Thanks for putting all of these things online. It's great stuff. And the feeling that maybe we're getting somewhere makes me happy.

I don't understand why liberalism needs to be equated with atheism. I like this blog a lot more when it's focused on nonreligious topics.

This is an interesting clip; thank you for sharing it.

However, I think Harris, as well as others, are wrong when they say that religious people only do good because they are afraid of being punished. Being religious myself and know others who are religious, I can tell you that this is not true for everyone. (I wouldn't even say it is true for most.) Personally speaking, I help people and donate to charity because I believe it is the right thing to do. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to my good deeds; I want to do the right thing regardless.

Also, a lot of these people are not putting the bible into a historical context, which is very important. They are also speaking about only a fraction of Christians, not all.

As for picking what one wants out of the bible, I think that's true to a certain extent. Harris was talking about numerous books in the old testament that aren't followed closely. He doesn't say one of the reasons for this: those are known as the Mosaic laws, and they were dismissed by Paul in Acts 15:7-11.

His discussion of stem cells and other biological ethics issues involves not just religion, but also philosophy. They are not just religious issues.

@Will, liberalism doesn't equate atheism, but they are closely tied because they're both about reason instead of ideology. if you can be religious while having liberal political positions, fine. but the main point most of the speakers at the conference make is that it is considered a lack of respect to critisize religion. you're not supposed to critisize the most irrational things in todays society, doing so often is a career-stopper. getting rid of that is a liberal political position you should agree on as well.

Don't you mean "Ben Stiller on morality and religion." I swear, he looks just like him!

I like this blog a lot more when it's focused on nonreligious topics.

To think that debate between religion and science are non-existant in the political arena in these current times is rather foolish.

I think Harris, as well as others, are wrong when they say that religious people only do good because they are afraid of being punished...(I wouldn't even say it is true for most.)...Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to my good deeds; I want to do the right thing regardless.

Good for you. However, you do not speak for other Christians, nor do they speak for you. There occurs no such thing as an objective single idea of "True Christianity." It varies dramatically, depending on the subjective beliefs of individuals.

Not only does the Bible support war and killing, the Biblical God you believe in kills men, women (including pregnant women), infants, and animals. He also orders others to kill for him. It comes from violent ideas out of the Bible that provides justification for many believers to act out their atrocities. If you do not realize this then you appear as the one who does not understand your own religion.

Harris' argument--and I agree--is that supporting religion from a peaceful standpoint only gives cover to its violent producing side.

Think of it this way, the fact that you cherry-pick what morality to adhere to and which to reject speaks volumes on the fact in how you don't derive your morality from the Bible, because you have surpassed it by your very admission of not following the morality found in scripture!

You are not getting your morals from the Bible but rather, finding the verses which agree with your already established morals. One can find even better cherry trees completely outside the Bible and without the bad cherries included! This is precisely the path toward atheism, if you think about it.

@ Erick:

It comes from violent ideas out of the Bible that provides justification for many believers to act out their atrocities. If you do not realize this then you appear as the one who does not understand your own religion.

I do realise this. I read the bible everyday because I want to be someone who is informed, not a person who just claims to know what's in it.

That's why I said it's important to look at historical context, and the bible as a whole.

Harris' argument--and I agree--is that supporting religion from a peaceful standpoint only gives cover to its violent producing side.

I think that's absurd. Non-violent Christians (and Muslims for that matter) are the first to speak out against violence done in the name of religion.

You are not getting your morals from the Bible but rather, finding the verses which agree with your already established morals.

As I said before, I think that's true to a certain extent. For example, I'm a socialist and I think that goes right along with my religious beliefs. Of course I am injecting a part of personality into my interpretation of the bible. However, I think it is important to try to do that as little as possible, even though it comes naturally.

One can find even better cherry trees completely outside the Bible and without the bad cherries included! This is precisely the path toward atheism, if you think about it.

Well, for me, that isn't the path toward atheism. Sorry, but, to paraphrase South Park, my answer to the Big Question is different from yours. ;-)

Stephan, yes we should be able to criticize irrationality in societ. I just believe that faith and belief as a concept and as a whole are being thrown out with the bath water. Don't disregard anti-industrialization just because of Kazinski.

Erick, of course morality and religion are closely related to politics, however I don't find atheism to be an indication of morality nor progressivism to be an indication of atheism. That these three things are being tied together in this blog makes me wince.

What is it that makes you wince Will? That someone can be progressive and an atheist and moral.

I think Harris looks less like Ben Stiller and more like Seth Green, actually...

Meanwhile, there's a sense here that some kind of ripping the lid off religion is finally underway and overdue. Yet people of faith are pretty used to this sort of attack, so it all bounces back into the echo chamber to those preaching to the atheist choir.

I'm wondering if much of this is an outlet to shine a light on the insanity of Islamic fundamentalism, without being specific to that religion. Because to single out any specific religion would be so completely uncomfortable under a progressive banner. Better to bring down the whole house of all religions.

I only wish this were conducted in a controlled forum of debate. Mr. Harris is a obviously making good points but he still twists and over-simplifies along the way. This smacks of an agenda being put across with a reasoned academic face. Maybe it's not intended as anything less. However, I don't see how it is serving fair inquiry, when generalizations are rendered as specifics and various assertions remain unchallenged.

There are smart and thoughtful people in many walks of religion. It's such a hugely diversified aspect of human life. But, in our culture, we're always brought back to the grating intonations of the obnoxious and self-appointed few who've somehow won a permanent seat at the media table: Falwell, Haggard, Robertson, Bakkers, etc. Yet it's such an utter distortion to think these people speak for even most Christians --although it makes detractors of religion feel good to think they're all that stupid.

Bottom line: the argument between rational thought and religion is in itself sort of an insane undertaking. It's a very good day when it's productive but, moreover, it hardly ever "converts". It's about soul, not science. You've got two different worlds of communication without a common Rosetta stone.

Interesting debate, but I would not want this man in any positon of power.

He appears to have a nasty side.

Interesting debate, but I would not want this man in any positon of power.

He appears to have a nasty side.

Oh yes, incredibly nasty. Just look at the filth that he's advocating for. My word, that monster!

Sam Harris- Beyond Belief 2006 video 2 (00:46:51):

There's a difference between, in a context like this, calling a spade a spade and really calling delusion, delusion and doing it across the board in every social situation where you become this boorish character who [when] you get into an elevator and you see someone with a cross around their neck and you lurch toward her and try to take away Jesus in that moment. This is not something that, I think, anyone is advocating. I'm probably one of the more strident people here and I'm not advocating that, but I think that even here we are suffering the taboos that I'm trying to call attention to and I know Richard--quite eloquently and for many years--has been calling attention to: the taboo around criticizing these esteemed religious myths.

I do realise this. I read the bible everyday because I want to be someone who is informed, not a person who just claims to know what's in it.

That's why I said it's important to look at historical context, and the bible as a whole.

Is your reasoning is that we can't criticize the Bible for its atrocities because it is unfair to judge ancient ways for our modern world? If so, what you've said amounts to the unfairness of using ancient Bible ways for our modern world. Of course, that makes the point! Even most Christians do not use Yahweh's, jealous, bullying, and bloodthirsty horrors for their morality. Instead, most people use situation ethics, the very form of morality which Christians claim to disown. Yet we still see Christians who, when called to justify their wars, crimes, or extremist views, they'll cherry pick Bible verses to support their actions. It goes to this which I criticize. But since you seem to agree with me, I suggest that you tell your fellow Christians about the unfairness to use the ancient Bible for our modern world.

I think that's absurd. Non-violent Christians (and Muslims for that matter) are the first to speak out against violence done in the name of religion.

And so does Phillip Morris when they talk about the dangers of tabacco while making campaigns to target our youth.

The idea that these religions offer the greatest opportunity for peace, and happiness has proven tragically and demonstrably wrong. In every century of the history of these religions, you will find a marked inclination for intolerance, violence, and war. Yes you will find short periods where Christians get along with Muslims, Jews get along with Christians, and Muslims live peacefully among Jews, but for how long? It matters little that each religion has peaceful factions, when each religion also has violence oriented extremists.

However, I think it is important to try to do that as little as possible, even though it comes naturally.

If we should follow the Bible and try to cherry pick as little as possible, the outcome of that would be horribly catastrophic. I think I need not have to point out examples. It should be transparently obvious to all of us.

Well, for me, that isn't the path toward atheism. Sorry, but, to paraphrase South Park, my answer to the Big Question is different from yours. ;-)

Well I'm happy for you that you get your life philosophy from South Park and sky gods, but my whole point is that one can't change the Bible's words without being dishonest to its ideas. You can fool yourself if you wish.

@mwfte,

How can you reconcile the God of the old testament with the god of the new testament? How can an omnipotent and omniscient god that never changes be so different between the old and new testaments? You say to look at the bible as a whole, so how do you explain this?

In what historical context are we supposed to look at the bible? The historical context that I've found in no way convinces me that the bible is anything other than something created by men. Read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, or, if you want to make your head explode, read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty ( http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm )

If the bible is so easy to read, why is all the gay bashing in Western culture being done by religious people? Why do we have people like James Dobson that are encouraging child abuse in the name of discipline? Why do we have Pat Robertson on national TV praying for the death of Muslims? Why do all these Christian groups support the Zionists of Israel that daily commit atrocities against other human beings? Where are the liberal Christians with national TV and radio shows?

Sorry, but until these hate-filled people are taken down as spokesmen for Christianity, you are going to continue to have to defend Christianity to everyone else.

Wow, You know, I never realized how much Seth Green, Ben Stiller and Patrick Dempsey looked alike .. until i saw Sam talk (and a really interesting talk it was too).

Mat

Is your reasoning is that we can't criticize the Bible for its atrocities because it is unfair to judge ancient ways for our modern world?

Who said one can't criticise the bible? I certainly didn't.

And so does Phillip Morris when they talk about the dangers of tabacco while making campaigns to target our youth.

That comparison makes no sense.

Phillips Morris is selling a product that it knows kills people. Non-violent religious people are not trying to sell something that will kill people.

I never said that religion is the greatest opportunity for peace; I said non-violent members of a religion are the first to speak out against violence done in the name of religion. There is a difference.

I think it's misleading to call the non-violent members of religion "peaceful faction[s];" they are the majority.

Well I'm happy for you that you get your life philosophy from South Park and sky gods...

Wow. You certainly know how to set up a good strawman so you can try to make me look like an idiot.

Just because I agreed with something said on South Park does not mean I draw my life's philosophy from it. I agree with you that religious people tend to put their own ideas into their religions; does that mean I got my life's philosophy from you?

This is getting stale.

In beliefs, there is a gradient, not only in the intensity of how individuals can be submerged in them, but also in how some beliefs can go from being very destructive to very benign. Though religion does not produce all the woes in the world, it certainly consists of a very large fraction of it. People who cherry-pick beliefs like you do not follow the faith honestly and give merit to scripture for your morals not realizing they are not really coming from them.

The reason why Christian beliefs have not caused them to rain havoc on this planet lies in secular governments which helps control religious bigotry and intolerance. Unfortunately, in the last 40 years, due to the religious right's encroachment on our government which has caused a push toward a theocracy, we have seen the beginnings of the havoc that can rain on this planet. Look at the wars. Moreover, the right-wing Christian movement here in our soil wants to reduce freedom of choice. They dismiss the scientific research of global warming, and as a result, their political friends in Washington, refuse to do anything about it.

Religions have always tried to present just one side of their belief system, and the internet finally provides a way to demonstrate the dangers of belief and concentrate on the flaws. If a friend was going to drink a poisoned glass of milk--even if the poison, say, represented a small fraction of it--should I include the nutritional aspects of the milk to go along with my warning to avoid any kind of bias on my part? A point of view helps us find flaws in a system, and in the case of religion, the flaws are plentiful.

If all these "majorities" were a fact as you say, then we wouldn't be seeing all of the hate, bigotry, and violence coming from these religious zealots. Moderates like you give cover to these fanatics by adding a force shield of political correctness in not being able to have an open dialogue about how absurd and destructive these beliefs can be.

No one is advocating for a persecution of religious peoples. In general and historically, you will find that non-believers tend to have more tolerance toward others than any other group of people. The secular nature of the United States government, for example, allows the freedom for people to pursue happiness however they'd like, as long as they do not infringe on others from their pursuit of happiness. Fighting religious zealots only increases their will to fight back and produces intransigent beliefs. The war in Iraq, for example, gives an excellent example of this. However, when we speak of a fight we do so in the metaphorical sense. Eradicating beliefs requires education debate and communication, and the ability to change the political environment but not violence.

As long as beliefs are affecting our freedoms and causing problems, yes, we will have something to say about them irrespective of how much you take offense to it. Your right to free speech and your right to practice beliefs does not give you the right to be taken seriously, much less coerce them onto others.

What is moral? What is amoral? Why?

Erick's Philip Morris analogy is apt.

He is clearly refering the absurditiy of cigarette companies warning people of the dangers of smoking while still selling cigarettes and encouraging people to smoke.

This hypocrisy grows to the government who want people to be aware of the dangers of smoking and to quit smoking while not banning the sale of cigarettes because of the tax dollars it brings in.

This analogy is apt when you apply it to Christianity i.e. while some Christians advocating against religious violence, few if any Christian has embarked on real action to stop it

And unlike Phillip Morris. Christianity has a worse record of confronting its religious atrocities, especially when it comes to telling non-believers and potential converts the evils and misdeeds of its bloody past.

Sorry for the bluntness.

Just calling the spade a spade.

No point dressing up the thing that shouldn't be dressed up.

People who cherry-pick beliefs like you do not follow the faith honestly and give merit to scripture for your morals not realizing they are not really coming from them.

I said that every human does that, but I think it's important to draw on the bible as a whole. Should I have lied and said that that isn't normal behaviour and human nature? I also do not think you are qualified to tell me how honestly I follow my religion.

The reason why Christian beliefs have not caused them to rain havoc on this planet lies in secular governments which helps control religious bigotry and intolerance.

This sounds like you haven't met a lot of Christians. You are using the same tactic as extremists of all types: dismiss the moderates out of hand to make your point of view stronger. It's intellectually dishonest.

And if secular government is responsible for keeping all the violence from religion in check, can you please explain athiest regimes that have sought to kill people of a certain religion?

You're also dismissing the fact that movements such as the abolitionist movement here in the US or the Civil Rights movement of the 60s were led by quite a few people of the cloth.

Moreover, the right-wing Christian movement here in our soil wants to reduce freedom of choice. They dismiss the scientific research of global warming, and as a result, their political friends in Washington, refuse to do anything about it.

Yes, you're right. The Christian right is ridiculous. However, they don't represent all of Christianity; judging the whole faith based on that branch would be inaccurate.

If all these "majorities" were a fact as you say, then we wouldn't be seeing all of the hate, bigotry, and violence coming from these religious zealots.

Since I've been around religious people all my life, I think I'm qualified to say that moderates are the majority. Again, you're letting the few figureheads that are presented on television represent a whole group.

Moderates like you give cover to these fanatics by adding a force shield of political correctness in not being able to have an open dialogue about how absurd and destructive these beliefs can be.

I still think this is absurd. Calling the fanatics out is not giving them cover.

And aren't we having an open dialogue right now?

Your right to free speech and your right to practice beliefs does not give you the right to be taken seriously, much less coerce them onto others.

There is no reason why I, as a person, should not be taken seriously. My beliefs are my beliefs; you don't have to share them. I never said I wanted to convert you or coerce you. Do not put words and false intentions into what I type.

@Abel

I'll respond later; I have to go write a paper. ;-)

People who cherry-pick beliefs like you do not follow the faith honestly and give merit to scripture for your morals not realizing they are not really coming from them.

I said that every human does that, but I think it's important to draw on the bible as a whole. Should I have lied and said that that isn't normal behaviour and human nature? I also do not think you are qualified to tell me how honestly I follow my religion.

The reason why Christian beliefs have not caused them to rain havoc on this planet lies in secular governments which helps control religious bigotry and intolerance.

This sounds like you haven't met a lot of Christians. You are using the same tactic as extremists of all types: dismiss the moderates out of hand to make your point of view stronger. It's intellectually dishonest.

And if secular government is responsible for keeping all the violence from religion in check, can you please explain athiest regimes that have sought to kill people of a certain religion?

You're also dismissing the fact that movements such as the abolitionist movement here in the US or the Civil Rights movement of the 60s were led by quite a few people of the cloth.

Moreover, the right-wing Christian movement here in our soil wants to reduce freedom of choice. They dismiss the scientific research of global warming, and as a result, their political friends in Washington, refuse to do anything about it.

Yes, you're right. The Christian right is ridiculous. However, they don't represent all of Christianity; judging the whole faith based on that branch would be inaccurate.

If all these "majorities" were a fact as you say, then we wouldn't be seeing all of the hate, bigotry, and violence coming from these religious zealots.

Since I've been around religious people all my life, I think I'm qualified to say that moderates are the majority. Again, you're letting the few figureheads that are presented on television represent a whole group.

Moderates like you give cover to these fanatics by adding a force shield of political correctness in not being able to have an open dialogue about how absurd and destructive these beliefs can be.

I still think this is absurd. Calling the fanatics out is not giving them cover.

And aren't we having an open dialogue right now?

Your right to free speech and your right to practice beliefs does not give you the right to be taken seriously, much less coerce them onto others.

There is no reason why I, as a person, should not be taken seriously. My beliefs are my beliefs; you don't have to share them. I never said I wanted to convert you or coerce you. Do not put words and false intentions into what I type.

@Abel

I'll respond later; I have to go write a paper. ;-)

Erick’s use of the Philip Morris analogy about hypocrisy is very apt.

It is pure hypocrisy for Philip Morris to warn people of the dangers of smoking and to keep selling cigarettes while finding ways to encourage people to smoke i.e. ads, product placements, celebrity endorsements.

It is pure hypocrisy for governments to engage in campaigns to encourage people not to smoke due to health concerns while not banning sales of cigarettes because of the high duties and taxes it earns from such sales. What’s next? Legalization of marijuana?

It is just as much hypocrisy and BS for some Christians to say that Christianity is against religious violence but who does nothing concrete to stop fellow Christians to stop inflicting such violence.

Last but not least, Philip Morris at least lets people know they type of potential dangers of the products they are selling. But Christians do not let non-believers or potential converts know of the religious violence and excesses that has marked Christianity, which is misleading and hypocritical as it contradicts their message that Christianity is a religion of love, tolerance and peace.

Sorry for the bluntness. Just calling the spade a spade. Anything else would be BS : >

I will willingly give 15 mintes of my time to any Christian missionary who says:

"Hi, I will like to introduce you to Chrisianity, a religion that I believe can help you and your should. However I have to let you know that Christianity is the religion that has caused the most bloodshed in history, although they tried to palm off the Jewish Holocaust to atheism even though Hitler and his Nazis were Christians. So do you still want to listen to me?"

I will give points for such honesty, if not factual accuracy.

"I help people and donate to charity because I believe it is the right thing to do. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to my good deeds; I want to do the right thing regardless."

This is exactly the way I feel and I am a complete and total atheist. Seems we have some common ground afterall.

However, it can't be denied that this is not true of other theists:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/hateistheessentialspice.php

snippet: "a thriving church with tens of thousands of members, when he had an insight: there was no hell. No eternal torment for damned souls. Jesus came to earth to save everyone, not just the few, not just the true believers. He called this the "gospel of inclusion". You can guess what happened.

The church collapsed.

People stopped attending with no hellfire to goad them on."

This would seem to suggest that people want there to be a hell - so scare people into not "sinning" or to feel superior to those going there.

Neither is morally or logically sound.

Hey Lya,

Could it be that the members of that collapsed church had actually read the New Testament and knew that such teachings were a gross misrepresentation of Christ's own teachings?

What you have described is called antinomianism and Paul addressed it in Romans chapter 5.

I've been involved in and read many, many discussions on this point and from what I have seen in these discussions, many fundies strongly promote the idea that without the threat of everlasting hell, they would have no reason not to kill their neighbors or anyone else that pissed them off suficently.

That is such a common refrain, it is obvious that in the minds of many Christians, the threat of punishment is their primary reason for "doing good". Or in reality, avoiding punishment. It doesn't say much for the moral under pinnings of such a person.

It seems to me that kindness and forgiveness and generosity, done because it is simply the better way to be, is qualitatively different from pretending to live live that way in order to avoid hell.

I cannot speak for all Christians but I'm pretty sure that most Christians know that they are not saved by doing good deeds but by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. If we truely thought we would be saved by our good deeds, none of us could possibly measure up to God's expectations so all of us would be destined to hell. Christians encourage each other not to sin and to do good deeds because it is pleasing to God - we know it will not save us because we are already saved.

Syngas has here described one of the worst aspects of Christianity. If someone is a good person but has not "accepted Christ as their savior", then they will not be "saved", whatever that means.

With reference to mwfte's comments, I just want to add that the Church used to legitimise slavery in US.

I don't understand why that is so threatening to you Jo Ann.

First, if you don't believe in God you also don't believe in being saved so what does it matter to you?

Second, would you really prefer that the New Testament state that you will be saved by doing good deeds? Obviously even someone who does many good deeds could do more and people who do not sin much are not completely without sin. That would be a pretty helpless place for the believer.

Syngas,

I don't feel threatened and it doesn't matter to me. I just think that this is one aspect of Christianity which is perverse and ridiculous. Why do you think that only Christians can be 'saved" and that all of the other believers in an almighty omnipotent being, such as Muslims, are wrong? Has the thought ever crossed your mind that maybe Islam is the way to be saved and that your religion is the wrong one?

The second part of what you said makes no sense at all so I can't comment on it, other than that I don't prefer one thing or the other about the New Testament since I think that it is but a collection of philosophical thoughts and superstitions.

First, if you don't believe in God you also don't believe in being saved so what does it matter to you?

I don't think that's what Jo Ann meant when she made her statement. The point of that isn't that it affects her directly because obviously she is not a believer.

I think Brian Flemming summed this idea pretty well in his concluding statement on the DebateBlog with centuri0n:

This mandatory prioritization of defending the faith above all else is what makes religious ideologies -- Christian or otherwise -- poisonous to good moral behavior.

Syngas, what if I say this to you: if you are not a good person or do good for good’s own sake, you will not go to Heaven regardless of how much faith you have in Jesus or the Bible. That you are condemned to Hell simply because you are not a good person, first and foremost?

How can Christianity preach that one should love or care for one’s neighbours when Christians have already condemned them to Hell for not being Christian?

Jo Ann is merely commenting on the religious bigotry and selfishness that characterise Christianity and Christians.

I agree with Jo Ann.

Regardless of who they are or where they live, good people all over the world are condemned by Christians to hell even if they live a virtuous life or do good for its sake, simply because we don't accept the Bible and Jesus.

It does not matter what we do or who we are or where we come from. We are damned as non-Christians. And you wonder why people can have such negative feelings against Christians.

Even if becoming Christian may not mean the Christian is necessarily a good person. Just look at the 150,000 free thinking women killed by Christian edits in the dark ages, hundreds of thousands Arabs slaughtered by Crusaders and the millions of Jews slaughtered by Christian prosecution...

They got the priorities mixed up. Being good and doing good to others should be the most important thing on this earth.

But for Christians, they SELFISHLY focus on the afterlife and their "confirmed" ticket to heavens, which is to believe in Jesus and the Bible.

Doing good on Earth becomes more like an after thought and is unnecessary to their state of moral well-being.

No other religion has passed such judgement on non-believers. And that is sheer religious bigotry of the worst possible level.

On the subject of giving cover, I like to point out that just because some Christians speak out against religious violence, that does not means only a small group of Christians is for religious violence. Or that something is done against such violence.

Such illusions gave Christians cover to do the same things over and over again. Or that anything has been done against religious violence by Christians when none have been done.

After all, the Christian crusades involved all the kings and their people invading and pillaging Arab Middle East, after they massacred the Jews in the Rhineland. And that Christian prosecution of the Jews was part of the Church's religious dogma and executed throughout Europe.

So if the majority of the Christians are truly against religious violence, they should and must stop the "few" Christians who indulged in them besides saying politically correct stuff. Or is it the fact that most Christians will speak out against religious violence but secretly support it by doing nothing.

To add on to my post on hypocrisy is this recent article on Philip Morris.

When Don’t Smoke Means Do http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/opinion/27mon1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

...The most exhaustive judicial analysis of the industry’s tactics, by Judge Gladys Kessler of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, concluded that the youth smoking prevention programs were not really designed to effectively prevent youth smoking but rather to head off a government crackdown...

Regardless of who they are or where they live, good people all over the world are condemned by Christians to hell even if they live a virtuous life or do good for its sake, simply because we don't accept the Bible and Jesus... And you wonder why people can have such negative feelings against Christians.

You seem to be under the assumption that Christians never struggle with their faith or question it. I know that isn't true. I have personal experience with that, and I know others who have as well.

Christians do not normally just accept what they are told. Truly following a religion requires a lot of work and commitment; that work includes interpretation of scripture and thinking about the tenets of the religion deeply. For example, I do have issues with the idea that good people go to hell if they are not Christians. I know others who feel the same way. Following a religion doesn't mean you don't ask questions.

Just look at the 150,000 free thinking women killed by Christian edits in the dark ages, hundreds of thousands Arabs slaughtered by Crusaders and the millions of Jews slaughtered by Christian prosecution...

I think this is akin to blaming a knife instead of the person who used it to stab someone. Unfortunately, many people say they are doing things in the name of a religion when they really have other motives.

So if the majority of the Christians are truly against religious violence, they should and must stop the "few" Christians who indulged in them besides saying politically correct stuff.

Why is the word "few" in quotations? Has there been a wave of Christians being violent?

And I'm not sure what you expect non-violent Christians to do. Should we start arresting people who have an opinion? Taking a stand, speaking out against violence, and educating other Christians is all we can do.

I still think the Phillip Morris analogy is inadequate and wrong for reasons already stated here.

I think this is akin to blaming a knife instead of the person who used it to stab someone.

Ah yes, the blame-people-instead-of-beliefs tactic.

Mwfte, what people do in religion's name is not a different argument. People make up the religion, not the other way around!

I’ve posted on this before and so I’ll reiterate the same message:

Not only have you not said anything new but blaming the people (instead of beliefs) is precisely what human culture and courts of law have done throughout history. And it hasn't solved any moral problems has it?

Since religions rely on superstitions, they cannot possibly solve any of the worlds problems either, much less moral problems. Consider that religion has not produced a single fact about the workings of the universe or the understanding of human nature. Not one! How in the world do you expect religion to solve anything?

If you want to solve problems you have to get to the root and cause of the problem. Beliefs act similar to computer programs or viral agents. Beliefs can inhabit a brain the way a virus inhabits a biological host. A virus can make its host do things that are opposed to its very survival. The same with beliefs infecting people. Religious people will not only die for beliefs, but many of them will sacrifice others for their beliefs (Apocalyptic Christians, Islamic suicide bombers, for example). These viral memes are encoded right in the religious scriptures and passed on from brain to brain.

Sometimes a virus can lie dormant without doing damage, but in the next generation can cause havoc under the right conditions. The same can happen with religious, political or ideological beliefs. Yes many Christians act in good ways but they carry and spread the memes of religion to their children. It only takes a few Martin Luthers, or Hitlers to cause a lot of damage.

Blaming the people instead of their beliefs is like blaming the carriers of the Black Plague instead of the bacteria itself. Yes you can kill Hitler and every singe Nazi but that doesn't stop Nazi beliefs. We still have underground Christian neo-Nazis who spread Hitler's beliefs. Get rid of the plague bacteria, you solve a biological problem; get rid of beliefs, you solve a cultural problem.

Considering that we live in a nuclear age, it is imperative that we begin understanding the mechanism of belief so that we can learn how to control it. Science gives us the tool, education the method.

Since you seem bent on defending religion (and only Christianity, it seems), you might want to consider how your defense of religion might underlie a deep seated belief that causes you to behave this way.

Consider thinking about it instead of believing about it.

Unfortunately, many people say they are doing things in the name of a religion when they really have other motives.

It’s even funny that you have to resort to this type of thinking. These martyrs that we see in the Middle East have no shame of their convictions and this is transparently clear. These people most certainly have had socio-economic problems and no one is denying that. However, you continually ignore the elephant in the room. In every war and every violent conflict in the Middle East, resides a prime reason as to why these brutal conflicts occur. The media mainly reports about issues of politics, land, honor, and terrorism, and although these compose of surface reasons, people rarely stop and look at the deeper systemic roots, the fundamental bases for violence. I suspect that part of the reason why everyone fails to mention the elephant, involves an association by guilt. If they reveal the problem, the problem reveals itself back to their own political party and their own religion, so by ignoring or denying the root problems, they avoid direct conflict with their citizenry and their own beliefs.

Why does religious belief create such monstrous atrocities? Because religion expresses everything into terms of belief, faith, and absolutes, without need for reason or even understanding. Religion puts reality, morality, love, happiness and desire in a supernatural realm inaccessible to the mind of man. How can humans ever achieve peace when their religious scripts has their god condoning war and violence, while man must accept the superstitious belief that their unknowable god does this for mysterious reasons, forever beyond the comprehension of man? How can you understand the physics of the universe if you believe that an unfathomable supernatural agent created everything just a few thousand years ago? How can you live a full happy life if your religion denies the nature of sex, desire, and mind? How can you have workable government if you believe laws derive from an incomprehensible super-being? How can you have the future of the planet or your grand children if you believe that supernatural predestination will end the world? Robert A. Wilson

"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it."

Erick,

Are you claiming to live your life outside of belief? Good luck with that.

less snark, more genuine curiosity:

I submit that, to base one's entire philosophy on scientific rationalism is a belief system.

Consider: I'll assume that for the atheists on the board reason informs your definition of living a "good life." But can you truly claim to apply reason in a vacuum? Do you reject entirely the idea that the Christian/Enlightenment culture you have been raised in affects your conclusions? Might not someone raised in a Confuscian society reach a different definition of the "good life" by applying the same process of reason?

Of course, all of the same caveats are valid for a religious philosphy as well. I just wonder if you have ever stopped to think how much "belief" actually underlies your rationalism.

'get rid of beliefs, you solve a cultural problem.'

That was a profound one Erick!

I've got one better!

Get rid of people, you solve a cultural problem.

Well maybe not better but certainly easier ;-}

Getting rid of people but not the evil religious teachings that drive them is just curing the symptoms while allowing the evil disease ...oops I mean religion continue infecting others.

So definitely not a better solution.

I find it regrettable to see Christians blaming Christians for the sins of the Church or Christian teachings when such teachings have guided Christians in what they do. How interesting when the people in the past were a lot more pious and devoted in their beliefs compared to the modern days?

So how can any Christians of today pass judgment on their brethren of yesterday? Are you God?

I don’t have any assumptions about Christians, just ample disappointments of their inability to ask questions of their faith in religious issues that require them to do so in order to help their fellow men.

These issues include confronting the religious intolerance and bigotry that Christian teachings are centered on i.e. that non-believers regardless of who they are, what they do or where they live will go to Hell if they don’t believe in Jesus or the Bible. The 150,000 free thinking women who

Or Jewish prosecution under the divine curse that the Church pronounced on the Jews for martyring Jesus that went on for more than 1600 years with massacres conducted by the Christian Church, Crusaders and in recent history by the Christian Nazis.

Or the Church turning a blind eye to American slavery for 200 years even when Christianity was used to justify slavery, especially in the Christian southern part of USA.

These issues were not caused by a small number of people as Christians will like to believe.

These issues were created by irrational and morally repugnant Christian teachings and dogma that most if not all Christians accepted and did not question or challenge. And they allowed these issues to happen without taking any action.

If the majority of Christians are truly against violence or bigotry in the name of religion or as the result of religion, they should take action against the few that promotes such behavior.

They can do by having Christian leaders denouncing the lack of validity in the particular version of Christianity or teachings that result in such behavior.

Or blacklist them as a cult. The possibilities in censuring them or to prevent them from having cover by Christian non-action are endless.

Without such Christians teachings, why would these Christians feel driven in doing what they do?

So don’t blame the Christians. Blame the Christian dogma and teachings that guided and drove them.

The failure to stop Christians in their misdeeds under religious influence merely points out 1 fact to non-believers. That most Christians support such behavior and that only a few Christians believe otherwise and are thus powerless to stop this rampaging Christian majority.

Nobody will believe Christians that most of them are against such behavior but are ironically powerless to stop the few that engage in such behavior. This is nothing more than giving cover to these Christians to keep doing what they do by withholding any sincerity or concrete actions to stop them. Such inaction creates even more sufferings in the world today.

In modern days, we don’t just people accountable. Their ideologies or what drives them are equally responsible.

"Might not someone raised in a Confuscian society reach a different definition of the "good life" by applying the same process of reason?"

The answer is yes. We do derive answers that are different from the Enlightenment era which drew more inspiration and knowledge from the pagan Greek and Roman cultures than Christianity.

For all Eastern philosophies, one's understanding of the basics that form human relationships are key to having a good life.

Relationship with your inner being, your family, your society and your superiors/elders are the matrix from where this understanding sprung from.

Reason comes more of an afterthought.

Consider that religion has not produced a single fact about the workings of the universe or the understanding of human nature.

Well, no, not if you don't believe in religion.

The same can happen with religious, political or ideological beliefs.

This sentence intrigues me. Are you against the idea of having any set political or ideological beliefs at all because people who hold beliefs can cause damage?

Blaming the people instead of their beliefs is like blaming the carriers of the Black Plague instead of the bacteria itself.

No, it isn't. The Black Plague is a disease that people cannot cure. They do not have control over it. People are in control of their own beliefs and actions.

Since you seem bent on defending religion (and only Christianity, it seems), you might want to consider how your defense of religion might underlie a deep seated belief that causes you to behave this way.

I have not just been defending Christianity; I have said "religious people," which is a broad term, and I have also said "muslims" a couple of times. I am speaking most about Christianity because that's my religion, and I've had the most experience with it.

Also, I wrote in my last comment that I, as well as other Christians I know, think very deeply about their beliefs and question them a lot. I guess you didn't read that.

How can humans ever achieve peace when their religious scripts has their god condoning war and violence, while man must accept the superstitious belief that their unknowable god does this for mysterious reasons, forever beyond the comprehension of man?

Unfortunately, the only religion I have studied enough to speak about in regards to this is Christianity.

No where in the bible does it say that one should be complacent. Jesus said that he came to change the law (laws of Judiasm). He then said to turn the other cheek instead of react violently, and called peacemakers blessed. He said anyone who doesn't help the poor has no love in him. (These are just two examples.) These are definately not warmongering commands.

In fact, Christianity contains the same Golden Rule that Richard Dawkins said people should follow.

How can you understand the physics of the universe if you believe that an unfathomable supernatural agent created everything just a few thousand years ago?

Well, I love science. I wanted to be a physicist, but unfortunately, I'm not that skilled at mathematics. So, I'm studying language and theatre (a bizarre combination), while devouring books like The Elegant Universe on the side. I believe in evolution that was started by God.

I also think that reason and science are valuable gifts from God. They allow us to understand the workings of the natural world.

How can you live a full happy life if your religion denies the nature of sex, desire, and mind?

I'm very happy, and I don't feel denied anything. I still have desires and sex, although I didn't have sex before I was married. (I'm completely crazy for men, but it wasn't that hard for me to wait.) There's a whole book in the bible describing the joys of sexual relations.

How can you have workable government if you believe laws derive from an incomprehensible super-being?

I don't believe God is completely incomprehensible, and I didn't say that all laws needed to be derived from the bible. For example, I'm a socialist. Socialism didn't exist in the bible, but that's what I am.

How can you have the future of the planet or your grand children if you believe that supernatural predestination will end the world?

This is a matter of interpretation of the texts regarding the apocalypse. However one interprets those texts, the bible doesn't say anywhere that people should just sit on their laurels and let the world die.

Are you claiming to live your life outside of belief? Good luck with that.

Belief: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing; faith. 2. Mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true; especially, a particular tenet, or a body of tenets, accepted by a group of persons.
Believe: 1 To accept as true or real. 2. To credit with veracity; have confidence in; trust.

Belief does not, then, encompass all form of thought. I can say things like I believe it will rain tomorrow. Of course I could replace the word ‘believe’ in this case with the word ‘think’ because we’re not really talking about a belief more than we are speculating. Forecasts are based on past events and weather patterns and then we make inferences about the data that we have, be it scientific data or just relying on shallow observations.

Knowledge, acceptance, agreement, information<--all of these things can be arrived at without beliefs. Yes, to believe requires a form of acceptance but it is not the case that it is required to go about it backwards.

Because our models and theories represent limited knowledge about the world, this forces us to examine the universe within boundaries. This produces a point of view. Bias represents a focus, direction, or preference towards a point of view without examining or ignoring existing evidence.One cannot avoid a point of view. Regardless of how one might try to prevent bias, there will most always occur something left out of the description. Similar to Heisenburg' Uncertainty Principle, as a focus becomes narrow, the more outside its focus gets left out. And vice versa, the more general a view becomes, the more the details get left out. If one tries to include the details with the general, a view can bog down with an overblown aggregation of information, turning a direction of thought into a cloud of complexity; and even still, the entire system would reside within a framework of limitations. Regardless of how one may reject beliefs, a point of view occurs if only because we represent a unique and limited spatial entity within the universe.

The negative aspect we usually associate with bias does not come from bias itself but rather the belief that comes with it. Belief produces a set of brackets around a point of view that says in effect "The answer lies here." Once you believe you have found the answer, your point of view becomes biased, (intransigent and prejudiced) and prevents you from looking at other possible alternatives. Again, beliefs act as a barrier to further understanding. If a person develops a faith in a point of view, then it becomes overwhelming to the point that nothing, even in the light of convincing evidence, will the faithful yield to better information. A biased belief can convince its believers that they hold the key to all understanding and "truth" without providing any evidence to support it.

A point of view, however, does not demand a predisposition to belief; it can simply represent a direction of thought. Ideas, by their very nature, represent limitations of thought. As long as a point of view produces a reasonable explanation, uses only pertinent information necessary to make predictions and leaves open the possibility of change in favor of better evidence, then it serves as a useful and productive tool. As we learn and understand our limitations, that a point of view represents an understood direction, we have the possibility to transcend it into an even more productive point of view.

Thanks Kes,

I'm glad to hear you don't have any assumptions about Christians.

It's also good to see you practice what you preach. Seems I can't read a comment of yours that doesn't include judgement and condemnation of the attrocities committed by athiests of the past.

Perhaps the reason Christians don't spend much time judging other Christians is because we all know we are sinners ourselves and that whatever wrath others deserve because of their sins, we are probably just as deserving. This would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

Have you ever done something that with the benefit of hindsight you would consider amoral? If so, what did you do about it?

Sorry on the part that was in bold about: Knowledge, acceptance, agreement, information

got deleted for some reason.

My point was, all of these things can be arrived at without beliefs. Yes, to believe requires a form of acceptance but it is not the case that it is required to go about it backwards.

But can you truly claim to apply reason in a vacuum?

Sam Harris’ reply on video 2 (because apparently you didn’t download any of the clips from Beyond Belief 2006 and are spewing out the same rhetoric that has already been discussed in these lectures):

This opposition between reason and everything else I think is fundamentally spurious. I think this idea that there’s love on the one hand and then the cool, rationality of science that’s just all clatter and clockwork and soulless, this is a false dichotomy and it’s a dichotomy that is pervasive in the culture. I can’t tell you how many times I get on the radio and someone says, “Scientifically prove to me that you love your wife!” As though that was just the knockdown argument of all time against reason and in support of faith. There’s nothing irrational in principle about love. It is rational to value love, it is rational to try to recognize that it is one of our most cherished experiences and then to try to live a life that maximizes it. Understanding love at the level of the brain is not going to deflate its importance for us. I mean, the fact that we can understand the molecular constituents of chocolate doesn’t make us not want to eat chocolate. These are different scales of interaction with the world. So, it’s not a matter of only being coldly calculating in our approach to life, but where we have to call a spade a spade is in gratuitous claims to certainty about invisible realities and the moral structures to the universe. About a god who so hates homosexuality that he will whip up tsunamis in defense of chased heterosexual people, this is a vision of life that is animating millions and millions of our neighbors and we have been cowed into not criticizing it.

Syngas, I have made more than my fair share of comments criticsing Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism (come right down to it, the Buddha is an athsist as he did not subscribe to a higher order), as well as the atheist mode of analysis by Richard Dawkins, which is sound at most levels but overreachers at others.

As for atrocities by athesits, there isn't that much really. I see Communism as subscribing to a centralized secular ideology based on an utopia on Earth rather than the freedom and openess of thought that is embraced by most atheists.

You do have to understand that atheists do not suffer the type of religious hubris that the faithful possesses when it comes to their convictions that their beliefs or ideology is the only way to save the world and humanity : >

I have of course regretted things I have done in the past but hardly immoral ones. I have made a lot of sacrifices for the sake of moral decisions and I neither drink, gamble nor fool around in any way.

But the most important thing I know is that anything I regret are lessons that teaches me the need to change and correct myself.

With regards to Christianity, it is painfully obvious that Christias have problems facing up to the atrocities of their religion in the present and past, let alone trying to correct them in action and behaviour.

No wonder Christians keep repeating the atrocities in the passage of time. The prosecution of the Jews by the Church and its fiathful, Christian Crusaders and Christian Nazis is the best possible example.

===========

Btw, Erick, thanks for putting into words the type of outrage I feel with some of the answers here to defend Christianity and disavow it from any responsibility for the actions of tis faithful.

Oy! Let’s go over Bible Basics, because these are just embarrassing conclusions.

Jesus said that he came to change the law (laws of Judiasm).

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!! NO! You are COMPLETELY wrong on that I am sorry, but you SERIOUSLY need to re-read the bible! (Assuming of course you read it in the first place.) Here, I’ll give the floor to Jesus so he can explain it to you because I doubt I will convince you otherwise:

Jesus: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)

To fulfill all the laws of the prophets means that Jesus must have approved of all the "lawful" atrocities and intolerant laws of the prophets.

He then said to turn the other cheek instead of react violently…

Oh dear…

Jesus:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

…and called peacemakers blessed.

The phrase "Blessed are the peacemakers" appears honorable until one realizes that it comes with certain conditions. Creating peace by blessing does not rely on caring about peace for others but because the do-gooder thinks he'll receive a future reward (going to Heaven, for example). One should do peacemaking acts or charitable works, not because of the candy one will receive but because it serves as the proper and decent thing to do. A peacemaker has my admiration for creating peace, not for the blessing bestowed upon him. Ironically, Jesus did not give an example of a peacemaker (“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth...” Matt. 10:34) Rather, his words give frightful justification for war and division. To take the words of peace from a divider, hardly bears the ring of integrity.

He said anyone who doesn't help the poor has no love in him. (These are just two examples.)

Jesus taught to give away anything that anyone asks and to sell everything and give it away. Although charity constitutes a great service to society, to give away all would put the giver into poverty himself, thus preventing any future charitable acts.

Naturally any beggar would value such advice because he would receive the benefits of the charitable acts. And since Jesus did not work for a living, it gives reason why he might reap the rewards himself. Think about it: Jesus and the apostles had to live off something. (I find it odd that few Christians question how Jesus and his followers survived without any Biblical acknowledgement of their proceeds.).

These are definately not warmongering commands.

Although a believer might find comfort in some of Jesus' words, it should serve as a reminder that just because a man appears righteous does not necessarily mean he always practices it. Imagine observing a man who tells the truth most of the time but occasionally tells a hurtful lie. Should we not feel wary of such a person? Or if someone breaks his promise, should we not feel cheated? Especially if that person calls himself the Son of Man, we should expect him to act perfectly all the time, not just some of the time. His saying should reflect consistency, giving no hint of hypocrisy.

In fact, Christianity contains the same Golden Rule that Richard Dawkins said people should follow.

I disagree with Dawkins. I think he is “bending over backwards” for that one—to use his own phrase. Just because I agree with what Dawkins has to say on most things, doesn’t mean I see him as you probably see Jesus—flawless and correct all the time.

Would an atheist like to be treated the way an Christian treats him/herself? Would a Christian like to be treated the way an atheist treats him/herself? Assuming you’re not a masochist, would you like to be treated…

…I think you know where I’m going with this. This rule may apply to “in-groups” but not for a general public. It just doesn’t go that everyone would like to be treated the way you treat yourself. If anything, I would apply an “ask first principle”. *An idea by Michael Shermer (who by the way appears on the Beyond Belief 2006 videos, though I doubt you’ll watch them in their entirety). BTW, the Golden Rule wasn’t a Biblical invention.

However one interprets those texts…

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 1:20) [bold caps, mine]

As for your other cherry picking, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you are being theologically dishonest. Continue lying to yourself if you wish.

Erick,

It seems a bit arrogant for you to criticize someone's personal beliefs based on your own understanding of Christianity, seeing as you are an avowed atheist. What you call "cherry picking'" is acceptable theological discourse to the majority of believers. It seems that only atheists and fundamentalists believe that one does not question one's own religious beliefs.

There happen to be many, many Christians out there who believe in continuing revelation. Among them are Quakers, UCC, liberal protestants, and even some Baptists. Our religion is not a static set of rules locked in by the Bible, but one of continuous contemplation, study & enlightenment. We understand the Bible to be an historical document which reveals fundamental Truths.

Although such a radical interpretation of Christianity is not mainstream, it does exist and we do call oursevles Christian. I would also argue that most non-fundamentalist Christians also understand that the Bible was written within a cultural and historical context that must be adjusted for today's world (i.e., the equality of women, etc.)

Feel free to interpret the Bible however you see fit, but don't try and interpret it for anyone else.

I'm a first time visitor/poster here, and must say that this particular discussion is fantastic. I'm so happy to see opposing views debated rationally and honestly.

If I may make a few points that hopefully haven't been made in the last 10 or so posts (it's a long thread! :P):

I feel as though the posters defending religion are understandably focusing on Christianity as that it is the dominant religion in this particular debate. I think the question that Christians like mwfte would do well to ask themselves is "How can I reconcile my beliefs that differ from all other religions and individuals within each religion with my belief that all people are equal?"

To defend religion as a valid concept opposing atheism requires finding the similarities between the different religious factions. I'll list the universal similarities I can find: - gives a set of morals to follow - offers a purpose or reason for life / living - brings people together of similar beliefs to fill social interaction requirements for a full life.

In order to now consider religion as a single concept to defend, we must, for sake of valid argument, reject the specific beliefs of our personal religion and as i said focus on these similarities.

The first thing one might notice is that these common ingredients for religion can be found OUTSIDE of religion. We've seen through this discussion that the atheists in this room have a great sense of moral values such as "thou shalt not kill" etc. In fact, one could argue that without religion these people have at least one less exception to this important moral. relious groups have used their beliefs to justify killing. atheists by their very nature cannot do this.

let me pause here to present the argument that there are most certainly atheists who use their rejection of a god or religion as justification to kill. the point that I am trying to make above is not that 'religion should be rejected because it allows people to kill' but rather that 'religion has been proven not to be required for morals' so religion cannot be defended on moral grounds. Morals DO exist without religious belief, and this has been proven in this very forum.

for the sake of keeping this post shorter than a novel, i'll quickly show that the other two religious commonalities are unusable in defending religion: - offer purpose: there are many ways to find purpose or direction in life, and examples include caring for your loved ones, life-long learning (perhaps a quest to understand the world can be a drive), exploring nature, etc. religion is not required for these motivations. - brings people together: no-brainer. let's all go to the movies! or perhaps a round table discussion on a topic of our choosing!

to argue that religious belief is essential to happiness or peace, etc, is unreasonable because this argument is generally made on the basis that "it makes some people happy, including myself." that's great that it makes you happy, but it doesn't make everyone happy, and i suspect there are other ways of life to fulfil you and make you happy.

my final point is that because we've seen that we can find happiness outside of a religious belief, we must feel free to let it go. I totally agree that most, for example, Christians are not represented by the extermists seen on TV. however religion gives these people a basis to make their claims and influence national and regional policy based on extreme, often misguided religious grounds. to take away religion takes away a powerful tool that these people have at their disposal.

i propose that giving up religion (which is a very shakey, albeit prevelant, concept) will do more good than bad, and that any negative consequences of such a move will simply be short-term effects of a major emotional and mental transition.

It seems a bit arrogant for you to criticize someone's personal beliefs based on your own understanding of Christianity

Sorry, it’s not my beliefs or interpretations. The quotes in my previous posts demonstrate that I take it straight out of the bible. I am not in any way required to respect people’s beliefs. I can respect them as a person, and I don’t have anything against any of you, but don’t think for a second that I will tolerate any bull to permeate this discussion without having to say something.

It seems that only atheists and fundamentalists believe that one does not question one's own religious beliefs.

I’m not saying you don’t question them, just that you provide pretext after pretext because no matter how confusing something may seem to a believer, they cannot conceive themselves letting go of such beliefs and remain skeptical until good evidence presents itself, not accept a premise and try to find answers that fit your already established and apparently unshakable beliefs. I own none of these beliefs. Atheism is the ABSENCE of theistic beliefs. Would you be arrogant in disowning the belief in Tarot readings or in speaking out against republican bullshit? Religion gets a pass in any and all criticism because of mentalities like your own. Science requires truthfulness in order for its very existence. Religion, on the other hand, does not. Religion only requires that people believe it’s true. Lying to people to get them to believe is perfectly ok.

There happen to be many, many Christians out there who believe in continuing revelation.

You are making my point. There occurs really no such thing as one true form of Christianity. It seems the moderates here attempt to portray the fundamentalist as not really Christian or Christian-like. In fact, they study scripture strictly and practice much of what we see in today’s world. Either way the pendulum swings, it’s both dishonest and absurd.

We understand the Bible to be an historical document which reveals fundamental Truths.

Apparently, from the arguments I’ve been hearing, you people do not really understand what is in the Bible (hence the different practices and held beliefs). You give credit to your morality to the Bible not realizing the cherry-picking and “continuous contemplation” is your already established morality choosing verses that already agree with you. You obviously know nothing about the history of your religion. You probably even believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were the actual authors of the gospels! I wouldn’t be surprised.

I would also argue that most non-fundamentalist Christians also understand that the Bible was written within a cultural and historical context that must be adjusted for today's world (i.e., the equality of women, etc.)

Sorry, you can't change its words without being dishonest to its ideas. The bible and its ideas are patriarchal – God is the Omnipotent Father – hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. This idea is coming from God (allegedly). Even Jesus held this form of mentality. There is no interpretation necessary. If I read a quote on Mein Kampf to you about hate, would you accuse me of interpreting it incorrectly or not at all? It’s special pleading to try to change its context. I don’t have to interpret it. The versus I provide speak for themselves. The book further more says to not interpret it. If you ignore the clear message its giving you because you willfully want to remain ignorant, then continue lying to yourself. I've never met someone who is so in denial.

Feel free to interpret the Bible however you see fit, but don't try and interpret it for anyone else.

I didn’t interpret. I showed the passages as they appear. READ THE DAMN BOOK!

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 1:20) [bold caps, mine]

Do me a favor TMH, go back to my last post from yesterday and tell me what the passages in those green boxes mean to you. Because clearly I'm not getting it. I'm surprised that you didn't find mwfte's responses contradictory with passages from scripture--the very scripture mwfte claims to believe in.

So please, enlighten us all if you would be so kind. I want to see what logical acrobatics you'll come up with this time.

I have 2 things to address on the most recent comments from Erick and TMH.

1] TMH's defense of the Bible's condoning of slavery and oppression of women is frankly speaking ludicrous with his statement below:

"Bible was written within a cultural and historical context that must be adjusted for today's world (i.e., the equality of women, etc.)"

Implications?

• God and Christianity originally supported slavery and the oppression of women. So much for a religion of freedom of will as well as tolerance and respect.

If God is all about abolishing slavery and women emancipation, I would expect God would have said so from the beginning because this were social revolutions that better mankind.

• Human beings are constantly The Bible is "constantly" adjusted to fit the needs of a changing world.

That means the Bible is hardly the words of God or His literal truth.

Thanks for that refreshing bit of honesty, TMH.

By the way, the Bible is not a historicial document is never regarded as such by the academia.

This is not a matter of faith but a sheer lack ofr credible proof and facts.

The Bible is more a work of fiction and nrrative takes about the past like Aesop's Fables with moral tales and prables designed to pass moral lessons to readers.

==========

I can understand where Erick's outrage is coming from.

TMH's comment that

"What you call "cherry picking'" is acceptable theological discourse to the majority of believers."

Then why do Christians say the Bible is the Word of God and is literally true when you cherry pick what you want to say about the religion?

Such Christians are merely trying to create a perfect religion as a marketing tool to convert others, as well as to boost up their own sense of moral supremacy.

This type of dishonesty is truly repugnant and misleads people about what Christianity really is about.

==============

Dave, I agree with most of your comments.

I propose that all religions stop preaching and evangelism and focus their aspects on cleaning up their religious bigotry and weakness and reining in their wayward faithful which is doing more harm to the world than good.

Only then, consider preaching.

To fulfill all the laws of the prophets means that Jesus must have approved of all the "lawful" atrocities and intolerant laws of the prophets.

First off, you are correct about the fact that the verse says "fulfill." I misremembered the verse. However, if you continue to read Matthew 5, Jesus does change laws from the Old Testament. Look at all the "You have heard that the law of Moses says..." verses. Also, as mentioned previously, the Mosaic laws are dismissed in several different passages in the New Testament, including Colossians 2.

Fulfill also has different meanings, such as "to satisfy" or "to complete."

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 1:20)

I think this is a matter of translation. My translation of this bible verse reads so:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who moved the prophets to speak from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

As for your other cherry picking, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you are being theologically dishonest.

I don't think you should be calling me dishonest; you've taken these other verses out of their contexts and misused them.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

Jesus is obviously speaking figuratively. If you read the whole passage, one can see that Jesus is talking about the way his message can divide people. The word "sword" is used as a metaphor for "truth" over and over again in the bible.

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

The way you've quoted this is increadibly misleading. This should be in double quotes; this comes from a section where Jesus is quoting the character from one of his parables. He is not telling his disciples to go execute people.

Creating peace by blessing does not rely on caring about peace for others but because the do-gooder thinks he'll receive a future reward (going to Heaven, for example).

The verse actually reads:

God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.(Matthew 5:9)

Why would God call peacemakers his children? Because peacemaking is a good thing. It doesn't say that people should make peace only for reward.

Naturally any beggar would value such advice because he would receive the benefits of the charitable acts. And since Jesus did not work for a living, it gives reason why he might reap the rewards himself. Think about it: Jesus and the apostles had to live off something.

You are really reaching here. Do you have any textual proof that Jesus told people to give things away so he could take it all?

What TMH said is right; it is normal practice to interpret scripture. If you want to deny that, you're welcome to.

You obviously know nothing about the history of your religion. You probably even believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were the actual authors of the gospels! I wouldn’t be surprised.

I do not understand why you insist on assuming that Christians are stupid. That is ridiculous.

The author of Matthew if unknown, but it's normally ascribed to St. Matthew. Mark is also anonymous, bit is attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter. Luke's author is also unknown, but traditionally they are believed to have been written by the physician Luke, a follower of Paul. John's author has been disputed for about 1800 years. Traditionally, the author is believed to be John of Zebedee.

I figured you would pull some argumentative acrobatics and weasel out of these again so once more here we go . I have decided to split these into different posts so that it doesn’t bunch up as one enormous one:

Jesus does change laws from the Old Testament

Oh of course. I agree completely and am glad you admitted error. What you have discovered is what is known as a ‘contradiction’. These are very prominent in the Bible. But also notice how you admitted to have forgotten such an important verse: the fact that you shouldn’t dismiss the OT and because of your own mistake imagine what stuff you’ve dismissed yourself of doing! Now that you realize the grave mistake I hope that you learn of your ways and prepare yourself to sacrifice animals and kill others who do not own Christian beliefs as stated in the OT. Quickly, before God becomes jealous and wrathful!

I think this is a matter of translation.

It certainly is. Remember way back how I said that there is no one true form of Christianity but that there are several interpretations that people take? This is why in history we see Christians fighting Christians over who is the true Christian. This clash of absolutist moral and spiritual certainty without any evidence to support the claims causes such problems.

I don't think you should be calling me dishonest; you've taken these other verses out of their contexts and misused them.

I find it humourous when Christians throw out the “taking out of context” reply. It’s awkward that you call me dishonest when all I posted was the passages as they appear in the Bible. BTW, I quoted from the King James Version which is the most widely used Bible. But I implore you to look at other versions to. A good place to start is www.blueletterbible.com. It’s a database with different Bible versions. The contexts do not come from me, and I have made this point crystal clear several times but you seem to ignore that fact.

Jesus is obviously speaking figuratively. If you read the whole passage, one can see that Jesus is talking about the way his message can divide people.

Did you think I only discovered that verse on its own and didn’t bother to read the following versus? Of course he is speaking of division. I never inferred a literal sword. That was your own assumption. Go back to my post and tell me where I took it out of context? The division is what strikes me as odd for a Son of Man. This is the God coming to Earth to split his creations. He is a divisive god; not a quality of a benevolent all-loving deity. Thank you for making my point!

The way you've quoted this is increadibly misleading. This should be in double quotes; this comes from a section where Jesus is quoting the character from one of his parables. He is not telling his disciples to go execute people.

If in fact a parable, the Bible would be the one responsible of having to provide quotes, not me. This one seems to get much controversy. I will give you a response Jim Walker made to Denis McKinsey (of Biblical Errancy fame) a few years ago on just this very subject:

The intent of a New Testament parable (as preachers love to claim), aims at teaching a lesson that the faithful should take seriously. If not, what should we make of the parable about the Good Samaritan where Jesus ends by saying, "Go, and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:37)? Or the parable about the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)? Should we chalk up any of Jesus's parables to, "Oh, it's just a parable, we shouldn't take it seriously"? Of course not. The Parable of the Ten Pounds aims to teach a lesson about disobeying your "Nobleman" (no doubt the author of Luke meant to put Jesus as the nobleman). Believers can replace "servants" with themselves or someone else, but what could they possibly replace for the conclusion of the lesson: "slay them before me"? Slay means to kill by violent means. You would have to replace slay with "kill," "slaughter," "exterminate," or any other synonym that comes close to "slay." Regardless of which metaphor you choose, it would not lessen the end result. One could not use milder concepts like "punish" or "chasten" because they mean entirely different things than slay. It would also damage Jesus' credibility to suggest that he did not choose the proper metaphorical word to convey in his parable. If, instead, we take Luke 19:27 as *literal* instead of parable, then the slaying would have to occur in front of Jesus during his limited physical life on earth. After he died on the cross, an apologist could claim the slaying ended at his death. But as *parable,* it transcends the physical. It becomes transcendent to Jesus who no longer lives in the physical realm. His presence resides in heaven and in the hearts and souls of all Christian believers. The Bible has a clear message as to where "before me" occurs. For followers to accept the lesson of their Jesus, they would have to slay their enemies before Jesus where He reside in their souls or in Heaven! It is precisely the kind of interpretation that Christians used to fuel the Crusades, Inquisitions and pogroms. "Kill them all. God will recognize his own," said Arnald-Amalric in 1208 (when asked by the Crusaders what to do with the citizens of Beziers who where a mixture of Catholics and Cathars). This kind of atrocity plays right along with the parable in Luke. If we take the entire Bible in context, Jesus' parable certainly agrees with the ordering of slaying by God in the Old Testament. If you add the concept of the Trinity, then you connect Jesus directly with all the slaying of men, women, and children by God-Jesus-Ghost. Furthermore, the New Testament, unmistakably, has Jesus admitting to willful slaying: "I will strike her children dead" (Jesus in Rev. 2:23 NRSV). Certainly Christians should not doubt the will of Jesus, should they? If an apologist wishes to back out of this problem by saying that Jesus did not intend to put himself as the target of nobleman, then the parable becomes even more atrocious. We can then put any "Nobleman" in this context. Imagine dragging an unlawful citizen to the feet of the president of the United States and slaying him at his feet; or put yourself in place of the nobleman and ordering your followers to slay your enemies. No matter which way a believer tries to extricate himself from this difficulty, parable or not, it leads to problems. The only out, comes from asserting that Jesus did not say those words, and indeed, the Bible errs here. Or... OR... perhaps Christianity bases itself on unsupported conjectures and deceptions that relies on faith instead of reason and evidence.

God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.(Matthew 5:9)

Jesus: “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:18-22)

Remember that “candy” I was talking about? Yeah, it appears once again. This time more clearly: “treasure in heaven”. He doesn’t say to give to charity because it’s the moral thing to do. He says give up EVERYTHING you own and you will be rewarded with TREASURE in heaven—the “candy” I spoke of. This isn’t even a translation error. Sorry to inform you. Getting to my other point, the comment I made about Jesus was that had to live off something which I based on an inference from the information given. It makes sense that he would want to be inclined to spread this so he can benefit from the rewards. But for the sake of argument let’s assume that’s not the case. In any sense, giving up everything puts you in the beggar’s position not allowing you to make future contributions in the long run. AND you’re suppose to believe that this is all for the best and to trust him because, after all, he’s God, and he’s all knowing and so he knows what’s best. Not only that, but he promised you goodies afterward: “you will have treasure in heaven.” He could have said it any other way, but Jesus chose his words and so we’re left with this.

You also can’t ignore the sentence that follows. It says “Then come, follow me.” You need to be Jesus’ disciple.

Jesus: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple…In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-33)

This gets complicated and we get back to my first statement in this very post about contradictions. How can you honor your father and mother but also hate your father and mother? How can you love everybody and hate everybody? And not only that, you have to sell everything. Of course in order to be his disciple, you need to have lived in his lifetime. Most Christians do not realize that Jesus' promise of his second coming did not apply to our generation or to a future generation, but only to the generation of his time. Mathew 16:28. His disciples died without witnessing the “coming”.

What TMH said is right; it is normal practice to interpret scripture. If you want to deny that, you're welcome to.

It is not my denial. It is a biblical declaration as stated in scripture. If you want to be dishonest to its ideas, you’re welcome to do so—I mean, you’re already do it.

The Biblical Jesus taught to seek the kingdom of God and to ignore future plans (Matthew 6:33-34). You don't need to work for food (John 6:27) or save your money (Matthew 6:19). Encourage people to persecute you (Matthew 5:11). Give away anything you own to every man who asks, and if he steals it, don't try to get it back (Luke 6:30). Sell everything you have and give it to the poor (Mark 10:21). If someone hits you, invite them to hit you again (Matthew 5:39). Don't ever marry a divorced woman because you'll commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). Don't even look at a women in a sexual way because that also constitutes adultery (Matthew 5:28). And don't think about your life, what to eat, the health of your body or about the clothes you wear (Luke 12:22). God sent himself down to have himself tortured and killed so as to avoid the torture from himself. Huh!

If people took the advice of Jesus, it would guarantee a miserable life of un-education, poverty, persecution and poor heath. So what ends up happening? People pick and choose to avoid these problems while still adhering to irrationalities.

If you want to be a cherry-picking Christian, just say it. Don’t run us around in circles. Just be honest and tell us that you wish to adhere to irrationalities because of your personal choice—it saves time. You come to a blog that is clearly against dogmatism and religion, and criticize its contents. What did you expect in return, immunity from criticism? People won’t respect your beliefs simply because they’re your beliefs. People will evaluate your reasons! If you don’t want to be confronted on the basis that you take offense to it, then I don’t know what you’re doing here. If you want to be taken seriously and continue a debate, however, then be ready to respond with reason and evidence to your claims.

Now that you realize the grave mistake I hope that you learn of your ways and prepare yourself to sacrifice animals and kill others who do not own Christian beliefs as stated in the OT.

I've already written numerous times that these Mosaic laws were dismissed by Paul in the New Testament.

BTW, I quoted from the King James Version which is the most widely used Bible. But I implore you to look at other versions to.

I do look at other versions, including versions in languages other then English. That's why my translation of that verse was different from yours.

The contexts do not come from me, and I have made this point crystal clear several times but you seem to ignore that fact.

The contexts come from the bible. I never said they came from you. My point was that you didn't talk about what the verses around what you quoted also say.

Also, I never said that we shouldn't learn from Jesus' parables. I merely meant that you should have said that the quote about the sword was in a parable, as you simply attributed it to Jesus.

If one read that verse alone, he would assume Jesus was telling his disciples to kill people at his feet.

Most Christians do not realize that Jesus' promise of his second coming did not apply to our generation or to a future generation, but only to the generation of his time.

This is a matter of interpretation. (I know, I know. Interpretation is dishonest, in your view.)

It is not my denial. It is a biblical declaration as stated in scripture.

I already pointed out that this a translation issue.

You come to a blog that is clearly against dogmatism and religion, and criticize its contents. What did you expect in return, immunity from criticism? People won’t respect your beliefs simply because they’re your beliefs. People will evaluate your reasons! If you don’t want to be confronted on the basis that you take offense to it, then I don’t know what you’re doing here. If you want to be taken seriously and continue a debate, however, then be ready to respond with reason and evidence to your claims.

I have been visting this blog for awhile. I never expected immunity from criticism, and nothing I've said indicates that I did. I also said that I don't expect people to respect my beliefs, but merely to respect me as a person. I never said I was offended, nor did I act as if I was. I enjoy discussion and debate.

However, I really think that this debate has become pointless and circular. You wish to dismiss everything I say by telling me I am practicing Christianity falsely when you aren't a member of the religion. That would be like me telling a Muslim how to practice Islam; I would never do that because I'm not a member of the religion.

And, yes, it's my personal choice to believe. I never said it was anything else. It's your choice not to. That's fine.

My comment about interpretation wasn’t so that you can just look up different versions until you find a diluted translation of a passage that in one case sounds horrendous but in another, sounds neutral and then stick with the neutral one to avoid having to justify its immorality. I was merely pointing out how newer translations have changed and deviated from the original Greek. Most of the ones you have chosen to adhere to are the diluted ones. That’s what I meant by checking out other versions—so that you realize the flaw in your statement. Your selectiveness in the obvious contradictions of Jesus saying one thing and Paul saying another causes you to have to pick sides. Apparently you chose Paul over the Son of God.

This debate has become circular in that you have simply provided argumentative acrobatics with word games and selectiveness. You say that I am not a member of this religion which is true though I use to be, as are many of the atheists that you will encounter here. It was having an honest look at scripture that helped people in seeing its obvious flaws. However, one does not have to partake in certain beliefs of communism or Social Darwinism, for example, to be able to speak against it. Focusing on the bad parts in any belief system allows for one to find flaws and dangers. I am not bitter, however, about how this debate will end—if you choose to end it. You have made astonishing statements and have not strongly supported and confronted them, but rather slyly selected other passages so as to avoid having to confront the atrocities in scripture. To the secular in this blog, that's how the record of this debate will appear.

This debate has become circular in that you have simply provided argumentative acrobatics with word games and selectiveness.

I don't think I'm the only one to blame for this debate becoming circular.

And, seriously, can you tell me how I was being sly and acrobatic? I've been very honest with my answers and about what I think; I haven't tried to hide anything.

And I don't think any of my statements were that astonishing.

Adds a little more

My comment about interpretation wasn’t so that you can just look up different versions until you find a diluted translation of a passage that in one case sounds horrendous but in another, sounds neutral and then stick with the neutral one to avoid having to justify its immorality.

Yeah, I didn't take it that way. I know what you meant.

However, one does not have to partake in certain beliefs of communism or Social Darwinism, for example, to be able to speak against it.

Again, you didn't read what I wrote. I said that I didn't think people who aren't members of a certain religion should say the members of said religion are practicing it dishonestly. That is not the same as saying those people cannot criticise the religion. There's a difference.

If the dishonesty is apparent I see why not. Especially when you're talking about former members. And about your defense of biblical quotes, if you can't see your own dishonesty in reply to those, then I can't help you. Sorry. I've realized that some people who are too enwrapped with their religion will not change their minds because of debate but rather personal investigation. Hopefully you'll engage in such intellectual honesty in the future.

Hi Christians, be careful when you quote Paul for statments like these:

"I've already written numerous times that these Mosaic laws were dismissed by Paul in the New Testament."

Many of Paul's statements contradict or are at odds with what Jesus said.

If Paul is the final statement on Christian law, then do aware that Paul in Acts had claimed that: "The Holy Ghost ask not to preach in Asia"

So why are the Christians preaching in Asia?

By the way, I had heard that Christians try to fudge this issue by claiming that Christians were allowed to preach there in Acts 19:10

"And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks."

The Jews and Greeks are not Asians.

Kindly do not assume that non-believers do not read the Bible and expect to rely on your word on what the Bible actually say.

We are just non-believers, not the ignorant damned.