who don't believe in a moral law giver have no moral framework with which to model themselves. Atheism doesn't believe in a moral law giver, therefore each person models their morals after what is important to them as an individual. There are certain things mans law will hold them accountable for, but who were these horrible dictators who embraced the idea of "no god" accountable to?? Hitler got off scott free. There was no accountability. He killed himself, and according to you, that's it. There is no justice for the people he slaughtered according to atheism.

As for Islam, the Koran promotes Jihad and there are several verses which talk about rewards for fighting in "Allah's way" (Jihad). My dad (born in Iran) grew up hearing chant mantras about hate for Jews and America. Christian children do not grow up chanting about hate towards any other types of people. If you don't see a difference between Islam and the Judeo-Christian bequest, I dare you to go to Saudi Arabia or Iran (or any Islamic country) and deliver the message of religious delusion and hate speech towards God, there. If you want evidence for the difference between the two systems, go and test it out. Islam is a religion of power, the Christian faith is one of communion and relationship with the One who made us.

As for Darwin being a racist with flaws in his theory, yes, that's very possible.  But remember the time he lived and you'll realize such a stance wasn't uncommon; also, there are going to be flaws in his theory from back then because the fossil record was incomplete and DNA hadn't even been discovered

This doesn't change the fact that a control hungry maniac like Hitler, took Darwin's racism and comments about obliterating inferior races of peoples and ran with it.
And I didn't even bring up flaws in his theory. My point was in defending linking Hitler to Darwin and pointing out that just because he was born into Catholicism doesn't mean that his actions were driven by religious faith. In the end, he embraced the idea of no god and embraced the idea that he needed to eradicate inferior races of people. In this case he killed "in the name of Darwin" when you get to the base of his thinking. Is Darwin responsible for Hitler's actions? No, Hitler is responsible for himself.

Point: Getting rid of religion to get rid of it's abuse is like getting rid of money to get rid of greed. Religion (with possibly the exception of Islam which teaches to eradicate infidels in holy war) is not the problem. People are the problem. If there were no religion and no one believed in God, I can't imagine the havoc that would be wrought among power hungry individuals and the unfortunate people whom they wish to control or eliminate.

further strengthening the solid evidence for common ancestry

Hmmm, sorry but the Cambrian explosion actually made a very bad case for common ancestry. Gould tried to make an explanatory theory called "punctuated equilibrium". Well this contradicts Dawkin's "blind watch maker" theory. Quite frankly, if evolution from a universal common ancestor is true, Dawkin's would have a spankin good theory. However, his theory does not account for the massive amount of complex organisms that appear suddenly in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium does not explain common ancestry and the blind watchmaker cannot explain the fossil record. So, there is no solid evidence for common ancestry.

[jordandog]

People who don't believe in a moral law giver have no moral framework with which to model themselves. Atheism doesn't believe in a moral law giver, therefore each person models their morals after what is important to them as an individual.

Since when does morality come ONLY from the belief in a moral law giver or a book of moral laws ie the Bible, referenced for the sake of this debate - it could be any religious based book. Are you saying or implying that every single person who calls himself a christian is completely literate as to what is even in the Bible? This goes back to the "every person sitting in church on a Sunday is there to seek/glorify god" - you even agreed with me in that thinking being flawed. I can only speak for myself, but I get my morals and a framework in which to put them from myself and from society. Yes, I DO go by what is important to me as an individual, but is it any different then what you go by because you HAVE/lay claim to the belief in the [supreme] moral law giver, god, Allah, Jesus, etc., depending on what one follows as their faith? I don't have a desire to be killed, so I don't kill others. I don't want someone stealing from me, so I don't steal from others.

There are many people, like Hitler, who have a desire for POWER over anything else. Power over a woman to rape her, power because they have a gun and want the money that is in a store, power over a child who is smaller and weaker so they can wield force and beat that child. There are a thousand ways the desire for power can manifest itself and it does regardless of whether or not they have any morals or moral framework from the same giver of them that you or anyone else has.

[cwoodard34]

your not retarted if you believe in god

[shernajwine]

When you assert that there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such a thing as good.
When you say there is such a thing as good, you must assume there is a moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. There must be some standard by which to determine what is good and what is evil.
When you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver, the source of the moral law

The person who moralizes assumes intrinsic worth in them self and transfers intrinsic worth to the life of another, and thus they consider that life worthy of protection. Transcending value must come from a person of transcending worth. But in a world in which matter alone exists (atheistic world) there can be no intrinsic worth.

To believe that there is no ultimate moral order, one must assume knowledge of what a moral order would look like if there were one. But why should one person's opinion of what the moral order should look like be any more authentic than anyone else's? In the case of Hitler, who has the authority to say he is wrong for killing innocents? Because you say so? Because society says so? Well, if that's the case then morality is up for a vote and can be changed at any time, and even more disturbing can be changed by whoever happens to have power to control masses of people! Therefore there is no moral framework by which a person can moralize and it's very easy for someone who is power hungry like Hitler to decide morality for himself.

But, since you do the same, even if you would never do what Hitler did; what makes you right and him wrong?

"Ethical theory requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused, and its conclusions can be sound and useful even though the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events...A human being is simultaneously a machine and a sentient free agent, depending on the purpose of the discussion."

This seems self-contradictory but it may be worse than that, Pinker may mean that morality is founded on a "noble lie" that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people. Of course the priests themselves know the lie for what it is and do not recognize it as a limit on their own thinking or conduct, but they conceal their nihilism by pretending to believe in conventional morality.
From one of my posts from Hell is unattended stove.

This is an atheist implying that Hitler simply decided his morality was superior and he simply chose not to recognize the conventional morality. Which, as a person free to make his own, he was in perfect right to do so.

The End of Reason: Ravi Zacharias.

[cwoodard34]

im so confused now

[sflynt]

im so confused now

There is a big debate going on in here, you'll have to read it all before you understand any of it hun.