Religion is never given credit for positive things like community building and support. A practice of moral code and structure or influence on great art like the Sistine chapel for example.

Yes of course. Because pre-bible (pre-religion) it was perfectly fine to murder, rape, pillage and thieve.

Why don't you trot out the "if you don't believe in the bible then where do you get your moral guidance from?".

FMD.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-references-protocols-full-text-folder.html

Go for it, son.

1 In all that has so far been reported by me to you, I have endeavored to depict with care the secret of what is coming, of what is past, and of what is going on now, rushing into the flood of the great events coming already in the near future, the secret of our relations to the GOYIM and of financial operations. On this subject there remains still a little for me to add.

2. IN OUR HANDS IS THE GREATEST POWER OF OUR DAY - GOLD: IN TWO DAYS WE CAN PROCURE FROM OUR STOREHOUSES ANY QUANTITY WE MAY PLEASE.

3. Surely there is no need to seek further proof that our rule is predestined by God? Surely we shall not fail with such wealth to prove that all that evil which for so many centuries we have had to commit has served at the end of ends the cause of true well-being - the bringing of everything into order? Though it be even by the exercise of some violence, yet all the same it will be established. (The motto of the Freemasons - "Out of Chaos, Order"). We shall contrive to prove that we are benefactors who have restored to the rent and mangled earth the true good and also freedom of the person, and therewith we shall enable it to be enjoyed in peace and quiet, with proper dignity of relations, on the condition, of course, of strict observance of the laws established by us. We shall make plain therewith that freedom does not consist in dissipation and in the right of unbridled license any more than the dignity and force of a man do not consist in the right of everyone to promulgate destructive principles in the nature of freedom of conscience, equality and the like, that freedom of the person in no wise consists in the right to agitate oneself and others by abominable speeches before disorderly mobs, and that true freedom consists in the inviolability of the person who honorably and strictly observes all the laws of life in common, that human dignity is wrapped up in consciousness of the rights and also of the absence of rights of each, and not wholly and solely in fantastic imaginings about the subject of one's EGO.

4. One authority will be glorious because it will be all-powerful, will rule and guide, and not muddle along after leaders and orators shrieking themselves hoarse with senseless words which they call great principles and which are nothing else, to speak honestly, but utopian .... Our authority will be the crown of order, and in that is included the whole happiness of man. The aureole of this authority will inspire a mystical bowing of the knee before it and a reverent fear before it of all the peoples. True force makes no terms with any right, not even with that of God: none dare come near to it so as to take so much as a span from it away.

Let me spell it out again - at its very basic level religion relies on the belief in something that CANNOT ever be proven - this is crucial to keep in mind. Religion is defined by faith. And what is faith? It is belief in something that CANNOT be proven with evidence. If you could prove it, then it would just become fact, and faith would be irrelevant.

Without faith religion doesn't exist.

Atheism is not e belief system, it is based on a rational approach to the world. Atheists don't "believe" there is no god. Atheists look at the evidence and say "there is no need to create a god to explain how the world works, and there is no evidence suggesting a supernatural creator. Therefore, based on the facts as we know them - my conclusion is that god does not exist (or at least it is so unlikely as to enable such a conclusion)".

This may seem pedantic, but it is crucially different.

The problem with religion is that they will actively deny reality if they can't shoe horn it into the belief system.

Atheists, basing their opinion on evidence, are open to revise their conclusion should the evidence change.

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Yes of course. Because pre-bible (pre-religion) it was perfectly fine to murder, rape, pillage and thieve.

Why don't you trot out the "if you don't believe in the bible then where do you get your moral guidance from?".

FMD.

Religion is never given credit for positive things like community building and support. A practice of moral code and structure or influence on great art like the Sistine chapel for example.

Nice strawman.

One need only read Marx's hatred of Christianity and religion and note the subsequent communist and socialist platforms crafted around this hatred that led to some of the most horrific slaughters and oppression in history. The state became the peoples religion and god.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

:lol:

You have absolutely no idea, do you? You have obviously never read any of Marx's work because you are entirely spouting shit.

For Marx, the notion of 'Christian socialism' was a manifestly absurd oxymoron. In his view, the variants of it that tried to muster support among the masses represented no more than a final, futile attempt on the part of a decadent, senescent aristocracy to stem the rising tide of the bourgeoisie: "In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited proletariat alone ... As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has clerical socialism with feudal socialism. Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the state? Has it not preached in the place of these charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat"[/b] ('Manifesto of the Communist Party' CW Vol. 6, p508).

Marx was just as scathing when it came to attempts by Christian ideologists among the bourgeoisie to claim that their religion was in any sense compatible with the struggle for socialism. In 1847, for example, Marx published an article condemning the propagation of a variant of feudal, Christian socialism preached in the pages of the conservative newspaper, the Rheinischer Beobachter.
The paper maintained that the social question in Germany could be resolved within the framework of the Prussian state, provided that the state put into practice what it called "the social principles of Christianity". Marx's memorable retort was to the effect that, "The social principles of Christianity justified the slavery of antiquity, glorified the serfdom of the Middle Ages and are capable, in case of need, of defending the oppression of the proletariat, even if with somewhat doleful grimaces. The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and for the latter all they have to offer is the pious wish that the former may be charitable. The social principles of Christianity place the Consistorial Counsellor's compensation for all infamies in heaven, and thereby justify the continuation of these infamies on earth. The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite wisdom, ordains for the redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness: in short, all the qualities of the rabble; and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its self-confidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread. The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, and the proletariat is revolutionary. So much for the social principles of Christianity" ('The communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter'

Just as he had argued against his young Hegelian colleagues decades before, he maintained that the ultimate objective should be not to bring about freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. To argue that "everyone should be able to attend to his religious needs as well as his bodily needs without the police sticking their noses in" was not enough. "Bourgeois 'freedom of conscience' is nothing but the toleration of all possible kinds of religious freedom of conscience, and it [the workers' party] endeavours rather to liberate the conscience from the witchery of religion" (K Marx and F Engels Selected works Moscow 1958, Vol. 2, p323 and p333f).

With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.

To me agnosticism is like being half pregnant. Agnostics refuse to make the obvious conclusion all the evidence points to.

Atheists don't "believe" there is no god. They conclude there isn't one based on the available evidence.

Regarding the big bang, people often confuse what the word "theory" means. Scientists and atheists don't "believe" it happened. They conclude based on evidence that it is currently the most plausible explanation.

It isn't a theory in the ordinary sense of the word. It is a theory in the scientific sense of the word - eg a testable claim, able to be disproved. It is an explanation supported by evidence, but not necessarily conclusively.

If a better explanation is discovered it will be superceded.

Compare this to religion - god did it. Who created god then?

Edited by AzzaMarch: 28/9/2015 09:10:25 PM

Really?

Aren't all Christians judged when they die to see whether they're going to Hell, Heaven or Purgatory.

By living life so that at death you are friends with God. This means that you die without mortal sin on your soul and live life so as to avoid mortal sin. But if we sin we must confess mortal sin to a priest in the sacrament of confession with true repentence and avoid it in the future.

Anyway Atheists are sweet. Just ask Popey Francis. http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

To make my point clear - no evidence exists pointing to the existence of a supernatural creator.

My point about the big bang was that it is a plausible explanation of how the universe was created, with supporting evidence. However we continue to learn more and the theory may be refined, or even overturned if more evidence comes to light.
The big bang is part of an evidence based intellectual framework based on empirical evidence.

Whereas religious belief in god is based on the interpretation of scrolls written 2000 years ago.

My guess is you are referring to the Bible here - its worth noting that many scrolls/writings were not accepted to be part of the finalised Bible. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, etc, etc, etc. The Bible wasn't finalised until towards the end of the second century and the first 'draft' not until near the end of the first century and this was done by a group of self-appointed experts - FAR FAR FAR from the rigorous peer review process of research to be published in scientific journals! Several of the included books (e.g.: James & Peter letters, Revelation) were not in the first 'edition' - strange that an omniscient god couldn't inspire his 'human pens/publishers' to get it right & that it took decades to get it right. Never mind, it was plenty of time to get the oh so important word of god to those people deep inside the forests of Papua New Guinea in the 20th century & not a moment sooner! Good thing they were practicing Christian principles anyway..:idea:

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 29/9/2015 09:47:35 AM

You talk a lot on evidence and faith. Do you have any conclusive evidence on the construction of the universe and how it all came to be. We have theories like the "Big bang" where lets be honest, most people who accept it as fact are basing it completely on faith and have little to no understanding of it whatsoever.

and if a god created it who created the God?

[-x you're not allowed to ask that question, it's against the rules.

The Nicaean Council is a really interesting topic.

You have a Christian head of state calling together a group of 'experts' who look at all recorded documents or regarding the life of Jesus and his disciples post resurrection. And they they had a criteria on selection, which was based on who bore witness to what things and how they were recorded. In the end, the commonly accepted gospels were selected because they were the ones that people had 'testified' to witnessing in the early days, and so the rumour and stories were able to spread, because when news hit new towns and cities, people who had been at the event were able to variety, or not, in which case the story usually died out, as being incredible or unverified.

Whether you beleive any of the shit or not, the history of the early church and the formation of first sort of bible really is fascinating.

It is fascinating - I like reading up on it from an historical perspective.

But I do question somewhat your description of the decision making process as to what was in or out. A lot of it was political. Given it occurred in 325 AD, any claims as to who "witnessed" what 300 years later would not be based on much.

Number 4

It is fascinating - I like reading up on it from an historical perspective.

But I do question somewhat your description of the decision making process as to what was in or out. A lot of it was political. Given it occurred in 325 AD, any claims as to who "witnessed" what 300 years later would not be based on much.

And that's why the formation of Luke's gospel is a very interesting story.