Log in

View Full Version : Religion



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12

eagle2
08-14-2010, 04:04 PM
I agree, but a lot of the mistreatment had to do with Jews refusing to accept Christianity. Perhaps there were other reasons besides religion why there was such resentment towards Jews in Europe, but if Jews had converted to Christianity, most people wouldn't have even paid any attention to them. There was never any widespread resentment towards Christian bankers or business owners.

Elvia
08-14-2010, 04:22 PM
^^^ True. It's very revealing that it was "Jewish bankers" that were considered the problem and not just bankers in general. Maybe we're trying to impose to much logic on such thought processes, when the reality is that once people fall into that kind of thinking logic is soon abandoned anyway. These days, you hear a lot of people using "zionism" as an excuse to justify anti-semetism. It reminds me of a few months ago when that teenage girl was beaten in a Paris subway, and the attackers were screaming at her about making her "suffer for Israel's sins." Of course, the fact is that not all Jews are pro-Israel. And of course, they had no idea if she was or not, but it didn't really matter. Maybe once that primitive tribal thinking get a hold of someone, it doesn't matter how the group is defined. It just becomes Us vs The other.

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:31 PM
There are more atheists who do not commit genocide then there are those who do. Likewise with believers. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a deity and does not lead to totalitarian ideology. Not all totalitarians were atheists and not all atheists are totalitarians. In fact, the majority are not.

There are more theists who don't kill non-believers than those who do, but that never seems to get religion off the hook with atheists, does it? So that is beside the point. Wherever atheists have been in completely in charge, massive slaughter and oppression has taken place. There have also been individual killing sprees by atheists, sometimes explicitly motivated by an atheist philosophy. The point is - since I first brought up atheism here - that atheists are not in a position to claim that they are more enlightened than theists or to single out theists for atrocities and oppression.

Some atheists have not been totalitarians. Ayn Rand was an atheist and an individualist - at least philosophically, In her own personal dealings she was quite dictatorial, and this sprang from her atheism in that she believed in the ideal man - the only thing she could believe in in the absence of God. This is a feature of many atheist philosophies: the perfectibility of man. It is a feature of Marxism (man would be perfected when his economic system was perfected) and it was a feature of Nazism (the superman race). This type of beleif leads to totalitarianism, because it follows from it that a perfectly ordered society can be achieved. Individualism is based on the idea that man is not perfect and therefore no human system can work - no man is perfect enough to control or organise others.


Hitler professed to have Christian beliefs. Whether he behaved in a Christian manner or not, he was not an atheist by his own admission.

I've already addressed that point a few times. Hitler was a politician and Germany was largely Christian - Hitler said whatever it took to grab power and keep it. We know in hindsight from his private writings and conversations and also many of his public actions that hey rejected Christianity. His religion was the destiny of the master race. Even if he did beleive he was a Christian, he was not what we would call a Christian.


As for the rest of what you've said, to be honest, I have better things to do than deal with two pages of your arguments. So I'm going to skip going into the nitty gritty. But I will say that I think your logic is flawed for a number of reasons. Perhaps others will decide to deal with it, perhaps not. Personally, I'd rather read a novel.

One page and a lot of it is quotes. Still a lot, but I had a back-log of posts I'd been typing and savig - I refrained from posting them right away. If some other people here thought a little straighter I wouldn't have so much to address.

If you can't go the distance, don't get the last word in by just saying my logic is flawed. You have to read it all to know about that.


I'll add that you don't appear to realise that freedom not to believe is a valid exercise of one's freedom of religion. Theists seem to demand respect for their own beliefs but not extend it to those who think differently. I don't think I've ever told a theist that their views are illogical (despite thinking that they are) or that they are precursors to genocide. To get respect, learn to give it.

I haven't said anything that could even mimplies I believe in restricting the freedom not to believe in God. Read some of the atheist comments here again before you lecture me about respect. Not only don't they respect theism, they comment on it before they have even tried to understand it at all. I've shown respect here at all times where it was deserved. Nobody respects others' beliefs, only their right to have them. If you don't think theism is logical then there is no reason why you should not say so to one.

Theists respect that right at least as often as atheists do. Atheists have styled themselves as tolerant and theists as intolerant; but that's just an ignorant bias or a propaganda tactic. Ironically atheists use religious intolerance as an excuse to be intolerant of religion. Many of the atheist comments here about religion show they don't understand the first thing about what they are commenting on. So what is behind it if not informed opinion? Why do so many atheists talk like they've been to the heights?

This shows that atheism can lead directly to oppression. Atheists here are fervently denouncing religion as delusion and a threat to society wihout even attempting to understand it first. That makes atheism a threat to society. This is why I characterise atheism as a positive belief rather than just a lack of belief: Atheists actively oppose religion, and that must be based on positive belief that religion is wrong.

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:35 PM
All that is needed to form a moral code is a sense of how one wants the to world to be. With that (ever developing awareness), one does what one can to live his or her part toward making it real.


Pretty vague though isn't it. What if the way one wants the world to be is himself rich and powerful in it? If self-interest is the guiding principle, there isn't much room for morality.


I recognize a need to have answers regarding the big questions in life. But why do we accept that any god is full of love when it is so miserably insecure that it demands that its followers constantly prove their "love" of the god. Most, if not all, of us have experienced personal relationships with a person who had security issues. The person just could not feel that the partner loved him or her and made life together impossible. If you experienced this sort of person, didn’t you just want to kick the other person and be done with him or her?

What God would not wish his creations to love him and require them to show it? He's God, right? You just have to love Him and you would expect Him to say so. Just because somebody wants others to show him love does not mean he is insecure. Is your relative, friend, girlfriend or wife insecure because he/she want's you to show your love for him/her? You would be worried about them if they didn't.


So, why do people flock to gods that forever need proof? I will, for the moment, forget that a god (being omnipotent omnipresent, omniscient) really ought to just know.

Of course He would know but if the person does love God, he would naturally want to show it. You don't love someone all inside your head - you act like it as well as think it.


I really think that people create the gods that they need to feel ok about how they interact with the rest of the world.

Atheists pretend there is no God to feel okay about how they interact with the world. I'm no saint, but at least I am man enough to admit that I do wrong instead of burying my head in the sand and pretending God isn't there.

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:37 PM
Hopper hasn't just drank the Kool-Aid, he's swimming in it (more like dog-paddling-swimming is a skill).

"...We can't generalise and say all atheists have one particular set of morals, but it's obvious that atheists do generally have different morals to most theists..."

This is true. My morals are nothing like those of the God-fearing theistic jihadists and abortion clinic bombers. Or Warren Jeffs, or Branch Davidians, or Tom Cruise for that matter.

A great example of atheist tolerance and understanding of others' views. Thank God you are not like religious people, eh?

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:39 PM
Again you are twisting and distorting what I said. I said that the Nazis believed traits were passed through blood, not evolution. I got my idea from Hitler's writings. Here's what Hitler said in Mein Kampf:

"It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture."

Well they didn't mean literally through the blood - that is just an expression to mean descent or kin. You should say "through heredity".


No they didn't. Please show me where Hitler ever mentioned evolution or Darwin.

It's true that Hitler (as far as I know) did not refer directly to Darwinian evolution, but he did talk in terms of natural selection, survival of the fittest and biological race. To say he based his ideas on "blood" (a term which Hitler used specifically in the sense of heredity) contradicts none of this, since evolution is based on heredity. Hitler used the word "evolution" frequently in Mein Kampf, but it has been usually translated into English as "development".

Hitlers ideas on survival, natural selection, eugenics and race were all consistent with the beliefs common among evolutionists of his time and decades previously. As I pointed out before, Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin and one of his followers, founded eugenics. Eugenics was also a major tenet of Margaret Sangers's movement and it is her movement from which the Nazis took their ideas and policise. (The two movements had a lot more in common - they were both socialist and individuals in both commonly associated with one another.)

http://www.angelafranks.com/margaret_sanger.htm


There's no proof that Jesus was anything other than a normal man, assuming he actually existed, whose followers invented stories attributing miracles to him.

You were quoting the Bible to support some point you were making about religious intolerance and the Bible does say Jesus is God. If you don't believe He was God or that He even existed then why bring it up? If you criticise beliefs you have to represent those beliefs within their own context.

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:40 PM
No they don't. There are plenty of theists whose views are more similar to most atheists than other theists. There are plenty of theists who don't think there is anything wrong with contraception, homosexuality, sex before marriage. There are also plenty of theists who accept the facts of evolution rather than the fairy tales in the Bible.

Atheist beliefs and values have dominated society, causing many theists to adopt them. Evolution has come to dominate scientific opinion, leading many theists to believe it to be true.


Compared to most men of his time, and the views that were common back then, Darwin was far from racist. Even if he was a racist, it would have no relevance to the validity of his findings.

So a racists' views on race have no relevance to his ideas about biology?

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:41 PM
Yes. Jellyfish have always been well suited to their environment. No predator has evolved that has threatened their existence and there has always been an adequate amount of prey to sustain the species.

Then it's amazing that they even evolved into jellyfish.


No they weren't. The Crusades were about Muslim occupation of the Holy Land. Why would the Crusaders go to the Holy Land to fight the Muslims if it was about what they were doing in Europe.The Crusades began after the Muslim invasion of Europe. The Holy Land was originally Christian and Christians (and other non-Mulsims) were persecuted there.


No it wasn't. Jews are NOT a separate race. There are white Jews, black Jews, and Asian Jews. If all Jews had converted to Christianity, nobody would have even paid attention to them.True. I should revise that - Hitler's hatred of Jews probably was to do with religion. But not because he was Christian, because he was atheist and hated all religion, especially Judaism and Christianity, which were dominant and most common in Europe. And there was clearly a racial basis for it also. Hitler classed and ranked all people by race.

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:41 PM
^^^ I think what Hopper's saying is that from the Nazi's point of view it was about race. It doesn't matter whether Jews are actually separate race/ethnicity or not. The point is that that was what the Nazis thought. And it didn't matter in Nazi Germany if you were a practicing Jew or not. Even people who just had a Jewish grandparent and no other connection to Judaism were considered Jews.

Yes I was saying that but eagle2 has a point - Hitler hated all Jews and Jews were not one race. But then Nazi views on race were not noted for sensible and consistent logic. (For instance, Hitler himself was not the model Aryan.)

Nazi anti-semitism was about race but I do think it was likely also about religion. You are right that the Nazis hated Jews whether they were practising Jewish religion or not, so it wasn't all about religion.

I was disagreeing with eagel2 that Hitler's reasons for disliking Jews were not the same as Luther's, i.e. Luther criticised them on the basis of their non-Christian religious beliefs, Hitler hated them because of their race and also because of their religion, and not because they were non-Christian, but because historically and doctrinally they had a lot in common with Christianity, Being atheist, Hitler would hate them for that as well as for their race. Hitler secretly hated Christianity also and he did persecute Christians once he had secured enough power; but he would not do this as an open policy or dogma because Christianity was numerically and institutionally stronger than Judaism and also singling out Jews served as a scapegoat/enemy and a divisive tactic of manipulation. The Jews were an easy target being a displaced people, a minority and a historically resented people in Europe.

There were other stated reasons for Nazi anti-semitism, such as their position in society their alleged abuse of it to oppress other Germans - another reason Luther didn't use.

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:43 PM
but the hatred of the Jews stemmed from their religious beliefs. For over a thousand years, the Christian Church had been portraying the Jews as evil and demonic.

For Christians perhaps but Elvia was talking about Nazis. Part of Christian anti-semitism came from religoiuis differences. Some of it came from the Jews being forced into certain vocations Christians didn't like to enter and then being resented for dominating those areas. The Nazis used the second pretext but not the first, because they hated Christianity as well as Judaism. It just didn't suit their political strategy to openly persecute Christians, though once they had secured their dictatorship, many times they did.

Hopper
08-14-2010, 07:52 PM
^ That's just plain silly... Yes, there has been bigotry and racial, religious and cultural discrimination (not just with Jews, but with all "different" people), but to say "the Christian Church had been portraying the Jews as evil and demonic" is absurd. Jesus was a Jew. Mary was a Jew. Joseph was a Jew. The first disciples and apostles were all Jews.... In fact, for many years after the death of Christ only Jews could become Christians.

Again, you need to learn more about the Jewish culture and anti-semitism in general. The Jews were persecuted and mistreated long before the birth of Christ... ever heard of how Moses freed them from slavery in Egypt? They are a people with a very long history of persecution and suffering and didn't have a "home" until the State of Israel was created after WWII. But, on the positive side, their suffering gave them solidarity. Jews learned to be indepedent and watch each other's back. They help each other out (you can call it cronyism or you can call it solidarity) and they are very academic, intelligent, intellectually-oriented and industrious. Sarah Bernhardt, Louis Brandeis, Martin Buber, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, George Gershwin, Franz Kafka, the Marx Brothers, Golda Meir and Gertrude Stein were all prominent Jews.

They developed powerful banking systems, and we know that bankers get blamed for high interest rates, foreclosures, etc. They also excelled in art and culture and held powerful and influential positions in artistic institutions. Their politics is usually very liberal and this offends right wing conservatives. Simply put, their wealth, power and success generated a lot of envy in Germany and their culture and politics was "different". They were made the scapegoats for the financial problems and cultural decay of the working class poor. I have presented a compilation of anti-semitic texts to support this, but you still insist that religion was the main motivator for German anti-semitism, without any support.

Despite the fact that Christianity originated among Jews and the Christian Bible incuded the Old Testament to the Jews, there were religious differences nonetheless. Christianity originated with Jews but it was a different faction to original Judaism. The Jewish hierarchy of the time rejected Christ. These were all reasons for Christians to distinguish between Christianity and Judaism. But they were not reasons to persecute Jews.

flickad
08-14-2010, 10:51 PM
Err, I did read it all, I just couldn't be arsed going into the finer points of why I think you're wrong. And I still can't. Arguing with you has gotten boring. Plus, your great flying leaps of logic are your own business. Most people here can probably see the huge gaps in them. I don't need to keep pointing them out. It's a waste of my time and energy.

I'll add that I don't tell theists they are illogical because it's fucking rude and also because belief is a personal matter that doesn't necessarily depend on logic. I am not responsible for the posts of others. Only my own, and I don't believe that I have been disrespectful with regard to the views of others.

Think what you like. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

flickad
08-14-2010, 10:58 PM
A great example of atheist tolerance and understanding of others' views. Thank God you are not like religious people, eh?

You're such a hypocrite. Your posts to me show great intolerance of atheism (saying that it leads to totalitarianism, for instance, which is patently untrue - there are far more atheists than there are totalitarians) but when it comes to religion, no one is allowed to criticise.

The other religious posters have been far more respectful and logical than you have.

Kellydancer
08-15-2010, 12:32 AM
You're such a hypocrite. Your posts to me show great intolerance of atheism (saying that it leads to totalitarianism, for instance, which is patently untrue - there are far more atheists than there are totalitarians) but when it comes to religion, no one is allowed to criticise.

The other religious posters have been far more respectful and logical than you have.

I don't even understand half of his posts because many just looked pasted together.

Btw, when talking about Christmas and atheism, I probably should clarify my posts. I don't have a problem with someone being atheist. There have been times in my life where I've bounced back from religion to non believing (not so much atheism though, more agnostic). My problem is I have tangled with an atheist group around here that protests about anything Christian. They boycotted a store because it had a tree in the window and they always protest the Christmas programs. To me extreme in anything is dangerous and this group is just as bad as Christian nutjobs. I'll be honest and say I probably wouldn't marry an atheist but wouldn't marry a guy in most religions. I broke it off with a great guy because his family was Southern Baptist and had very different views that would cause problems eventually, especially if we had kids or got married.

Hopper
08-15-2010, 12:33 AM
Err, I did read it all, I just couldn't be arsed going into the finer points of why I think you're wrong. And I still can't. Arguing with you has gotten boring. Plus, your great flying leaps of logic are your own business. Most people here can probably see the huge gaps in them. I don't need to keep pointing them out. It's a waste of my time and energy.

I'll add that I don't tell theists they are illogical because it's fucking rude and also because belief is a personal matter that doesn't necessarily depend on logic. I am not responsible for the posts of others. Only my own, and I don't believe that I have been disrespectful with regard to the views of others.

Think what you like. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

A respectful peson would agree to disagree, not tell the other person he is irrational and a boring waste of time. The whole reason people argue is that they think the other person's logic is flawed. It doesn't make one or the other person automatically right just because they both think that. All it means is that one or both don't understand the other person's POV.

How about in the other thread where you called me a sexist for criticising feminists? That was disrespectful. Many feminists are as sexist as anyone else is, but you don't complain about that.

You've made a few clearly illogical or misinformed arguments here. The classic was the one about modern-day Christians mistaking Africans for the Amalekites of the Old Testament and bombing Africans because God told the Israelites to bomb the Amalekites.

Just because you got sick of it first doesn't mean the other person is solely responsible for the argument being drawn out, or that you are logical and he is not. Maybe your posts were respectful but you didn't reprimand any atheists who were being disrespectful and even "thanked" a couple who were.


You're such a hypocrite. Your posts to me show great intolerance of atheism (saying that it leads to totalitarianism, for instance, which is patently untrue - there are far more atheists than there are totalitarians) but when it comes to religion, no one is allowed to criticise.

Are we having a discussion or are we polite ladies having tea?

While there are disrespectful atheist posters here I need to even it out by replying in kind. It's a discussion thread, so it is not disrespectful to challenge and criticise the beliefs of others here. By disrespectful I meant the atheists who are merely resorting to ridicule and contempt. Logical criticisms I can take - and many of my criticisms of atheism were in response to the criticisms by atheists of religion. I can take criticism of religion, I just don't take it lying down.

I don't know if there are more atheists than totalitarians. Totalitarianism, or something close to it, is almost as popular. Many people just can't get enough government. But numbers have nothing to do with what atheism leads to - it need not be a conscious process or a result of majority influence.

If you don't have time to continue the discussion here, or just with me, nobody's forcing you but you don't need to take a shot at me as you go.


The other religious posters have been far more respectful and logical than you have.

Yes but what about the atheists? What this reduces to is you will allow other people to disagree with you, but not too much.

flickad
08-15-2010, 02:35 AM
A respectful peson would agree to disagree, not tell the other person he is irrational and a boring waste of time. The whole reason people argue is that they think the other person's logic is flawed. It doesn't make one or the other person automatically right just because they both think that. All it means is that one or both don't understand the other person's POV.

I said that arguing with you is boring and that your logic is flawed, not that you're a boring waste of time. Read the words that are actually there.


How about in the other thread where you called me a sexist for criticising feminists? That was disrespectful. Many feminists are as sexist as anyone else is, but you don't complain about that.

It's not disrespectful to tell someone who thinks that women belong in the kitchen that they're sexist, any more than it's disrespectful to tell someone who thinks that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote that they are racist. That's just stating a fact.

And for your information, I do consider man-hating radical feminists sexist and have complained about it.


You've made a few clearly illogical or misinformed arguments here. The classic was the one about modern-day Christians mistaking Africans for the Amalekites of the Old Testament and bombing Africans because God told the Israelites to bomb the Amalekites.

You didn't understand my point, clearly.




I don't know if there are more atheists than totalitarians. Totalitarianism, or something close to it, is almost as popular. Many people just can't get enough government. But numbers have nothing to do with what atheism leads to - it need not be a conscious process or a result of majority influence.

Like your definition of slavery, your definition of totalitarian appears to be 'any one who's not a far-right libertarian and any system that isn't far-right libertarian'. I'd advise you to use a dictionary, only you'd turn that into some bullshit about word games.






Yes but what about the atheists? What this reduces to is you will allow other people to disagree with you, but not too much.

Disagree all you like. I don't have the power or the inclination to 'allow' or disallow your own or anyone else's agreement or otherwise. I am, however, as free to criticise what you've said as you are to make rambling offensive generalisations about atheists.

I suppose I could make my own rambling offensive generalisations about Christians if I wanted to play the same game as you, but I seem to lack that certain je ne sais quoi.

Kellydancer
08-15-2010, 10:05 AM
It's not disrespectful to tell someone who thinks that women belong in the kitchen that they're sexist, any more than it's disrespectful to tell someone who thinks that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote that they are racist. That's just stating a fact.

And for your information, I do consider man-hating radical feminists sexist and have complained about it.

Agreed completely. I loathe the man hating radical feminists but consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights for women. I believe as a woman I should have the right to work (or not) and make the same as my male coworkers. I feel my options should be the same as a male. There still isn't equality when it comes to this (my last job paid me less than my male coworkers) yet people still bash feminists. Men who think women should be housewives, as he's mentioned are chauvinist pigs. Feminists who think ALL men are chauvinist, that women should get a job strictly for being female, and that a "true" feminist would never date a man or have kids are just as dangerous as a chauvinist. I have a career, I want a husband and kids, yet both the chauvinists and the radical feminists would both bash me for wanting both.

Speaking of which, one of my pet peeves is when someone uses Christianity to enforce sexist views. I've been told I couldn't be a real Christian because I don't think women should be required to be housewives.

hot4ablackchick
08-15-2010, 09:08 PM
Without a belief in God, there is no basis for moral absolutes. It is replaced by whatever is expedient for the individual, or such notions as "the greater good". Just because there is no holy book to explicitly command them to do evil , or as you say of the Bible, give them mixed messages, doesn't mean they can't come up with their own nutty ideologies. That's all you think the Bible is - something some nut wrote to justify evil acts. So really you think the Bible was written by atheists - to fool other people into believing in theism.

No I don't think it was written to justify evil. Whomever wrote it, probably based it on the values of the time. I don't know who wrote it, or the reason. There are some excellent things in the bible. Some of the teachings from jesus are very noble, wise, and beautiful. Some things in the old testament even are great and things I try to live by. That doesn't excuse the things in the bible that are not. I don't believe the bible to be ALL bad. Its not all good either. Picking the fluffy things out of the bible doesn't cancel out the fucked up shit.

I don't see an actual mixed message in the Bible. All I can see is that someone might ignorantly take parts of it as justification or even commands for certain acts, such as genocide. But as I said before, the Bible does not anywhere explicitly command Christians to kill non-believers. Even in the OT Jews were not commaned to go out and kill whole nations of non-believers as a general policy. They did have death penalties and other harsh penalties for many acts related to their religion.

I disagree. There are plenty of mixed messages in the bible


The genocide God commanded was bad only if there was no good reason for it. God commanded the Isrealites to kill nations He considered degenerate or evil. The injustice of this perhaps was that whole nations of individuals were killed indiscriminately. But today we recognise that nations cuase their own demise by their own destructive behaviour.

Consider though that we have harsh penalties for many of our own laws in secular society. If you don't pay your taxes, you can have your house taken from you. Or have your gas, electricity, bank account, credit,telephone and employment terminated. These are things we require to live. This applies to many other laws and regulations.

Wow. I think we can both agree that getting stoned to death for working on a Sabbath, is far worse than getting your gas shut off for not paying the bill. We survived before we had gas and electricity, and there are still people who live without these luxuries. I sure as hell couldn't, but these harsh penalties you mentioned are not the same as those mentioned in the bible. Torturing someone in hell forever is not the same as losing your phone service.

The difference between the Bible and the Koran is that the Koran does contain commands to kill non-believers in general, or people who merely speak against Islam.


Just because God commanded violent acts does not mean the whole religion is violent or hateful. Violence is necessary in some instances. I don't know why God thought certain people or nations had to be destroyed because I'm not God and I wasn't there. But we all commonly recognise that societies and individuals often bring about their own destruction in some way and God is in a position to judge when that should come as much as, say, blind economic forces or the environment, or dangerous driving, alcoholism or syphilis. There could have been very good reasons for God to kill off an entire nation. Their continued existence could have been more of a threat to life (their own lives or the lives of others) than their sudden destruction.What else is God going to do, try to talk them out of it? You just can't talk to some people.

Yup. Sure. I'm sure he had very good reasons. I'm sure all the bible stories are true. God wanted it, so it had to happen. People certainly do deserve to die for being born into the the wrong religion.


That's because if they thought the Bible was wrong they wouldn't be Christians.



Your opinion. Muslims don't follow the Bible - the Koran is a different story.

It sounds more to me like you are the one who doesn't wish to understand religion. Your intolerance and lack of understanding is just as dangerous as anything in the Bible. It logically extends to any other POV, religious or otherwise, which you could not be bothered to try to understand properly.

Dangerous?? I've done nothing but argue with you over the internet. The bible sucks just as much as the koran. They are both equally ridiculous. I'm not intolerant. I never said I would do anything to stop people from worshiping. They can enjoy it all they want. I'm not going to pretend that it isn't silly, just because its a religous belief.

xoAnnaBanana
08-15-2010, 09:11 PM
^^^I personally don't see the sense in all this arguing/debating. I'd like to think this is where a thing such as faith would come into play.

Elvia
08-15-2010, 09:14 PM
How about in the other thread where you called me a sexist for criticising feminists? That was disrespectful. Many feminists are as sexist as anyone else is, but you don't complain about that.



Actually, as long as we're talking about other threads...I think we all decided you were "a sexist" when you said women are unfit to be in certain professions just by virtue of being women. I think we've determined that you're sexist.

Kellydancer
08-15-2010, 09:21 PM
Actually, as long as we're talking about other threads...I think we all decided you were "a sexist" when you said women are unfit to be in certain professions just by virtue of being women. I think we've determined that you're sexist.

He's said many sexist comments. He made some very nasty comments about working women in particular.

flickad
08-15-2010, 10:28 PM
Hopper seems to be in favour of liberty for all...who aren't women or atheists or gay. First libertarian of that particular bent I've ever seen.

You're free to do as Hopper says, and you're intolerant if you think what Hopper says is wrong.

flickad
08-15-2010, 10:32 PM
^^^I personally don't see the sense in all this arguing/debating. I'd like to think this is where a thing such as faith would come into play.

I basically agree. It's not a cock-comparing contest. People think differently. The problem comes when people try and impose their religious beliefs on others.

Hopper, I'd like to add that you can not call Hitler an atheist if he never claimed to be one. You have no idea what his deepest religious beliefs were. And even if you did, neither religion nor atheism caused the holocaust. The ones who are responsible for genocide are the people who committed it.

hot4ablackchick
08-15-2010, 10:49 PM
I would probably not believe you if you told me fairies lived in your garden, but neither would I believe that there are not. I would certainly not label myself an "a-fairy-ist" just because someone else claimed fairies do exist. But then, I have not yet heard any good arguments or evidence for why fairies do exist. As far as I know they are agreed by most people to be entirely fictional, the subjects of stories for children. Except for some hippy new-age types and dizzy arts chicks, but they are never serious about anything.

Point is, I wouldn't adopt a stance or style my beliefs based on an imagining in somebody else's head. I would simply say I don't have any reason to believe fairies exists and carry on with my life as if they don't, rather than be looking for fairies in my own garden. I'm not going to try to tell them fairies definitely don't exist because I don't know really whether they do or not. Some people believe in extraterrestrials - there's a whole NASA department devoted to looking for them, there have been thousands of books claiming they exist. So why not fairies?

This is why I single out atheism as properly being a positive belief that there is no God. If a person simply doesn't know or care if there is a God, they have no business labeling themselves with any kind of stance or criticising people who do have an opinion and do care. If they don't care, they should not argue as if they do care. If they don't know, they should not argue as if they do know. If they do think they know for sure, then they should give positive evidence and reasons. But if they just want to class God with fairies and unicorns, they should STFU, get on with things which actually matter and leave theists to their own private "delusion". If some theists come at you to try to convert you, just say you don't believe in it and they will probably go away.

I didn't say beauty is the evidence of a creator, but design. Not the same. Nor was I talking about things which are merely unexplained - they are areas for scientific investigation.

True, there are faults in nature. The Bible says that this was not originally so - there was a "fall" of man and nature after Adam and Eve disobeyed. Originally nature was created "very good". You don't have to believe it but the point is the Bible says the universe originally was a perfect design. If you had read the Bible, you would know that - it's in the first two chapters. If you haven't read it, you shouldn't be criticising it.

Whatever went wrong, the fact remains that there is design in nature despite its faults. Just because a car is poorly designed and built or in poor repair, does not mean it has no design at all.

Atheists are not expected to believe in the existence of God just because other people reported that they spoke to Him. Theologians have made good arguments from observations of nature, philosophy and archaeology that the Bible is correct. Of course, atheists have made arguments that it is not. To find out who is right, it is important to give both a hearing. More often we are fed the atheist arguments in the media and arguments from theists are not reported )probably on the assumption that God is a delusion). You hear about every Richard Dawkins book when it is released but I don't recall the last time the mass media reported the release of a theist book dealing with the same topic.

You don't remember the first two chapters of Genesis, but you are sure the Bible contains lots of cruelty? Of course every belief encourages followers of it to think they are "better" than others, in the sense that they have the truth and others don't. Clearly you believe you have that entitlement, despite how politely you say it or how tolerant you are. Anyway, even if the Bible were cruel, it would not make it wrong. Many things we know from experience are real are also cruel.

Common sense tells us the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth.


Okay. I've already stated that I'm not speaking in 100% absolutes here. If I believed in fairies that may not be a problem. My hubby would probably look the other way if I told him I really thought fairies were real. He would probably continue to ignore if I spoke to fairies once in a while, prayed silently to them sometimes, and wore a fairy necklace. He would likely be very embarassed if I told people about my fairies, and would be very upset if I told the kids that the only way to eternal bliss was to have fairy love and believe. He would become alarmed if I gave away money (that could be used for much better purposes) because I believed in some fairy church, or that a fairy would somehow "bless" me later if I gave the "fairies" money. If I started to believe that the fairies had all the knowledge, that I needed to put the fairies first, and if my fairy love took away love and time that should be distributed to my family, thats another problem. If I try to enact policies based on what my fairies want, thats another problem. My delusion is not just simply dancing around in my head anymore. I'm sure my hubby could forgive me if all did was believe, but once it starts interfering with rational thought, and I use my fairies as a factor in major decisions, he would be very concerned. He would have every right to be concerned.

If I believed in fairies and carried on my life without devoting much of my life to it and keep my belief in my head, its not much of a problem. Once I gravitate out of my bubble its something different. If I could see/feel/hear the fairies, and he could not, I would not call him intolerant and ignorant. I know perfectly well its hard to swallow. If he chuckled and said, "Hun, you're goofy. Why do you believe in this nonsense?" I wouldn't get all huffy. I would probably shrug and say, "Well I really see them!" I would be irrational if I really thought I had "great evidence" that he just chose to overlook. If I told him the fairies made the wind blow, he would not be impressed with such "evidence." He would actually be really gullible or ignorant if he did just accept it. He would probably just be "polite" about my new beliefs if all I did was believe and I did not devote too much time to it or teach it to the children. If I became serious, he would probably think about divorcing me or getting me some help.

If I try to surpress information that conflicts with my fairy evidence, that would be another problem. If I didn't want evolution taught in schools, because I believe that fairies created things, thats another problem. If mass amounts of people made radical claims of fairies and held positions of power, you would be alarmed too. You would wonder how much their fairy belief interfered with decision making. If I said that I had been talking to tinkerbell, and nobody blinked an eye, you might find that odd.

I'm very familiar with the adam and eve story. Its one of my least favorite bible stories. I hate the "lesson" of that story. Its horrible. It does provide an excellent cover for the "Why do bad things happen," question. Totally brilliant. If thats what anyone chooses to believe, then so be it. I'm not going to pretend that the story makes sense or is 'good' in any way whatsoever.

hot4ablackchick
08-15-2010, 11:37 PM
What God would not wish his creations to love him and require them to show it? He's God, right? You just have to love Him and you would expect Him to say so. Just because somebody wants others to show him love does not mean he is insecure. Is your relative, friend, girlfriend or wife insecure because he/she want's you to show your love for him/her? You would be worried about them if they didn't.



Of course He would know but if the person does love God, he would naturally want to show it. You don't love someone all inside your head - you act like it as well as think it.



Atheists pretend there is no God to feel okay about how they interact with the world. I'm no saint, but at least I am man enough to admit that I do wrong instead of burying my head in the sand and pretending God isn't there.

Of course its not unreasonable to want my hubby to show and say that he loves me. The only problem is that our loved ones are NOT FUCKING INVISIBLE. My hubby does not merely exist based on what other people have told me, and because theres some mens cologne in the bathroom. Comparing the two is illogical. I would never ask my hubby to "prove" his love for me by murdering one of his children. I would never put that sort of agony on him, or expect him to love me "more" than his child. I'm not going to hack my hubby to death if he chose not to love me anymore. Even if I was the best wife one could imagine, and he chose to leave me, he would not be "worthy" of eternal punishment because he didn't love me. I would deserve to go to prison if I harmed him for leaving me.

I can't just say to my kids, "I gave you life and a home, love me." I have to give love back. I can't expect to be worshiped just for giving birth to them, and giving them food and water. Its my responsibility to give them food and water. They didn't ask to be born. Expecting unreasonable devotion for something I am suppossed to do is unreasonable. I am also not invisible There aren't other invisble mothers who claim to have given birth to them that could confuse them either. I can't claim they devote their lives to me and love me if I did the bare minimum of parenting.

If I factored in that they couldn't see/hear/feel me, it would irrational and cruel for me to demand that they not only loved me, but loved me more than anyone else. I also don't suggest it, I demand it. I also demand that if you don't you are more fucked than you ever imagined. That would be unfair and insane. Add in that if you were taught to love the "wrong" invisible wife, even if you really thought you were right, you are still fucked. That is fucking insane.

I'm well aware of my many flaws thanks. Being an atheist doesn't excuse my flaws or anyone else's. I just happen to believe that I don't need to beg for forgiveness simply for being born. I don't need to pretend I have an imaginary friend just to make myself feel better. I would love the idea that theres 'something else,' when I die, or that theres someone looking out for me. I just can't wrap my head around it. If the bible god exists, he sucks. I wouldn't want to worship a dick like that.

I don't believe because I have this annoying need for shit to make sense.

hot4ablackchick
08-16-2010, 01:34 AM
While there are many Christians who do push their agenda (the Christian Coalition comes to mind) there are other groups who aren't Christian who push agendas. For instance there is an atheist group here that's always protesting Christmas decorations, Christmas parties at schools, etc. To me these atheists are just as dangerous as Christians. Also, many people are tired of the decaying of morals in this society due to secular groups. An example would be the "acceptance" of unwed parenthood. I was once kicked out of a group because I would never date an unwed father. I wouldn't date a dad anyway, but a guy who had a child without having wed the mother is someone with different morals. That's not to say I judge people who had kids out of wedlock. I know many who did, (many friends have done this) but guys like this are offensive to me yet when I state this I am called intolerant and I must respect their views. What about my views that it's wrong most of the time? Does this mean I want there to be laws passed pushing my beliefs? Not at all, just don't allow anyone's belief to be a law or for them to say someone is judgemental because they don't believe something is right.



While I do I find the atheists that "complain about everything," to be silly, I understand. Its not really the same thing when a group of atheists boycotts a store, or wants christmas stuff taken out of schools. It is not on the same level of importance as the stuff xians try to push to support their veiwpoints. I don't believe any suffering will happen if a store doesn't put up a christmas tree, and my elementary school doesn't hang the reindeer pictures in the hallway. I LOVE xmas and I have absolutely no problem with my kids participating in it. I also would not care if they took all the holidays out of schools. Sure they can have a winter break, but not having xmas decor at the school, and doing the crappy holiday play is not the end of the world. Nobody is being punished by this. My kids sang jesus songs in an (optional) xmas program. Xians would not want their kids to sing songs like "Jesus is just like santa," but they would call atheists "annoying" if an atheist says they shouldn't sing religous songs. I don't think they would be keen on it if all the decorations they put up, were of less popular religions. When I ate at McDonald's the other day, xian rock was playing constantly. If I complained about it, I would be a whiny atheist asshole. If "god is a fantasy," was playing at McDonalds then xians would be getting "persecuted" and Mcdonalds would lose a ton of business. If I complain, I'm an asshole. If a xian were to complain, they would have sympathizers all over them. There is a double standard.

Lets not kid ourselves and think that atheists are just as bad. Atheists are 13% of the population. Its impossible for them to be just as bad, because we don't have support from most of the country. Where I live, good luck finding another atheist. An atheist could only "push their viewpoint," if they tried to mandate that schools put up 'god isn't real so don't believe,' in place of holiday trees and wreaths. Saying put up nothing, because not everyone celebrates it, is not the same thing. Everyone is free to practice and decorate their homes as they wish.

Christians are just as responsible for decaying morals. I happen to have pretty conservative values towards some things and I am an atheist. I don't support kids out of wedlock, but I understand why it happens. I think its best for a parent to be at home with the kids whenever possible. I'm not saying that working or single parents are bad. Not at all. I was a single parent, I had kids out of wedlock, and I still dance part time. I know its not possible for everyone to be a stay at home mom or dad. I wish I didn't have to work, and I give up things to work as little as possible. I relish my role as mother and homemaker. I wish more women would reconsider staying home with their babies and doing their best to make that happen. I don't believe in divorce when kids are involved (except if necessary, or say abuse), and I don't plan on breaking up my marriage unless necessary and I have no choice. I would try everything to make it work.

I wouldn't say people should marry someone ONLY because they got pregnant, but its something to consider if they are pregnant. I don't really care what childfree people do, as long they aren't hurting anyone. I don't care about those who divorce when they are childfree, but this should be the last resort when kids are involved.

Most people support single parenthood no matter what kind of dogma they subscribe to these days. It doesn't sound nice to say that having kids out of wedlock is not good. Just like it doesn't sound good to say that women should be houswives. It also doesn't sound good to tell women that they should submit to their husbands.

jack0177057
08-16-2010, 11:20 AM
Jack,

Are you completely ignorant of history? Again, I will post what Martin Luther, the founder of Christian Protestantism, had to say about the Jews" .

You think Martin Luther's bigotted views (assuming this is accurate) in the 16th century made the Nazis (a secular politcal group) kill Jews in the 20th century? Really? In all of the Nazi anti-semitism propaganda in the link I provided, there was only one reference to Luther's bigotted views.

Despite whatever bigotted views Luther had (he was an imperfect man, after all) there is a long history of Protestant support and kinship with Jews. The English Puritans who came to North America in the 17th century linked their fate in the New World to that of biblical Israel. By the early 19th century, the Presbyterian minister John McDonald was urging Christians to help the Jews of Old World Europe to return to Zion. Later in the 19th century, the Methodist preacher William Eugene Blackstone traveled far and wide to campaign for the same cause. Many Anglicans were similarly disposed. In Britain, Lord Balfour described himself as a "Zionist." In March 1948, despite the persistence of anti-Semitism in the United States, fully half of Protestant Americans voiced support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2010/7/29/main-feature/1/mainline-protestants-and-israel/r

It doesn't sound to me like Luther's bigotry is incorporated as a pillar of Protestants churches.

Kellydancer
08-16-2010, 11:28 AM
While I do I find the atheists that "complain about everything," to be silly, I understand. Its not really the same thing when a group of atheists boycotts a store, or wants christmas stuff taken out of schools. It is not on the same level of importance as the stuff xians try to push to support their veiwpoints. I don't believe any suffering will happen if a store doesn't put up a christmas tree, and my elementary school doesn't hang the reindeer pictures in the hallway. I LOVE xmas and I have absolutely no problem with my kids participating in it. I also would not care if they took all the holidays out of schools. Sure they can have a winter break, but not having xmas decor at the school, and doing the crappy holiday play is not the end of the world. Nobody is being punished by this. My kids sang jesus songs in an (optional) xmas program. Xians would not want their kids to sing songs like "Jesus is just like santa," but they would call atheists "annoying" if an atheist says they shouldn't sing religous songs. I don't think they would be keen on it if all the decorations they put up, were of less popular religions. When I ate at McDonald's the other day, xian rock was playing constantly. If I complained about it, I would be a whiny atheist asshole. If "god is a fantasy," was playing at McDonalds then xians would be getting "persecuted" and Mcdonalds would lose a ton of business. If I complain, I'm an asshole. If a xian were to complain, they would have sympathizers all over them. There is a double standard.

Lets not kid ourselves and think that atheists are just as bad. Atheists are 13% of the population. Its impossible for them to be just as bad, because we don't have support from most of the country. Where I live, good luck finding another atheist. An atheist could only "push their viewpoint," if they tried to mandate that schools put up 'god isn't real so don't believe,' in place of holiday trees and wreaths. Saying put up nothing, because not everyone celebrates it, is not the same thing. Everyone is free to practice and decorate their homes as they wish.

Christians are just as responsible for decaying morals. I happen to have pretty conservative values towards some things and I am an atheist. I don't support kids out of wedlock, but I understand why it happens. I think its best for a parent to be at home with the kids whenever possible. I'm not saying that working or single parents are bad. Not at all. I was a single parent, I had kids out of wedlock, and I still dance part time. I know its not possible for everyone to be a stay at home mom or dad. I wish I didn't have to work, and I give up things to work as little as possible. I relish my role as mother and homemaker. I wish more women would reconsider staying home with their babies and doing their best to make that happen. I don't believe in divorce when kids are involved (except if necessary, or say abuse), and I don't plan on breaking up my marriage unless necessary and I have no choice. I would try everything to make it work.

I wouldn't say people should marry someone ONLY because they got pregnant, but its something to consider if they are pregnant. I don't really care what childfree people do, as long they aren't hurting anyone. I don't care about those who divorce when they are childfree, but this should be the last resort when kids are involved.

Most people support single parenthood no matter what kind of dogma they subscribe to these days. It doesn't sound nice to say that having kids out of wedlock is not good. Just like it doesn't sound good to say that women should be houswives. It also doesn't sound good to tell women that they should submit to their husbands.

I don't think the McDonalds should be playing Christian music because that would make me feel awkward, just like when I go somewhere and they are broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. That's just (I would hope) common sense. I understand not having religious decorations with regards to Christmas, but when people protest Santa and things like that I have a problem. Personally when I do have kids I will do how I was raised, and that is to tell them about Jesus but also have them believe in Santa Claus.

The whole single parent thing bothers me because we are pushing this agenda that certain things are acceptable. To me I don't think it's the same thing as saying women should stay at home because that's discriminating against a group of people (women) as compared to the single parent thing where many have babies just to get welfare (my major problem with single parenthood). I know I won't stay at home and wouldn't even if I could afford it because it's my choice. However, I wouldn't be against my husband staying at home if I made the most (very likely). In reality both of us will work so during the day a grandparent will watch the kids. Btw, when I talk about single parents and decaying morals, I'm mostly talking about the whole baby mama/baby daddy drama where many have kids by guys who already have kids. I know situations where a couple is together, not married but having a kid and both support it. That doesn't bother me.

xoAnnaBanana
08-16-2010, 12:10 PM
Found this interesting. Take from it what you want. I took the liberty of italicizing points that stuck out to me for both sides.

Atheism By Bill Gordon

Question: "Hasn't the existence of God been disproved?"

Christian Response:
The person who asks this question usually believes that the existence of God has been disproved by philosophy, psychology, or science.

Philosophical Objections to the Existence of God The Problem:

The major philosophical objection to the existence of the God of the Bible involves the problem of evil. Christianity teaches that God is both all-powerful (see Ps. 115:3; Jer. 32:17; Matt. 19:26) and all-good (see Lev. 11:44-45; Pss. 11:4-6; 18:1; 145:7; Isa. 57:15; Hab. 1:13; Jas. 1:13). Christianity also maintains that God created everything (see Gen. 1:1; Ex. 20:11; Neh 9:6; Pss. 33:6; 102:25; Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24). Yet, evil exists in the world. Therefore, many atheists argue that either God is not all good and is the author of evil, or God is not all-powerful and cannot do anything about evil. Either way, the atheist contends that the all-good and all-powerful God of the Bible cannot exist.

Christian Response:
Christians answer the philosophical arguments against the existence of God by reaffirming the Christian doctrine of creation. Unlike pantheistic religions, Christianity teaches that God has created that which is not God. The doctrine of creation teaches that the universe is not a part of God, nor is it an illusion in the mind of God. Christianity teaches that God has invested His creation with true existence. Not only did God create something separate from Himself, but also made part of His creation in His image (see Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9). According to the Bible, humanity has been made in the image of God. One of the implications of being made in God's image is the ability to make decisions. People are not programmed robots or animals controlled by their instincts-but possess free will.
When theologians refer to human beings possessing free will they do not mean that people have unlimited options, but simply that they have the ability to choose between available options.
When God created humanity with free will He gave the ability to truly love or reject Him. God gave the ability to freely obey or disobey Him. God does not force anyone to love or follow Him (see John 3:16-18; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Rev. 3:20; 22:17). Christianity teaches that it is the misuse of free will that allowed evil to come into the world (see Gen. 3:1-24).

When Christians explain that evil was created by a misuse of free will, atheists sometimes object by asking the following questions.

Philosophical objection:"Why did God create free creatures capable of doing evil?"

Christian Response:
Christians admit that God theoretically could have created a world without morally free creatures-capable of choosing between good or evil. However, they maintain that such a world would have been inferior to the one in which we now live. It is important to remember that a system where morally free creatures do not exist is a non-moral system by definition. Christians believe that a world where ethics exist is better than one where justice and virtue are impossible. The ability to make principled decisions is one of the greatest gifts of God. The fact the gift can and has been misused does not lessen its value.

Philosophical objection: "Why didn't God create free creatures that would not sin?"

Christian Response:
Those who raise this objection never provide a satisfactory answer as to how God could manipulate a free choice and at the same time keep the choice free. The Christian doctrine of God teaches that God is all-powerful. However, there are some things that even an all-powerful God cannot do. For example, the Bible teaches that God cannot sin (see Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Heb. 6:18; Jas. 1:13). Christian theologians also argue that God cannot do anything that is nonsensical or self-contradictory. When the skeptic asks why God didn't create a free creation that would not choose evil, he might as well ask why God didn't create square circles. Both questions are self-contradictory and nonsensical. A square is not a circle and a fixed will is not free.

Psychological Objections to the Existence of God Psychological objection: "Hasn't psychology proved that belief in God is nothing but wish fulfillment?"

A popular argument among many atheists is that people believe in the existence of God for psychological reasons. They argue that people who believe in God at not strong enough to face reality without the psychological crutch of believing in the existence of God. Therefore, belief in God is nothing but psychological wish fulfillment.

Christian Response:
When challenged by the psychological arguments against the existence of God, Christian thinkers point out that what we wish to be true has no impact upon reality. The fact that many people want the God of the Bible to exist has no implications for God's actual existence. It also does not stand to reason that just because we wish something to be true that it must, therefore, be false. It is not logical to argue that God cannot be real simply because Christians wish to Him to exist. Sometimes what we wish for really exists. It needs to be pointed out to the unbeliever that the psychological argument against the existence of God is a two-edged sword that cuts in both directions. If the psychological arguments were valid, Christians could just as easily argue that atheism is a psychological crutch for those unable to face the reality that the God of the Bible exists. The idea that they will one day have to give an account for their life before an all-knowing and all-powerful God is psychologically distressing for the atheist. Therefore, the atheist represses the existence of God for psychological reasons because he or she wishes that God did not exist.
As has already been discussed, what we wish has no impact on reality. The psychological argument against atheism is just as logically invalid as the psychological argument against theism. However, the discussion above points out that the psychological argument is just as much of a problem for atheism as it is for Christianity.

Scientific Objections to the Existence of God Scientific Objection: "Hasn't science proved that there is no God?"
Atheists who raise this objection often believe that both science and evolution have proved that God does not exist.

Christian Response:
It is true that the theory of evolution teaches that totally natural processes can explain the universe. However, there are good reasons for rejecting atheistic evolution and for believing in the Biblical doctrine of creation.
For example, astronomical observations indicate that the universe has not always existed but came into being apparently out of nothing. These observations match the teachings of the Bible that also indicate that God created the universe out of nothing (see Ps. 33:6; Heb. 11:3; Rev. 4:11). In addition, the fossil record which many evolutionists site as the strongest evidence for their theory is, in fact, one of its greatest weaknesses. While many extinct species can be seen in the fossil record, even evolutionists admit that there is little evidence of intermediately life forms. The fossil record has not supported the theory of evolution by providing evidence of gradual changes from one species to another. On the contrary, new species appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record. Far from disproving the existence of God, scientific discoveries have made belief in the existence of God more plausible.
The more science learns about the complexity and sophistication of creation the harder it is to believe that it all happened by chance. For example, science has discovered that one strand of DNA can carry the same amount of information as a volume of an encyclopedia. No one coming upon an encyclopedia volume in a forest would assume that random forces and elements had produced it by chance. Such a conclusion would be rejected as totally implausible. Yet, the atheists offer the same kind of implausible conclusion when they are confronted with the amount of information contained in one DNA molecule. Belief in the existence of God requires faith, but recent scientific discoveries have revealed that theism does not require as much faith as atheism.

Conclusions:
The existence of God has not been disproved. Philosophy, psychology, and science have been unable to prove that there is no God. While it takes faith to believe in God, this faith is reasonable and logical.

()

jack0177057
08-16-2010, 02:46 PM
I don't think the McDonalds should be playing Christian music because that would make me feel awkward, just like when I go somewhere and they are broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. That's just (I would hope) common sense. I understand not having religious decorations with regards to Christmas, but when people protest Santa and things like that I have a problem. Personally when I do have kids I will do how I was raised, and that is to tell them about Jesus but also have them believe in Santa Claus.

There is no anti-establishment clause of the Constitution that applies to private entities, though. Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays so employees can "spend time with family and worship". There is a Jewish chain restaurant, Katz, in Texas that only sells Jewish Kosher food (no pork). There is pizza-buffet and entertainment complex chain in Texas, Incredible Pizza, that hosts bible study groups.

On the other hand, there are businesses that look down on religion. While religious discrimination is unconstitutional, that doesn't stop business from taking you less seriously, if you express beliefs in a deity. For example, Randall Sullivan (former atheist), was a writer for magazines like Rolling Stone and Men's Journal. Out of curiosity for the bizarre, he investigated Medjugorje (where some children, now adults, claimed to have visions and receive messages from Mary, the mother of Jesus). He had a deeply religious experience there that made him convert into a Christianity and he wrote a book about it - The Miracle Detective: An Investigation of Holy Visions. After his book about his religious experience was published, he lost credibility in the "intellectual" circles of writers and magazine publications and his career suffered.

jack0177057
08-16-2010, 03:12 PM
Conclusions:
The existence of God has not been disproved. Philosophy, psychology, and science have been unable to prove that there is no God. While it takes faith to believe in God, this faith is reasonable and logical.


Someone will say - you can't disprove a negative. If I say little green men exist on another planet, prove to me they don't... This is impossible to disprove (unless you visit every single planet in the entire universe and explore every single square foot of it).

However, I don't see it this way. I see it like this - three people walk in a desert where no human has travelled in a hundred years. They find an extremely sophisticated machine, centuries more advanced than anything they have ever seen in any civilization. The first person thinks it was created by a higher intelligence. The second person thinks maybe it was a higher intelligence, but she doesn't want to speculate. The third person is adament that there is no intelligence higher than humans and thinks the machine might have appeared there by mere accident (machine parts were blown by the wind from many different places and just happened to all fall in such a remarkable way that they assembled this incredible super-advanced machine).

Personally, I see everything in this world and out of this world is an incredible "machine" that is evidence of an extremely and vastly superior intelligence and power. We can debate all kinds of different religious stories of creation and divinity, but there is one things that is beyond debate - humans did not create the "machine", it was there before us and will be there after we're gone. I have more sympathy for the agnostic - who admits that there may be a higher intelligence, but she doesn't know (could be Jesus, or Allah, or space aliens). But, I have less sympathy for the person that sees the machine, and thinks it just randomly came together - like a computer machine just randomly dropping in the middle of the desert.

Atheism is a modern invention. People have always debated about the nature and specifics of god(s) and religion, but no one was as bold, until recently, to assert that a creator does not exist and that humans are the end-all and be-all - the highest intelligence life form and power in existence.

Another way to think about it - a tiny ant or microscopic organism does not see a full human person. The tiny ant can only see a small part of the human person - a foot, finger, etc., because of our immense size compared to the tiny ant, and the ant's limitations in his perception capabilities. The ants could be debating right whether or not humans exist - the "believers" would show as proof all the food we leave behind. The "non-believers" would argue that food randomly moves around and no higher intelligence is responsible for it.

The entire universe could be just one microscopic cell of the tip of God's nose. Just because we are too small to see, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. But, we can see the machines that were designed and put together by an extremely and vastly superior intelligence and power. The rest is faith.

xoAnnaBanana
08-16-2010, 03:40 PM
^Okay I honestly don't really get what the point of all that was... all the metaphors and weird imagery doesn't really seem to help me understand what you're trying to get at.

My point is that yes, I believe in God. And I have faith in him. The end.

eagle2
08-16-2010, 03:49 PM
You think Martin Luther's bigotted views (assuming this is accurate) in the 16th century made the Nazis (a secular politcal group) kill Jews in the 20th century? Really? In all of the Nazi anti-semitism propaganda in the link I provided, there was only one reference to Luther's bigotted views.

Despite whatever bigotted views Luther had (he was an imperfect man, after all) there is a long history of Protestant support and kinship with Jews. The English Puritans who came to North America in the 17th century linked their fate in the New World to that of biblical Israel. By the early 19th century, the Presbyterian minister John McDonald was urging Christians to help the Jews of Old World Europe to return to Zion. Later in the 19th century, the Methodist preacher William Eugene Blackstone traveled far and wide to campaign for the same cause. Many Anglicans were similarly disposed. In Britain, Lord Balfour described himself as a "Zionist." In March 1948, despite the persistence of anti-Semitism in the United States, fully half of Protestant Americans voiced support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2010/7/29/main-feature/1/mainline-protestants-and-israel/r

It doesn't sound to me like Luther's bigotry is incorporated as a pillar of Protestants churches.

The Puritans weren't followers of Luther. Many Germans were. Hitler expressed admiration for him. Here's what Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, had to say after the Kristallnacht:

"On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest anti-Semite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews."

eagle2
08-16-2010, 04:03 PM
Personally, I see everything in this world and out of this world is an incredible "machine" that is evidence of an extremely and vastly superior intelligence and power. We can debate all kinds of different religious stories of creation and divinity, but there is one things that is beyond debate - humans did not create the "machine", it was there before us and will be there after we're gone. I have more sympathy for the agnostic - who admits that there may be a higher intelligence, but she doesn't know (could be Jesus, or Allah, or space aliens). But, I have less sympathy for the person that sees the machine, and thinks it just randomly came together - like a computer machine just randomly dropping in the middle of the desert.



There is no "machine" or any evidence of creation. Your whole evidence is "it looks created, so it was created", or "it's complex, so it was created". There is zero evidence that the universe came about by anything other than natural processes. Your argument makes about as much sense as someone who never saw a tree saying, this looks complex, it must have been built by someone, even though we know trees come into existence naturally from seeds.

jack0177057
08-16-2010, 07:26 PM
The Puritans weren't followers of Luther. Many Germans were. Hitler expressed admiration for him. Here's what Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, had to say after the Kristallnacht:

"On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest anti-Semite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews."

All protestants are followers of Martin Luther with respect to certain of his religious views (i.e., the belief that faith alone will save us, the belief that the Bible alone holds all the truths, separation from the Catholic church, etc.) If he was bigotted, that part of him was the part of "the person" and not the religious leader. I have never met a protestant (in modern days) that believed the Jews to be evil. I have met some that believe that the Jews are our brethren and will be converted on the "second coming", but none that hated the Jews.

What did Bishop Martin Sasse have to do with Nazis? Are you saying he was a leader in the Nazi party? Again, the Nazis were not a religious group, they were a xenophic and bigotted political party.


There is no "machine" or any evidence of creation. Your whole evidence is "it looks created, so it was created", or "it's complex, so it was created". There is zero evidence that the universe came about by anything other than natural processes. Your argument makes about as much sense as someone who never saw a tree saying, this looks complex, it must have been built by someone, even though we know trees come into existence naturally from seeds.

The "natural process" you speak about, the process by which a seed eventually grows to becomes a tree - that is part of the machine. You refuse to see the machine, but everything around you is the machine.

If you believe "nature" alone is the designor and creator of everything in the universe, then "nature" is the intelligent force that controls the universe - this is your god.

Kellydancer
08-16-2010, 09:43 PM
There is no anti-establishment clause of the Constitution that applies to private entities, though. Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sundays so employees can "spend time with family and worship". There is a Jewish chain restaurant, Katz, in Texas that only sells Jewish Kosher food (no pork). There is pizza-buffet and entertainment complex chain in Texas, Incredible Pizza, that hosts bible study groups.

On the other hand, there are businesses that look down on religion. While religious discrimination is unconstitutional, that doesn't stop business from taking you less seriously, if you express beliefs in a deity. For example, Randall Sullivan (former atheist), was a writer for magazines like Rolling Stone and Men's Journal. Out of curiosity for the bizarre, he investigated Medjugorje (where some children, now adults, claimed to have visions and receive messages from Mary, the mother of Jesus). He had a deeply religious experience there that made him convert into a Christianity and he wrote a book about it - The Miracle Detective: An Investigation of Holy Visions. After his book about his religious experience was published, he lost credibility in the "intellectual" circles of writers and magazine publications and his career suffered.

There is a Chinese restaurant here that has a big Buddha statue and various Buddha paintings. They are Buddhist (obviously) but it doesn't bother me at all (full dislclosure: years ago I considered converting to Buddhism). Sure McDonalds can play what they want, I would just question why they were playing it.

There are many companies that do hate religion, and others that hate people not their religion. For instance in most Catholic organizations (I interviewed for a few positions at the Diocese here) they expect most to be practicing Catholics. One place actually asked me about my abortion views, which is very complicated (pro choice but wouldn't have one likely). I interviewed for a Christian organization and the lady told me I'd have to be a Christian and follow their "moral clause" which included things like not living together before marriage and listening to secular music.

flickad
08-17-2010, 01:58 AM
^^

I don't see what that has to do with whether or not you'd be a good employee.

flickad
08-17-2010, 04:41 AM
Oh, and I found something to save me the bother of refuting Hopper's spurious arguments:

http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html

Note that Mussolini converted to Catholicism in 1927. Someone has been playing fast and loose with the facts, methinks.

ETA - http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-timeline.htm (Hitler Youth oath includes reference to God)

jack0177057
08-17-2010, 08:35 AM
^Okay I honestly don't really get what the point of all that was... all the metaphors and weird imagery doesn't really seem to help me understand what you're trying to get at.

My point is that yes, I believe in God. And I have faith in him. The end.

My only point is that faith is not required to believe that there is some intelligence/designer/creater/power vastly superior to humans that created the laws of the universe. I think that is self-evident, without the use of "faith" - just by using our faculties of perception. In fact, the more scientifically advanced we get, the more we see how complex, mathematical and precise the machine (i.e., universe) is. The most amazing human geniuses can only begin to see and understand the "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to the complex mathematical and physical laws that operate on Earth and in outer space.

There are two questions: (1) is there a god (i.e., higher intelligence that set the universe and its contents in motion)? (2) if yes, what is the nature of this god?

The first question is self-evident - Yes, some vastly superior intelligence and power must have put together the pieces and set the laws of the universe in motion.

The second question, however, is more complex. Here is where faith comes in - What is the nature of the creator(s)? Is he/she/it/they good, evil or amoral? Does he/she/it/they love us and watch us or is he/she/it/they far away and indifferent to us? Does he/she/it/they want us to follow any commandments, rules, rituals and traditions? Etc.

Kellydancer
08-17-2010, 10:49 AM
^^

I don't see what that has to do with whether or not you'd be a good employee.

It doesn't, just a way for them to make sure one's "morals" match. Personally living together before marriage is something I would do anyway and most devout people I know also did it (though in my case I wouldn't until an engagement was on the way or about to be). I know one of the interviews for a Catholic school grilled me on abortion, which I find upsetting. I've given money to NARAL yet personally I wouldn't have an abortion.

eagle2
08-18-2010, 06:58 PM
All protestants are followers of Martin Luther with respect to certain of his religious views (i.e., the belief that faith alone will save us, the belief that the Bible alone holds all the truths, separation from the Catholic church, etc.)

No they're not. The Puritans Church formed from the Anglican Church which had nothing to do with Luther.



If he was bigotted, that part of him was the part of "the person" and not the religious leader. I have never met a protestant (in modern days) that believed the Jews to be evil. I have met some that believe that the Jews are our brethren and will be converted on the "second coming", but none that hated the Jews.

No, it was the religious leader that was bigoted. Why is it you are so determined to twist and distort everything?

Anti-semitism is no longer acceptable in society, just like racism isn't. If a number of whites you know aren't racist, are you going to deny there has ever been racism in this country?

Throughout history, until fairly recently, anti-semitism was widespread among Christians. This seems to be common knowledge to everyone but you.




What did Bishop Martin Sasse have to do with Nazis? Are you saying he was a leader in the Nazi party? Again, the Nazis were not a religious group, they were a xenophic and bigotted political party.

You said, "It doesn't sound to me like Luther's bigotry is incorporated as a pillar of Protestants churches". I was showing how hundreds of years after he lived, Martin Luther was still very influential with members of his church.




The "natural process" you speak about, the process by which a seed eventually grows to becomes a tree - that is part of the machine. You refuse to see the machine, but everything around you is the machine.

If you believe "nature" alone is the designor and creator of everything in the universe, then "nature" is the intelligent force that controls the universe - this is your god.

No, there is no design. Trees grow and other plants grow as a result of where their seeds landed. Plants and trees look the way they do, because that is how they evolved, not because they were "designed" a certain way.

eagle2
08-18-2010, 07:06 PM
My only point is that faith is not required to believe that there is some intelligence/designer/creater/power vastly superior to humans that created the laws of the universe.

Yes it is.



I think that is self-evident, without the use of "faith" - just by using our faculties of perception. In fact, the more scientifically advanced we get, the more we see how complex, mathematical and precise the machine (i.e., universe) is. The most amazing human geniuses can only begin to see and understand the "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to the complex mathematical and physical laws that operate on Earth and in outer space.

The more a person understands the universe, the less likely that person is to believe in a creator. Here's what Albert Einstein had to say on the subject in a letter he wrote in 1954:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."




There are two questions: (1) is there a god (i.e., higher intelligence that set the universe and its contents in motion)? (2) if yes, what is the nature of this god?

The first question is self-evident - Yes, some vastly superior intelligence and power must have put together the pieces and set the laws of the universe in motion.

There is absolutely no evidence of this.



The second question, however, is more complex. Here is where faith comes in - What is the nature of the creator(s)? Is he/she/it/they good, evil or amoral? Does he/she/it/they love us and watch us or is he/she/it/they far away and indifferent to us? Does he/she/it/they want us to follow any commandments, rules, rituals and traditions? Etc.

There is no proof your "creator" even exists.

jack0177057
08-19-2010, 08:10 AM
^ You have overlooked these other quotes from Einstein:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208 )

We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Page 208 )

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

When the answer is simple, God is speaking. (Albert Einstein)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

--- End of quotes

By "Spinoza's God", Einstein refers to a God whose transcendence could not be perceived or understood by humans, but which was attested to by his many infinite attributes - only two of which are known by humans, namely Thought and Extension. Spinoza was excommunicated from his Jewish community in Amsterdam and condemned by Christians as well for being an "atheist" because he did not believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of a father-like merciful god. But, in fact, he was no atheist. He was devoutly religious, but believed in a different type of God, based on God's manifestation in nature and physical universe.

Again, the existence of some "God" or "Gods" (i.e., an intelligence/designer/creater/power vastly superior to humans that created the laws of the universe or set the universe in motion) is self evident.

The nature and personality of this intelligence/designer/creater/power cannot be directly perceived and therefore, humans must rely on faith and ancient texts.

hot4ablackchick
08-19-2010, 10:37 AM
^^I do not understand why humans must "rely" on faith and ancient texts. If there is no evidence (which there isn't), that if there is a "creator" then why not do away with the superstitions? Einstein is not refering to god, in the way that most people would refer to it. We can also attest that most people do not think of "god" this way, this would be a deist sort of view. Though I don't necessarily agree with deism, I am more acceptable to this position as rational and logical. Theism however, is anything but rational and logical.

jack0177057
08-19-2010, 12:38 PM
^ If you believe in a God/higher power/designer/creator, then it is natural to wonder what is his/her/its/their nature. We're like children in an orphanage wanting to know who our parents are, what they are like, where they are and whether they are ever coming back for us.

Its easier to turn to established religions to answer these question because they have sacred texts with ancient wisdom and thousands of years of history (or mythology, if you don't believe it) and also thousands of years of evolution of theological study, debates and spiritual reflections from very learned and wise individuals. Also, although religious people don't "practice what they preach" very well, the established religions do have great wisdom to teach about peace, love, forgiveness, justice, etc. There is also great beauty in ancient religions, e.g., churches, works of art, songs, literature, inspiring stories, etc.

They have credibility because of their duration. Greek mythology and other mythological stories died a long time ago, but the current established world religions have subsisted, even in an age of exceptionally high skepticism, cynicism, indifference, materialism, doubt, science and technology. Nietschi proclaimed that God is dead many decades ago, but the dominant religions continue to exist and are as strong as they've ever been (despite the scandals).

If you want to reject all religions and investigate the nature of God/the higher power/the designer/the creator on your own without any help from established religions, you have to start from scratch and this is very overwhelming. There are three approaches to take: (1) externally and materialistically, with the scientific method like Einstein, by examining the laws that operate on the physical universe - this will give you some, but not total knowledge of God (i.e., that he/she/it/they is a master craftsman and loves math), (2) internally and spiritually, through rationalization, meditation, intuition and spiritual reflection, and (3) a combination of the first two.

Kellydancer
08-20-2010, 12:10 PM
Now I question it all. I have been praying I get this one job. I needed it desperately. I once again got rejected. Is prayer helping? Not at all.

jack0177057
08-23-2010, 08:38 AM
^ Sorry to hear that Kellydancer... Don't give up, keep looking and keep trying.

Kellydancer
08-23-2010, 11:02 AM
^ Sorry to hear that Kellydancer... Don't give up, keep looking and keep trying.

Thanks. Strangely I'm trying to tell myself the rejection was good and a better job is on the way. I hope so.

Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:07 AM
I said that arguing with you is boring and that your logic is flawed, not that you're a boring waste of time. Read the words that are actually there.

Better, but still unnecessary.


It's not disrespectful to tell someone who thinks that women belong in the kitchen that they're sexist, any more than it's disrespectful to tell someone who thinks that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote that they are racist. That's just stating a fact.

And for your information, I do consider man-hating radical feminists sexist and have complained about it.

I never said that women belong in the kitchen, but many women do. The real point is that no woman should be forced to be there, and I didn't say they should be forced either.


You didn't understand my point, clearly.

You didn't make your point clearly. Going by the words that are actually there, your point was that Christians are so stupid that many of them might decide Africans are modern-day Amalekites or a good enough fill-in and that the Bible tells them to drop nuclear bombs on them - and vicious enough to carry it out. What else could your point have been?


Like your definition of slavery, your definition of totalitarian appears to be 'any one who's not a far-right libertarian and any system that isn't far-right libertarian'. I'd advise you to use a dictionary, only you'd turn that into some bullshit about word games.

Not word games, principles. You are the one insisting on conventional definitions of words - that is a word game. I am looking beyond words. The problem is that you percieve politics through the conventional point of view, which is based on conventional definitions.

Libertarian is not "right wing". Right and left are bogus labels and a false and meaningless dichotomy. For instance, fascism and free enterprise capitalism are both labeled "right-wing", but fascism is totalitarian (totally unfree) and free enterprise is totally free (except for laws to protect liberties). Fascism is a form of socialism - "national" socialism.

Corporate cartels and monopolies are also called right-wing, but they are not free enterprise - they exist via heavy government support. A monopoly is not a free market and (by definition) does not have competition, which is required for a free market system. Therefore monopoly capitalism and free-enterprise capitalism are not the same thing - they are actually opposites. They are both capitalist, but they are opposite types of capitalism - one free, the other unfree. (Marx recognised this but his error was claiming that monopolism arises from a free market when really monopoly only arises from an interventionist market.)

Total monopoly is ownership and control by a relative few of all resources and industry and, hence, effectively all individuals (as a captive market and labor force). That is in practice identical to totalitarian government.

In fact, fascism is also called "corporate state" or corporatism, and is actually a partnership between the government and corporations. Under fascism (national socialism), industry remains in private hands, but government regulates it (as well as maintaining the monopoly of it by those private owners). Under communism (Marxian socialism), the state takes ownership of industry. There is not much practical difference. Under both, the government controls industry and only a small minority of the people own and control everything.

Monopoly capitalism and socialist big government are inseperable partners. Government always helps big business - at the expense of small business, who are the competitors of big business (competition of course being the obstacle to monopoly). Left and right are wings of the same bird. The real dichotomy, or political spectrum, is freedom and control - total freedom and total control and degrees of these in-between. The more government you have, the less free society is, and the more it tends toward total government. There is no "tight and left". That notion is just a political tool, a tactic. It presents two false options, both of which benefit the same people.


Disagree all you like. I don't have the power or the inclination to 'allow' or disallow your own or anyone else's agreement or otherwise. I am, however, as free to criticise what you've said as you are to make rambling offensive generalisations about atheists.

I meant that you were complaining especially about my views because they are "too" different to yours. Of course you can't disallow me to express them. That is not a criticism. A criticism would be a reasoned rebuttal, and you said you are tired of doing that.


I suppose I could make my own rambling offensive generalisations about Christians if I wanted to play the same game as you, but I seem to lack that certain je ne sais quoi.

I didn't ramble, you just created unnecessary work for me with your own illogical and misinformed comments. I didn't make generalisations about individual atheists. I am criticising the philosophy itself and singling out some atheist beliefs and acts to make certain points.

Hopper
09-02-2010, 04:09 AM
Agreed completely. I loathe the man hating radical feminists but consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights for women. I believe as a woman I should have the right to work (or not) and make the same as my male coworkers. I feel my options should be the same as a male. There still isn't equality when it comes to this (my last job paid me less than my male coworkers) yet people still bash feminists. Men who think women should be housewives, as he's mentioned are chauvinist pigs. Feminists who think ALL men are chauvinist, that women should get a job strictly for being female, and that a "true" feminist would never date a man or have kids are just as dangerous as a chauvinist. I have a career, I want a husband and kids, yet both the chauvinists and the radical feminists would both bash me for wanting both.

Speaking of which, one of my pet peeves is when someone uses Christianity to enforce sexist views. I've been told I couldn't be a real Christian because I don't think women should be required to be housewives.

Quote where I said that. I don't believe all women should be housewives, much less be made to by society against their individual wishes.