Religion and Atheism

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where do I get from? Just look around or better yet browse through some threads here... atheists constantly brag about their intelligence, intellectuality and knowledge/education...

I believe you mean well but you are a bit confused... we all may be so at some point of our life.

Well most atheist that I've seen have been more intelligent than your extremist Christian that uses his bible to try and prove everything in the world.

I'm not confused have been an atheist for a while now.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where did I talked about heroism, just told those people were great men?


Read the word wrong lol
No he confiscated from all the xxxs didn't matter if they had done anything wrong or not. It was enough if they were xxx and had money. His burning of xxxish holy books and the prosecution of the Cathar. And add to that the expansion of the inquisition in France you get the picture of a weak king that couldn't lead lost too much money and made the civilians pay.

The fact that after confiscating the money he didn't allow the debts of the people to be annulled showed that he just wanted money nothing more. There are so many better kings than this fool.

They had money and they were using the people and charging greater interest rates than the law allowed. They were breaking the law. The people borrowed money that they knew they wouldn't be able to pay back. Its like the relationship between a drug dealer and his addicts. So in the end, St. Louis just killed 2 birds with one stone.

[yerazhishda]

Re: Religion and Atheism

There are 2 possibilities and there is no way you can get around this:

1. Since we wrote the Bible and we can make mistakes, then the Bible is flawed.
2. We wrote it down perfectly with 0 mistakes in which case it is the same as God having written the Bible.
(note that most Christians really really really love to insist on #2 )

This quote just shows your arrogance and pride regarding a subject you know nothing about. You make claims about "most Christians" because they happen to support your philosophical prejudices.

First of all the two largest denominations of Christianity are Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As you know as a people, we are Orthodox. Both of these Christianities go back to Apostolic times and are based on the fact that each consecutive bishop has received the "laying on of hands" (thus authority) by the previous bishop, going all the way back to the Apostle that founded that Church.

NOW, both of these Christianities reject the idea of what you are talking about (sola scriptura). Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, literally. This is a new Protestant idea (think Reformation) and has been rejected by the ancient Churches, going back to the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. If you had any knowledge on the topic you purpose to be talking about, you would already know all this and I wouldn't have to explain it.

The MAJORITY of Christians (i.e. majority lives OUTSIDE of your direct environment, the USA) acknowledge that the Gospels were copied over and over again. However, especially when concerning the New Testament, the small discrepencies that do occur are usually grammatical and rarely affect the meaning of the text. The field of comparing these copies is called Textual Criticism.

The reason why this does not phase most Christians (i.e. Catholics and Orthodox) is because we also have Tradition. Tradition is not "rituals" or "superstition" but the guidance of the early Church Fathers who lived during and after the time of Christ to guide us in the correct interpretation of the Scriptures - because they were infinitely more aware of the culture and language of the people of the time than we could be.

By the way, the best proof for the Resurrection is the existence of the Church. Multitudes of people are not going to willingly be martyred for something that isn't real, and they ALL couldn't have been hallucinating.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

They had money and they were using the people and charging greater interest rates than the law allowed. They were breaking the law. The people borrowed money that they knew they wouldn't be able to pay back. Its like the relationship between a drug dealer and his addicts. So in the end, St. Louis just killed 2 birds with one stone.

To bad that the ordinary people were not the one lending the money but other rich people who needed fast cash. A king or a lord that needed money those were the people that needed the money. You are trying to make a connection between the banking that exists today and the one of the past.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

To bad that the ordinary people were not the one lending the money but other rich people who needed fast cash. A king or a lord that needed money those were the people that needed the money. You are trying to make a connection between the banking that exists today and the one of the past.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.... ordinary people aren't born with money to lend. Not then and not now.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Religion and Atheism

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.... ordinary people aren't born with money to lend. Not then and not now.

Oooops I meant borrowing, that the borrowing back in the days was done by the businessmen and the elite of their day and not the ordinary people.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Oooops I meant borrowing, that the borrowing back in the days was done by the businessmen and the elite of their day and not the ordinary people.

That's not true, while Kings even tended to borrow money from the ultra wealthy to run their Kingdoms (much like governments today use the Federal Reserve in the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund worldwide) the people were also in the habit of borrowing money and carrying debt throughout their lives. St. Louis didn't forgive the debts that people had accumulated even though he stopped the practice which the lenders used to manipulate the people.

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

This quote just shows your arrogance and pride regarding a subject you know nothing about. You make claims about "most Christians" because they happen to support your philosophical prejudices.

First of all the two largest denominations of Christianity are Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As you know as a people, we are Orthodox. Both of these Christianities go back to Apostolic times and are based on the fact that each consecutive bishop has received the "laying on of hands" (thus authority) by the previous bishop, going all the way back to the Apostle that founded that Church.

NOW, both of these Christianities reject the idea of what you are talking about (sola scriptura). Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, literally. This is a new Protestant idea (think Reformation) and has been rejected by the ancient Churches, going back to the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. If you had any knowledge on the topic you purpose to be talking about, you would already know all this and I wouldn't have to explain it.

The MAJORITY of Christians (i.e. majority lives OUTSIDE of your direct environment, the USA) acknowledge that the Gospels were copied over and over again. However, especially when concerning the New Testament, the small discrepencies that do occur are usually grammatical and rarely affect the meaning of the text. The field of comparing these copies is called Textual Criticism.

The reason why this does not phase most Christians (i.e. Catholics and Orthodox) is because we also have Tradition. Tradition is not "rituals" or "superstition" but the guidance of the early Church Fathers who lived during and after the time of Christ to guide us in the correct interpretation of the Scriptures - because they were infinitely more aware of the culture and language of the people of the time than we could be.

By the way, the best proof for the Resurrection is the existence of the Church. Multitudes of people are not going to willingly be martyred for something that isn't real, and they ALL couldn't have been hallucinating.

Ara, Davo jan! We're a little b!tchy aren't we? Not everyone is obsessed with the minutiae of religion. You're being awfully rude in your reply (I assume because you're taking it personally and there's no need for that either). Be a little nicer and reap it twofold in return.
The average atheists tends to know religion (esp Christianity) and the content of the bible better than the average believer. YOU are not average... remember that.

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where do I get from? Just look around or better yet browse through some threads here... atheists constantly brag about their intelligence, intellectuality and knowledge/education...

I believe you mean well but you are a bit confused... we all may be so at some point of our life.



I agree! That or 'hear' voices in their head

I think this kind of discussion takes place when one person starts to tell another that they don't understand. I think this is when people feel compelled to defend that they have not arrived at their viewpoint because they are intellectually lacking and that they're plenty smart enough to weigh things for themselves etc.

I know there are exceptions though (and I have met lots of people), but there is in fact a statistical correlation (smallish, but significant) between IQ and belief. Just sayin'!

And just a suggestion... I wouldn't tell people they're confused. How would you feel if I patted you on the shoulder, and said "It's okay, you're a little confused right now... you'll come to your senses eventually"? That's offensive... Ironically enough, that's basically the equivalent of what you're complaining about except instead of saying "you're not intelligent enough to understand" you're saying "you're too confused."

I too, like Karo, have been an atheist a long time (at least 17 of my 30 years). And there's not a darn thing lacking in my life because of it.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

I think this kind of discussion takes place when one person starts to tell another that they don't understand. I think this is when people feel compelled to defend that they have not arrived at their viewpoint because they are intellectually lacking and that they're plenty smart enough to weigh things for themselves etc.

I'm waiting for gkv to point out the word soup...