6 votes

I Hate Religion

The following was written by my husband. I thought it was kinda funny seeing that I once wrote a post called, I Hate Feminism. I have many times been accused of being unloving when I say I hate something, but I contend that love is not love without hate. I.e. To truly love children, you must hate those acts which hurt children, etc.. So, to truly love freedom, you must hate all that enslaves.

I Hate Religion

Hate is a strong word, but I hate religion. I do, I really do. Why? Well, what is the supposed point of religion? Isn’t it supposed to get you close to God? Isn’t it supposed to provide the answer for our guilty consciences? Isn’t it supposed to have the answer to death? Exactly how many times are we supposed to get baptized anyway? How ‘bout the “sinners prayer”, ever tried that one? How many times? So how’s it working for you? Be honest with yourself. Have you been able to escape the sin you flee in church? Do you even want to flee sin? Did you really leave it behind in the confessional? Isn’t it true that we seem to be running toward that from which we are trying to escape? Just exactly where is the love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and lasting happiness we were promised from the pulpit? How come the marriage problems persist? Why do the drugs and alcohol never seem to leave? How come the ecstasy of porn is always there to lure? For that matter, why can’t I stop something as simple as telling lies? It kind of makes you feel like a fly on a sticky tape.

What about church? Why do they do the things they do in there anyway? Ever had a piece of extremely dehydrated, left over, stale piece of flatbread stuck to your tongue by a man you hardly know? It was supposed to be holy he said, but, didn’t you answer the call of nature later on? How about the offering plate? Why are they always asking for money? Have you seen the size of a lot of these church buildings and cathedrals? There sure are a lot of hungry people out there. What about the observed hypocrisy, and still worse, the unobserved? There sure have been a bunch of preachers and priests with misplaced ‘affections’.

What about all the blood shed in the name of Christ. As far as I know, Rome has never tried to apologize, make amends, or ever attempted to make reparations for the inquisitions, or the crusades. What about modern warfare and the “just war” dogma? Why are so many Christian groups like the American Family Association all for killing Muslims? “These Muslims are wrong for killing, so we better go kill ‘em.” I’m all for self defense, but this is not self-defense—it’s pre-emptive murder. Doesn’t the Bible say “thou shalt not kill”? Did not Jesus say to “love your enemies”? I don’t see a lot of love in this, do you? Oh, but America is different, right? Sure we are, just listen to Fox news.

What about when I die? How come religion makes all sorts of claims about heaven, yet can never really tell me how to get there? Oh they all make promises about it. All the Christian sects have a prescribed method of getting to heaven, but most that I have talked to don’t seem to have an answer for the big questions of life. You know, like: Why am I here? What is my purpose? What happens after death? For that matter most religious people that I have talked with do not KNOW where they will go after death, so why do they bother? What is the point? They will sometimes say that they are “pretty sure”, but what hope does that provide? I personally have better things to do with my time, than to play religious games with myself.

What about all the hypocrites? How is it that in almost every town in the U.S.A., we can find a church on every street corner, yet on any given Sunday, you would be hard-pressed to get an order filled speedily at any local restaurant. The church people on Sunday are like fire ants. The area will be crawling with them, and for the most part they really aren’t all that friendly. What is it with all these religious people running around, why aren’t they all trying to fix what is wrong with our nation? Oh, American idol, the latest movie, or porn flick must be on. Some things are more important.

I know, I’m pretty hard on religion. My only goal is to make you think. I mean no offense toward you, or disrespect, unless you are one of the above mentioned preachers or priests. Child molesters deserve no respect. But religion is a personal thing. We all have an internal desire for something to give us a place of rest, but again, religion is personal.

Well…..let’s get personal. Would you consider yourself to be good? Let’s find out if you really are. Have you ever lied to anyone? What would you call that person if they lied to you? Have you ever stolen anything? Wouldn’t you consider someone who stole from you to be a thief? Be honest with yourself. Jesus said that “you have heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you that whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her in his heart”. How ‘bout it fellas, ever done that one? You may say that “lookin ain’t wrong”, and to a degree you are correct. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging someone’s beauty, but to intellectually indulge in that person’s beauty for your own gratification is indeed selfish and therefore sinful. How would you like it if you saw someone leering at your wife, sister, or girl in sexual way? What about using God’s name for a cuss word to express disgust? Do you do that with your own name? Why? Do you do it with your loved one’s name? Do you even do it with your own enemy’s name? The Bible tells us that “God will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain”. So what do you think? How do you think God would look at you? Are you guilty? How will GOD sentence you? Heaven or Hell? It is an established fact of reality that religion has no power to make you innocent, nor can it help you to stop sinning. Even if it could help you stop, it would make no difference, you have already disobeyed the law of your conscience. You could stop sinning from now until the grave, and it would make no difference at all. Today’s right does not erase yesterday’s wrongs.

Well, what about forgiveness? What about it? If you forgive me for stealing from you, does it change the fact that I stole? We could become very good friends, but you would always remember that I am not totally trustworthy. If I get a speeding fine today, and don’t speed on my way to pay the fine, does that grant me a pardon in the sight of man’s law? I’ll tell you what. Stop by the church on the way. Tell the priest or preacher what you have done wrong. Once you have done so, ask him or her to call the courthouse and inform the judge that you have been forgiven. In fact don’t even show up for court. You confessed your crimes and asked for forgiveness didn’t you? Would it work? Well….what if you ask the judge for forgiveness, would he let you go? He may for a speeding fine, but what about murder? Would the judge release you because you plead for forgiveness? Not if he is a good judge. If asking an earthly judge for forgiveness generally doesn’t work, how would asking the Heavenly judge? So, back to that big question, how would God sentence you? Heaven or Hell? He is the ultimate judge, hence the impending doom of judgment day.

Most of us have no real answer for the above question. If a poll were taken we would end up with a few yeses, several nos, and a whole bunch of maybes. In the human mind, a maybe is a place of moderate assurance. Yet, most of us are not satisfied with a maybe when it comes to serious things in life. “Oh darling will you marry me?”-- “Maybe.” Or , “Here Mr. or Ms. Bank teller, deposit my check for me please”-- “I’ll try to do it right.” What nonsense! Would you put up with it? If not, then why is a “maybe” good enough for where you will spend eternity? Don’t believe in hell? It really doesn’t matter; reality is not affected by our perceptions.

Many in the liberty movement are confused about what liberty really is. There are a lot of you out there that have thrown off religion due to the above listed reasons, and I’m sure, reasons that are not listed as well. There is a reason for that. Religion in and of itself does not represent reality. Many of us during our childhood, had experiences in church, coupled with the fantasy of Hollywood and the government school system (tools used by parents that did not embrace childrearing on a real level of personal responsibility) that brought us to a point of rejection. That is, we rejected what we were taught because we saw subconsciously that we were being lied to, and since we could never find a definitive reason for the lifelessness of it all, we threw it off. It is why many of the atheists that I encounter were predominantly raised Roman Catholic. When a person sees he has been lied to by a presumptuous authority, the logical reaction is to throw it off. Unfortunately, many have fallen for the flipside and allowed it to dictate truth for them--- “truths” that are congruent with our predispositions and fetishes. Our desires, like religion, do not represent reality, and are therefore, a form of slavery as well. I have heard many say to me “God will never tell me what to do!! He is nothing but a sadist that demands total submission of me!! I am my own person!!!!!” all the while reaching for another Marlboro in their shirt pocket. Just because we find pleasure in vice, habit, or fetish does not mean that we are free.

Freedom has become another word for pleasure in the average liberty lover’s mind. Sorry folks, addictions are not liberty, but slavery. When a craving becomes an obsession, you are no freer than when you were stuck in religion. What is worse, we intellectually defend our obsessions, just as the neocon defends his republican socialism. And just as the republicans unwittingly usher in the NWO, so do you. The beast (establishment) has created a system of destruction, from the cradle to the grave, a continual barrage of everything from Sesame Street to the confessional, to keep our hearts and minds from seeing, embracing, and being set free by the Truth. It is the same on the university campus, where again, you are told where we came from, and where we are going. Only the messages in biology, or world religions, are much more appealing, because there is nothing in that to tell us we are wrong as individual sinners.

What exactly is sin anyway? Sin in its uttermost form is selfishness. There is nothing sinful about self awareness, self preservation, or our normal drives, but when we use our innate abilities or instincts for our own gratification as the end, then we have become sinful. There is nothing sinful about sexual pleasure or desire. There is nothing wrong with the knowledge that the curves of a woman are wonderful to examine, but if you use your sex drive, or your eyes, for your own gratification and that alone, then you have done that at someone else’s expense, and have sinned against that person. I can almost hear some of you with your ideas of , ‘well then masturbation is not wrong’, or, ‘why did He make me this way if it is sinful?’ All behavior is developed or learned behavior. The smoker laments his addiction, yet there was a time that sucking tobacco smoke into their lungs made them puke. They kept on with it until they were not only used to it, they developed a taste for it. Ask the porn star how happy they are with their notoriety. If you examine their personal lives, you will find that they too, learned and lament what they do. It is the same with any sin. Just as the physical part of our being can learn to find pleasure in things that were formerly repulsive, so it is with the soul. There was a time as children when we were innocent, and there was another time when we lost our innocence, either at our own choosing, or the choosing being done for us. It does not matter how we came to that point in our lives where we were no longer innocent. The fact is, we are no longer innocent. Is GOD going to send you to hell, because you were violated in some way? No, of course not, that’s ridiculous. It was not your fault if someone else violated your conscience, but it was your fault when YOU first violated your own conscience.

Many homosexuals will tell how they were molested at a young age. They will then go on to tell you of the lamentable choices they made later on. Our being victimized does not make us blameworthy, neither does it make us innocent. Sin is knowing to do good, and refusing to do it, therefore, sin is also knowing what evil is and embracing it. Calling evil good, and good evil is what the Bible refers to as a “reprobate mind”. Every sin began as a thought, no matter how brief, and when we learn to love wrongdoing, we ultimately love and embrace the evil in our thoughts. I see no love in that do you? The sad thing is, many will remain in that condition, and due to the hardness of heart, and conscience, never seek a way of escape. They will die defending their slavery.

So I ask you again, how will GOD sentence you? Where will you be sent? Will HE send you to the ultimate prison, or will HE set you free? It is your choice. You may receive the free gift of HIS pardon, or remain in your sin. HE has already paid the fine, it is time for you to believe. It is not religion; it is the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that GOD made Him to be sin for us, that we might receive the righteousness of GOD in HIM. We broke the law of our GOD given conscience, and became the opposite of what HE created us to be. Jesus paid our fine, so that we can be restored to what that original intention was. If you believe HIM then you have put on the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and GOD now sees you as righteous. For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, It is the gift of GOD, not of works, lest any man should boast. Your conscience can be made clean by trusting in the finished work of Jesus.
Thanks for taking the time to read.

Billy Joe Grace

Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually they do have a basis in rationality:

It's called: "Inference to the best explanation" and Occam's Razor supports it. William Dembski and Steven C Meyer proposed this practical solution to the seeming inscrutability of the universe.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Occam's Razor?

I would NOT CALL MYSELF a "studied pholosopher." But I think I understand Occam's Razor to mean "The plainest explanation that does not take un-needed extra steps;" aka the most "succinct explanation."

And most "arguments for god" come down to a "necessity to terminate infinite regressions."

So we consider the origin of the universe, and most would say "The universe couldn't have just been here forever? Forever or infinity is an incomprehensible concept. So we must argue away this notion of infinity..."

And to do this, we propose "The first cause, the creator."

Atheists RIGHTLY THEN ASK "Well if the universe requires a creator, then it logically follows that this complex god figure also needs a creator; so WHO created the creator?" (another infinite regression, problem not solved; invoking a creator does not solve the contradiction that it was originally proposed to solve.)

Theists reply: "No no, you are confused atheists, you see god just always was, he is the beginning, he requires no creator, he is the source of all things including time, he exists beyond time and space and matter..."

Atheists the RIGHTLY SAY (Occam's razor): "Wait. If the WHOLE REASON that we need to propose a first cause or creator is BECAUSE WE COULD NOT COMPREHEND AN INFINITY or a timeless universe, THEN WHY don't we just use Occam's Razor, and say "The universe was just always there," and skip a step?

So theists are first playing the incredulity card: "Something can't just have existed forever, that is un-graspable; it needs a creator." And then theists go on to CONTRADICT THEIR OWN STATEMENT OF INCREDULITY and say "And god existed forever."

Just to state it more plainly: Theists say:

A: "It is impossible for something to exist forever."
B: "God is something that existed forever."

----

If you feed the theists their proposed logic, then THEISTS MAY HAVE DEFINED GOD OUT OF EXISTENCE:

"Objects with property_x cannot exist (existing forever), it is impossible. We propose an object with property_x (god). Therefore god is impossible and cannot exist."

There is either a misunderstanding of the Kalam Argument

or it is being intentionally distorted.

It does not logically follow that "Well if the universe requires a creator, then it logically follows that this complex god figure also needs a creator; so WHO created the creator?"

What is logical is :

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The universe has a beginning

3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Most theists, including Muslims (who actually came up with this reasoning), adherents to Judaism, and Christians do not believe that God began to exist. They believe He has always been. Therefore, their belief is logical. And there is plenty of basis for it for those willing to see.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

NAME ONE THING that "began to exist?"

WLC and the Kalam type arguments refer to "Existence Ex-Nihilo," "Came from nothing;" aka "poofed into existence."

Kind of like when "I Dream of Genie" would fold her arms and knod her head.

That is the type of "began to exist" that Craig refers to.

So name an object that has done that.

Does a "cake begin to exist?" A chair? A person? Any biological creature?

^^All of the above CAME FROM SOMETHING, they all were FORMED FROM PRIOR MATERIALS; they are not examples of "creation ex nihilo," they are examples of "creation ex post facto," or "creation from existing materials.

So PERHAPS you have not considered Craig and is Kalam argument as seriously as you claim. And PERHAPS you do not value logic as much as you put on, but only intend to use the word logic to BOLSTER YOUR CLAIM that "Your dishonesty and inconsistently apply YOUR ahem, logic to god and the universe."

Because THE WHOLE PURPOSE of invoking "god as an explanation" in the case of the origin of the universe IS BECAUSE people say:

A. "Things can't just come from nowhere, and they also can't just ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, they can't have existed forever. These are just impossible properties. And infinite situations also cannot happen."

Yet you HAPPILY THEN turn around and contradict A by saying:

B. "But this one thing, god, has existed forever, and eternity, and infinity of time, and also has other infinite properties. And that makes sense; see... logic?"

----

No that is not logic. That is a FAILURE to use logic. A failure to be honest, a failure to be consistent and fair even to your own proposed arguments. APPLY PRINCIPLES HONESTLY AND CONSISTENTLY, and THEN you can claim to have "used logic" to arrive at a conclusion at least.

But you applying one set of rules (eternal existence is IMPOSSIBLE) to the universe and matter, and A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES (eternal existence is POSSIBLE) to gods, is called SPECIAL PLEADING, aka favoritism, aka playground antics, aka bigotry. And obviously you choose the beneficial contradictions to favor YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS, that (shock) coincidentally your parents and country most likely believe, and you were most likely taught as a tiny child.

And HAS NOTHING TO DO with logic or rationality. It is in fact THE EPITOMY of irrationality, the EPITOMY of illogical statements. I shame this mis-use of the word logic or rationality. This irrationality is a poison. Truly ashamed to see this on the DP.

NO, it does not refer to existence from nothing

and William Lane Craig explains why not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

here is an explanation from Laurence Krauss:

http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/a-universe-from...

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

How William Craig is Deceiving Your Sensibility


http://youtu.be/o9DLcTfYBcQ


http://youtu.be/4u6Mz21jTaA


http://youtu.be/UbClnWrUF2Q


http://youtu.be/cLEBqU3D2TU


http://youtu.be/Wb10QvaHpS4


http://youtu.be/kk-dmgF2VQs

I have a whole playlist on Craig. So if you want more I have it. Including the most condemning and uncontroversial rebuttals.

As you may notice, you are not chatting with someone that "You introduced to William Craig and Kalam." I mean no offense or insult by saying so, but I believe you are the student in this encounter.

If it is not "creation from nothing..."

I have studied Krauss's arguments as well, but let's not try and mix quantum physics that is mysterious and in its infancy and so is even super sketchy at this time with apologetics or plain philosophy. One is physical science, the other is mental conceptualization.

If it is not "creation from nothing... then "god just REFORMED pre-existing material into a universe?" That is what you have implied if it was not "creation ex nihilo."

I am pretty sure you yourself have not thought this through to any deep level. I have studied this argument for several years. And I can say "Krauss and Craig" do not belong in a paragraph together, nor does science or physics have any place in what Craig discusses.

And if god just "reformed the universe from pre-existing things, then god's "act of creating the universe" is as magical and mysterious as you "creating green by putting blue and yellow together (applause, what a miracle, the creation)." And so this VERSION OF CREATION actually has no explanatory power; which is the purpose to invoke a "god" into philosophy in the first place, to explain impossible or implausible events.

Craig tries to HIJACK science and use it to deceive half-wits that need an apologetic figure to look up to.

Okay then, then god came from pre-existing material

So if you maintain that "It all came from pre-existing material," then the same applies TO ALL ENTITIES; including god. Unless you just merely wish TO DEFINE CONTRADICTIONS into existence. In which case it is just special pleading, aka favoritism, aka bigotry, toward your favorite god.

"X cannot exist. I define X to exist and call it god."

In other words, the definition of god in that usage is:

god = "that which cannot logically exist."

And it is THE THEIST that have chosen to argue for this definition. It is even apparent in the premises of Kalam, and right at the top of that wiki page

^Which of course I am sure theists would not prefer that be the "meaning of the word god." But that is actually how you are using it now.

----

Right from the wiki:

Premise: An actual infinite cannot exist.....
Conclusion: God is an actual infinite.

^Interpretation from a reader: "Craig and Kalam DEFINE god as 'that which cannot exist.'"

Not exactly a formidable choice of definition of god even if you ask me the atheist.

William Craig is the "Criminal Defense Lawyer of Christianity!"

Ha. William Lane Craig (WLC) and his canned "Kalam Cosmological Argument" are the ANTITHESIS of dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty.

The level of respect for that level of intellectual dishonesty is the level of respect that Muslim beliefs about tolerance deserve.

I have laid turds that had more worth than the "Kalam Cosmological Argument."

I have AS MUCH RESPECT for William Lane Craig and the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" (KCA) as I do for Sye Ten Bruggencate, Kent Hovind, Kenneth Hamm, and "Presuppositionalism." (Presup)

All of the aforementioned arguments ARE A BASTARDIZATION of logic, a bastardization of the stage upon which we all stand, the stage that nearly everyone in these forums is using; that is the stage of logic and the respect and authority that logic and reasoning hold.

And the respect that we grant towards logic, rationality, reason, consistency, study, research, observation, evidence...

This is the stage we stand on, the reason we use words, the reason we form arguments, the reason WE VALUE debate, the reason we even type in these comments sections in the forums.

BECAUSE WE GRANT FIRST AND FOREMOST that logic, reason, honesty, and debate ARE THE ROAD TO THE TRUTH.

And Craig, Bruggencate, and Hovind CRAP ALL OVER that road, that stage. They act as if none of these things matter.

----

EVEN IF WE GRANT WLC his supposed conclusions from the KCA, or grant presups their conclusions; IT WOULD ONLY VALIDATE DEISM; not a personal god, not a god that intervenes and answers prayers, not a god that cares about humans.

And a LARGE PORTION of the Christian camp, The Young Earth Creationists (YEC), that believe the earth is in the neighborhood of 4-10k years old instead of billions of years, WOULD NOT even agree with WLC's premises. Since Craig tries to hi-jack and champion science, the big-bang, and evolution, and an old universe and old earth.

Somehow WLC and Bruggencate became the poster-boys for "modern apologetics." But CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE ASHAMED to even have folks like this in their camp, let alone repeat his arguments or try to use his arguments in ANY HONEST WAY. And a fallback to the last stand of "let's just discredit logic, reason, and rationality altogether" is a desperate cry, and a sad position to hold. TO BE LEFT with no good arguments for god, but to say that "we can't even use logic, we can't even be consistent, or else our contradictions stand out and we are done, we have no substantive arguments left," IS SUCH A SAD and pathetic position to occupy. It is the last corner that theists seeking to "take the high road of using arguments from reason and principles" can even sit without being laughed at. Accepting these arguments means "no longer getting to sit at the adult table of logical debate." It has devolved to playground logic; kindergartner arguments.

I COULD say alot more about WLC, Sye, the retardation of the KCA, and preseup; and I have researched and studied these arguments, their implications, any validity that they might hold, and their disgusting dishonesty and inconsistency that favors the religion that Craig and Sye WERE BORN INTO (surprise), which is favoritism or BIGOTRY. I have spent at least 100 hours studying these topics. I have watched at least 10 WLC debates, and commented on at least 30 of his videos or videos about his arguments.

But I know this is not exactly the place for that type of thing.

But I WILL CRY FOUL for accepting such a nasty and dishonest argument and trying to finger-wag it here in such an honest forum.

her husband here again

They both are smart as hell, rational as hell, reasonable as hell, fair and consistent, and honest as hell;

Since when is hell honest and consistent? For that matter since when are any of us honest and consistent all the time?

There is no honesty in refusing the living GOD for the sake of an opinion about what religion does or has done. GOD is not a religion. Religion is what people have made GOD to be in there minds. Yes people are liars and falsely represent or interpret truth, but folks would never be affected by falsehood if they had not been lied to from birth. How can a child know truth if the parents do not know, or they misrepresent it? Bad parenting carries on into adulthood, and like anyone else who did not receive what they needed to grow, whether it be proper nourishment or love, they are lacking in an area of their lives and function accordingly. It is why we have a world full of "sheeple".
It is dis-ingenious to assert that there is such a thing as a "true" atheist. They are not interested in truth, they are interested in what they want truth to be, just like any religious person. A victimized child still becomes an adult that has the ability to look at the created earth around him and see the hand of GOD. If he is willing to look.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

yes, makes you wonder

yes, makes you wonder

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Denise B's picture

Well said!

If it is true freedom you desire, it can only be found in Christ:

John 8:36: "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

Romans 6:18: "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."

Romans 6:22-23: "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit onto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 8:2 For the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Romans 8:32: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things."

Galatians 5:5 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

1 Peter 2:16 "For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."

Freedom comes not with "religion", but with a relationship with Jesus Christ by who's blood your freedom was purchased. Knock and He shall answer. Seek and you shall find.

No friend to religion here.

Or the source of the three major religions, the Bible.


http://youtu.be/dgMEw33lwrs

pt. 2

http://youtu.be/f_qp29EHfJM

Matt Dillahunty is hard to beat

Matt Dillahunty is hard to beat. Not even Richard Dawkins can explain things so clearly and put things into perspective as well as Matt does, and Matt can do it on the spot; impromptu. I agreed with every single thing Matt said in this clip. And the kind of irrational double-talk that the theist caller engaged in is EXACTLY the type of wishy-washy stuff you will hear from EVEN THE BEST theist thinkers and presenters.

Religion is just another word for irrationality. Belief in a god, support of religion, are both A WAR ON RATIONALITY. It is rationality vs god. They are exact opposites.

Thanks!

I've always considered an atheist who lives in a moral way to be better than any religious person doing the same. Why? Because with an atheist, morality is a personal decision based on sympathy, empathy and respect of others. There is no threat of punishment for not doing right. No believing that your every move is being watched by some cosmic observer, making notes on which to judge you on later. No one's soul is being held ransom to elicit good behavior.

If there is a God...I would wager he has nothing to do with any of the different religions of the world. Even the bible says you need no middle man (church, preacher, pastor, priest, nun, bishop, cardinal, even the pope...all man made constructs) to have a relationship with God. Religion is a smoke screen that allows people to do ghastly things in the name of God, all while preaching not to do those things. Spirituality/God needs no religion, especially a sycophantic one that's full of people just going through the motions to save their soul.

Bottom line...why do people think their God is the one, true God? Because that's the fairy tale they were told as children. If the same people had been born in Iraq, India or Nepal....they'd believe a different fairy tale...based on Islam, Hindu or Buddhist beliefs.

But...I'm libertarian, so people can believe whatever they want, and I don't have a problem with it at all, as long as I don't have to live in a theocracy. Practice as you please, right? ;-)

Cognitive Dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values

I am a believer, and you

I am a believer, and you think without the threat of God's wrath I would go around hurting people? The conclusion you have drawn is that an atheist is better for being a good person, and why I am I not surprised that you came to the conclusion that you are superior?

Wouldn't holding yourself up as morally/ethically superior be an indication of a lack of humility, thus negating moral and ethical superiority?

Through God I have come to deeply understand the we all posses dark and light in our hearts, and you and I both have the potential to do very dark things, even though we choose not to. Pride goeth before destruction.

I was an atheist until 31, and raised in a secular household. Atheism is a belief system like any other religion, only it lacks any spiritual hope.

Who said...

...I am better than you? Who says I'm atheist?? lol...way to jump to conclusions.

I am agnostic, meaning I DON'T KNOW if there's a God. I don't ever claim there's no god...how should I know? Still, if he does exist, you are probably not following his word any more than Hindis, Mulisms or Buddhists are. If every religion believes they're god's chosen people...well, someone's gotta be wrong. And I'm sure you don't think it's you.

And, since you bring up some thinking they're better than others, religious people have been staring down their self-righteous noses at non-religious people since the beginning of religion, punishing them for not believing, and making them social pariahs.

And I didn't say you'd be out killing, raping and pillaging if there were no god. I said, basically, that the motives of people acting morally are purer in intent when they are not doing it under any kind of religious duress. And I stand by that. Many times people do "good deeds" because they think they're earning some type of brownie points with god, whether they admit it or not, hoping to tip the scales a little more towards "good person." Or...tithing. Who would give 10% of their income to a church if they didn't think it was going to help them at the pearly gates? Why do you not take god's name in vain when no one is around?

Yes, religious people always are aware that god is watching, and they act accordingly. As was mentioned in another post, it is usually the religious folks saying religion holds the masses back from barbarian behavior.

Lastly, my opinion is in generalities. My 5 decades on the planet have shown me there are always exceptions to the rule.

Cognitive Dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values

"I've always considered an

"I've always considered an atheist who lives in a moral way to be better than any religious person doing the same."

OK, so I was wrong to assume you consider yourself an atheist, but I find your assertion that a moral atheist is "better" than a moral theist, ridiculous.

Without the threat of God, I would go around hurting people?

I am a believer, and you think without the threat of God's wrath I would go around hurting people?

No. I don't think that follows. BUT... MOST THEISTS WILL maintain that "Without any cosmic consequence or the threat of one (heaven or hell, reward or punishment), people will act immorally."

^^That is one of the main merits of religion cited by theists. One of their foundational reasons for thinking "morality is based in religion" or that "good acts result from religious belief."

So when I hear someone say "Well if there is no god, then there are no consequences for immoral acts; so people will just go around killing, raping, and pillaging."

^^And I have to wonder if this is not SELF PROJECTION of what THEY WOULD DO if they felt that "Woohoo, no consequences..."

----

Sort of like "If there were no calories in ice cream, we would eat it at every meal."

Obviously some theists that

Obviously some theists that share a common belief in God with myself are idiots, much the same as many of your fellow atheists are idiots.

My biggest annoyance from some atheists is when they try to claim that religion is the cause of hate and genocide. In order for that to be true, genocide would have to be exclusively carried out by religious people. Since genocide is a product of both theists and atheists alike, it's only simple logic that religion (or lack of religion) is not the source.

God's will can be used as the justification for genocide, same as atheist communist regimes can use the "common good" as justification for their slaughter. People that want to kill will kill, the justification for killing is simply a matter of spinning talking points. Genocide is related to the love of power.

Religion isn't, perhaps, the

Religion isn't, perhaps, the cause of hate and genocide, but it is surely the catalyst, the reason and the excuse that people use to maim and massacre. Differing religions divide populations and turn neighbors into mortal enemies, and not for any other reason than differing religion. The wars going on now in the Middle East (and for over 1,000 years) are about religion. Muslim vs. Jew. Sunni vs. Shiite. Etc. It's ALL about religious wars between god's chosen people and the infidels, no matter what side you're on.

You can't remove religion from the equation, nor it's commands to either convert, shun, or kill those who don't practice.

Cognitive Dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values

It is human nature for people

It is human nature for people to divide up into tribes, and without religion, humanity would still do so.

Like you said religion is not the cause of hate or genocide. It is an excuse, but remove religion and another excuse will be substituted. Killing because someone is not working for the common good has worked well for commie atheist regimes.

Hate and genocide comes from evil if you ask me, and until "mental illness" becomes a science and not a belief system as well, good and evil is what I am going with.

THANK YOU

Since genocide is a product of both theists and atheists alike, it's only simple logic that religion (or lack of religion) is not the source.

THANK YOU for being consistent and honest. Like you, I find it ONE OF THE LOWEST TRICKS IN THE BOOK to point out flawed figures "in the camp" and try to use that to slander every person in the camp, or the ideas themselves.

YOU WILL NEVER catch me doing that. And I hate the "Stalin, Mao, and Hitler" were all atheists (not even true, Hitler inscribed and quoted religion left and right) just as a CHEAP SHOT to score points; and that tactic is unfair, low, disgusting, intellectually dishonest, and irrelevant.

So THANK YOU for being a theist that pointed out something that I totally agree with about the way "debates" are handled between atheists and theists.

And PLEASE DO point this out to other theists IF YOU HAPPEN TO SEE them try to pull this trick, and cry "Hitler."

Yer welcome.All the

Yer welcome.

All the divisions are a red herring, the only division that matters is good and evil, and both come in many forms of packaging.

I think you are pointing out (unknowingly) what my husband was

trying to say. Religious people generally act out of fear of consequences. People that know and love God generally act out of that love for their creator and His creation.

Yes, I know that God has the power to destroy me at a whim, and yet I also know that He doesn't because His mercy endures forever.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

hate is a type of love

Hate is an attraction, an obsession, an addiction even.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Hate can be a strange

Hate can be a strange expression of love, most likely a rejected, unrequited love, but it's not usually a type of love. I don't use the word hate too often, and it's usually reserved for actions (especially governmental ones!), not people. My exception ---> I completely, utterly HATE with all my heart anyone who would abuse the helpless, such as children, elders & animals, etc. And this hate is definitely not a form of love. :-)

Cognitive Dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values

+1

+1