11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

[cixOclock]

Do you people not sleep or something? I went to bed like 8 hours ago, because you people were boring me and all I see in responses, and intellectual speaking is this:

"My mom and dad made me do it, therefore I hate it..."
"My mom and dad were brainwashing me, I hate it..."
"A priest decided it was okay to have sex with children, I hate it."

So instead of trying to find the true part in it, the good part, you're basicaly labeling everything with the exact same header and name.

'Pedophile's; Greed; Ignorance.'

When in general aetheism spreads the exact same marble-jarble.
You people, and yes I will refer to you as a hive-mind, only look for anything that can be turned into a fallacy of the Bible, when you never attempt to find the fallacies in what scientists throw at you as truth, you (collective hive-mind) believe just about anything that is said until someone who is smarter says that it is wrong and then a new hypothesis is deemed correct...

I know that science is a good force, it is for the benefit of humanity.

But don't be stupid and say that aetheism does not spread ignorance, (i.e. all religions are bad and need to be destroyed.)

[Reincarnate]

no.

[Mans0n]

what is sleep? 0.o

[cry4eternity]

Yes, frequently church groups will have fundraisers and similar activities for the good of a community or such. However, a religious person has no extra capability for doing good than a nonreligious person. Anything you can do I can do, too. What I won't do is kill myself for a religious cause or attempt to influence politics and education for my religious beliefs.

The main problem going across right now seems to be that the "good" brought forth by Christianity hasn't been addressed. Yes, there is some "good" that has come from Christianity as well as other religions. I think the reason it hasn't been brought up is that it is largely irrelevant. To me, it's similar to saying "Oh come on, the KKK has group barbecues and instills family values in its children. It can't be all bad." I realize the KKK is a bit harsh of a comparison to the flavor of Christianity likely being encouraged here, but the point remains the same. The suffering and conflict caused by religion is unnecessary. Religion is not necessary for a person to do "good". It is not necessary to explain the universe. It is not necessary to maintain a happy, motivated lifestyle.

Not only is religion completely unnecessary, but also unsupported. One point that was brought up goes something along the lines of, "We can't explain everything, so you can't rule out the possibility." While this statement is true, it doesn't show what it intends to show. You might not know exactly how an LED Television works, but you are pretty sure that it doesn't involve leprechauns waving lanterns across the inside powered by eating Lucky Charms. However, perhaps you actually can't rule this out for yourself. Let's test it scientifically and prove that TV Leprechauns don't exist. It is at this point you decide to break one open and look, and much to your surprise there are no leprechauns. But wait, there are millions of LED Televisions; surely you can't rule out the possibility that one of them could be powered by cereal munching leprechauns. So, you decide to hunt down every LED Television ever made and check the insides and once again you find no leprechauns. But wait, the leprechauns only show themselves if you believe in them first.

Without going any further into this, this is what is meant by "moving the goalposts." This example also gives a small demonstration of the impossibility of proving nonexistence. The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated to be true, and not a moment sooner.

I'd also like to point out the argument from authority made above me. Just because somebody is smart doesn't mean that their beliefs are correct. Einstein himself rejected the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, which is now accepted as fact in the scientific community. The only reason it seems to be that smart people are correct is because smarter people take the time to research, weigh all options, and most importantly support their beliefs with evidence.

[Reincarnate]

A note on smart people like Newton invoking God: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV1r4fxaZsE&t=5m34s

watch from 5:34 to end

[OneHandNow]

"Tide comes in, tide goes out - you can't explain that!!"

Hilarious..

Even more hilarious..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IguW9...eature=related

[Reincarnate]

I think this is my favorite: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...degrasse-tyson

[eastsideman09]

Originally Posted by cixOclock

"My mom and dad made me do it, therefore I hate it..."
"My mom and dad were brainwashing me, I hate it..."
"A priest decided it was okay to have sex with children, I hate it."

The first two scenarios could basically be used for either side, they're both a matter of ones upbringing. Whether or not you question what your parents, or anyone at that, teach you at a young age will certainly mold who you are and what you believe.

I attended church weekly with my family until I was in 5th grade, but I was distancing myself from it before even then because nobody could really give me a satisfactory answer to my question: "Where did God come from?"

The most common answer I received was that "He's always been there", or something to that extent.... "Why? How?".... 'Because He's God' is what I came to understand as the reasoning for it, and that never really sat well with me. That's not to say I'm an atheist, I'm not.

As far as pedophilia goes, it certainly doesn't look good for a religion, or pretty much anything, when the person who's speaking on behalf of the one in charge makes a hypocrite of himself. Obviously it's not the case with every priest ever, but how does something like that even become a problem in the first place?

Originally Posted by cixOclock

When in general aetheism spreads the exact same marble-jarble.
You people, and yes I will refer to you as a hive-mind, only look for anything that can be turned into a fallacy of the Bible, when you never attempt to find the fallacies in what scientists throw at you as truth, you (collective hive-mind) believe just about anything that is said until someone who is smarter says that it is wrong and then a new hypothesis is deemed correct...

Actually, that's basically whole point of science, isn't it?

Except when something is deemed a scientific law, there's really no denying it once it gets to that point. It can be modified or further explained with progression, but not necessarily disproven. Theories can certainly be disproven, but that's pretty much the point of them. They explain "why" and "how" something happens, and their accuracy is determined by experimenting.

(Correct me if I'm wrong though, that's pretty much my understanding of the Scientific Method from what I was taught in Biology and Chemistry two years ago.)

The only "laws" that I can think of that have been completely debunked are the one's from wayyyy back when, that were based on simple observations without any real testing (Flat Earth, Geocentric, etc.)

edit:

Originally Posted by OneHandNow

Even more hilarious..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IguW9...eature=related

The last line in this video....
"How can an african american person evolve from a white person, we've got different skin"

lmfaoooooooooo

[Reincarnate]

People usually conflate what law vs. theory is. A law is something that describes a particular phenomenon. The Law of Gravity, for instance, is a way to basically say "gravity exists and this is what it does." The "what gravity is and how it actually works" is described by theory. In other words, law describes a phenomenon, and a theory is a framework that tries to explain how that phenomenon works.

It's not like a law is a "stronger" form of theory -- a theory is an attempt to create an explanation that is consistent with all other observations that uses observations, laws, and evidence to back its claims. Theories change all the time once more evidence comes in, and theories become stronger when new evidence supports it. All you need is one bit of contradictory evidence to shatter a theory.

[Reincarnate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

[OneHandNow]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

I think this is my favorite: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...degrasse-tyson

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by cry4eternity

You might not know exactly how an LED Television works, but you are pretty sure that it doesn't involve leprechauns waving lanterns across the inside powered by eating Lucky Charms.

Wait, so LED doesn't stand for Leprechaun-Emitting Diode

[Calcium Deposit]

Clearly they run on the power of Led Zeppelin. Led power has been around since the 70s but was mostly used by the government up until the late 90s when it was then okay for the private sector use.

[ChesterDalton]

So the Atheists evidence that proves atheism to be accurate and correct is now leprechauns it used to be unicorns.

[rushyrulz]

Either one works, really.

I'm a follower of the mythical heavy metal singing chocolate beast myself.

[Dorby]

I like how Mans0n has contributed nothing to this thread, yet has posted several times. Must be one of his intelligent debating strategies.

[Aldentron]

Originally Posted by speeddemon

So many atrocities can be attributed to religion it's not even funny. And while religion may attempt to shape morals, it is often twisted by those who are truly evil to justify their actions. For every person it helps to find the goodness in their hearts, I can assure you there is another who has simply used it to make themselves believe they are righteous.

Don't blame the religion, blame the people. Did every Christian participate in the Crusades? No. Does every Muslim practice jihad? No. Was every German a nazi during Hitler's reign? No.

My main problem with religion is the constant attempts at conversion and hatemongering, the corruption it often sows, and the hypocrisy that is often a result.

This is my exact problem, but like I said earlier, I hold it against the people, not the religion.

but at least the [atheists] I've met generally do not put themselves on a pedestal and attempt to avoid religious debates because they know that people tend to become fanatical and many a bridge can be burned in a simple argument.

Yes but it all seems quite different here on the internet, doesn't it?

Given how it destroys relationships as easily as that, can you really blame people for acting so abrasively towards religion, since oftentimes the basis for such a thing is from beliefs instilled by a religion?

Yes, because the only thing to be held accountable IS people. If you want to hold "God" accountable for anything, well good luck seeing any change.

[~kitty~]

I don't think this should be argued any further. It's perfectly clear that no one will be convinced by this point. As much evidence as needed has been provided for either side, and if anyone were to change their minds about anything, they would have by now.

[speeddemon]

Originally Posted by Aldentron

Yes, because the only thing to be held accountable IS people.

Religion is the causal agent in many cases. If someone's religion requires you to sacrifice a virgin to the god of the volcano every month, lest they be burned into oblivion, do you blame the people for the requirement, or the religion?

[Reincarnate]

Religion compels otherwise good people to do disgusting things