Normlguy67 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I rag on Christians a lot. Why? Because I view Christians as self serving, power hungry, hypocritical, people who are starving for attention and recognition. Twisting the words of a book to serve whichever purpose that they want. There are hundreds of religions and even those in the religions they follow don't agree with everything being preached. Each person reading the bible will have a different interpretation of what they are reading. The one thing that is clear, a majority of Christians believe that the Holy Bible was created through inspiration from a god or was dictated by a god. Whatever the case, Christians believe the bible to be the word of a god. Yet they seem to ignore things they don't like. Many of the excuses are due to obscure, archaic laws in the old testament except those pertaining to being gay, those laws are alright. Lets ask about the New Testament then. Read Romans 13:1-7 and tell me why you Christians conveniently ignore this directive from the bible? Why do we invade countries, like Iraq? According to Romans, God put him in power. Why did the US take it upon themselves to over throw a government that god put in place? That simple. Romans makes it quite clear. Or is god an ever changing entity that is not the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? We know now that Iraq was never a threat to us and had nothing to with 911. That can mean only one thing. The Christian majority in the US felt that god made a mistake in who he put in power. You fucking Christians are the biggest hypocrites in the world. It is a shame that in the nothingness after death, you won't realize that you've wasted your lives, tortured people for nothing, created war for naught, and ruined society. ---------- "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites. Thomas Jefferson -------------------- My comments/opinions aren't aimed at a specific person. I don't go after "believers'. Well, not in the sense that "believers" have murdered, persecuted, and tortured unbelievers, and those of differing beliefs in god, over the centuries. I merely use logic. It really riles people up because when science and faith clash, faith is the loser every time. I state my opinions and ask questions that no one can answer. When presented with valid arguments, "believers" fall apart. It seems that being an atheist is socially unacceptable. I constantly have to listen to people "thanking god" and hear references to god all over society and media. As a "believer" you are numb to hearing it all the time. But if you were me, you would immediate notice that "god" is shoved down the throats of every American. To throw science out the window when all the rules of the universe are based on it, is... ridiculous. It is the burden of "believers' to put up or shut up. God doesn't change people or cause them to behave a certain way. It's called free will. Meaning that anything someone does is from their own power, not that of a god. So, god doesn't make you good or bad. Come to think of it, god doesn't do anything (because there is no god). The more someone argues for the existence of a god, the less plausible it seems to be. The actions of representatives of this nonexistent god scream volumes. The idea that a god changes people is absurd considering all the religious based violence, hatred, intolerance, and killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vinegar Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I agree with every single line of this. I've been thinking about xtianity and religion in general quite a bit lately and the more I think about it, the more angry I get with its existence. Since my deconversion, I kind of rode the line that I shouldn't judge anyone elses beliefs, but lately I've been very judgmental about people who chose ignorance in order to leave their beliefs unthreatened. About people with whom its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with because they don't know the scientific definition of the word "theory" and they think evolution is defined as "my great-great-great-great grampa was a monkey" and things like that. Anyways, cudos to OP. Well written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I agree with every word. 36 years a christian showed me the whole thing is about power and control, and that is all it is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normlguy67 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 I agree with every single line of this. I've been thinking about xtianity and religion in general quite a bit lately and the more I think about it, the more angry I get with its existence. Since my deconversion, I kind of rode the line that I shouldn't judge anyone elses beliefs, but lately I've been very judgmental about people who chose ignorance in order to leave their beliefs unthreatened. About people with whom its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with because they don't know the scientific definition of the word "theory" and they think evolution is defined as "my great-great-great-great grampa was a monkey" and things like that. Anyways, cudos to OP. Well written. Thank You. The most common reply I get from people is "oh, you must have been really hurt". LOL People are people. Regardless of whether they are xian or not, People are going to hurt your feelings or "get to you" in some way. It has nothing to do with a religion and more to do with the realities of life, the universe and everything. (kudos to the big DA). No matter what section of society you look at, there are going to be good and bad. Just because you throw a god label on a law doesn't mean it's going to be followed. Anyway, I understand that the evolution debate has probably been beaten to death in these forums. People who watch programs like Religulous and read books by Dawkins, Hitchinson, and others will have their eyes opened. I don't consider myself an evangelical atheist as I am still in the closet to my parents. I am in the closet to a lot of people with the exception of my wife, children, and some close friends. Society makes me feel guilty for not following the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excalvinist Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I state my opinions and ask questions that no one can answer. When presented with valid arguments, "believers" fall apart. Very well said my friend. Every time I present my Fundy aunt with valid arguments, she falls apart. It always ends with, "I know it's true, in Jesus name". So, when she utters such foolishness, I say, "The book of Mormon is true" in Jesus name". Then she goes on and on about all the inconsistencies with the book of Mormon. So I try to point out that there is no difference between her claim about the Bible being true "in Jesus name", and the book of Mormon being true "in Jesus name". What does she do when asked this question. Like your o.p. say's, she falls apart. I was an extreme right wing fundamentalist Christian for thirteen years. I completely agree with you. Christians are the biggest hypocritical son of a bitches that ever lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturalMary63 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Absolutely - I agree with the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normlguy67 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 I state my opinions and ask questions that no one can answer. When presented with valid arguments, "believers" fall apart. Very well said my friend. Every time I present my Fundy aunt with valid arguments, she falls apart. It always ends with, "I know it's true, in Jesus name". So, when she utters such foolishness, I say, "The book of Mormon is true" in Jesus name". Then she goes on and on about all the inconsistencies with the book of Mormon. So I try to point out that there is no difference between her claim about the Bible being true "in Jesus name", and the book of Mormon being true "in Jesus name". What does she do when asked this question. Like your o.p. say's, she falls apart. I was an extreme right wing fundamentalist Christian for thirteen years. I completely agree with you. Christians are the biggest hypocritical son of a bitches that ever lived. The Book of Mormon, there is a can of worms I'd like to open someday on this forum. I generally don't debate with old woman, children, or "new christians". Not that debating is sport, but they don't know enough to even sound like they know what they are talking about. I was very "fortunate". Being able to "prove" was important to me. There are SO many people who spout things they heard from the pulpit and they never bother looking it up. Some people haven't really read much of the bible but they, sadly, try to debate. It would be like me going to court and being my own lawyer because I watched all the episodes of Law and Order. "I've seen Law and Order, I know the law inside and out. People use this same reasoning to debate the bible. They believe what they believe because someone told them to believe that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I generally don't debate with old woman, children, or "new christians". Not that debating is sport, but they don't know enough to even sound like they know what they are talking about. I was very "fortunate". Being able to "prove" was important to me. There are SO many people who spout things they heard from the pulpit and they never bother looking it up. Some people haven't really read much of the bible but they, sadly, try to debate. It would be like me going to court and being my own lawyer because I watched all the episodes of Law and Order. "I've seen Law and Order, I know the law inside and out. People use this same reasoning to debate the bible. They believe what they believe because someone told them to believe that way. Okay this is something that interests me. How come when christians believe what they have been told it is any different from when athiests debate the bible the way they have been taught to do so? Being able to "prove" is not important to me, there are so many things that cannot be proved either way. What I don't understand is this need to have "credibility" by arguing a certain way and knowing the meaning of certain pertinent words and phrases? Is this what they teach in America equals credibility? How does it make me credibile if I can parrot certain arguments and points of view I have heard from others with said credibility? All seems a bit of a wank to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normlguy67 Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 Okay this is something that interests me. How come when christians believe what they have been told it is any different from when athiests debate the bible the way they have been taught to do so? Being able to "prove" is not important to me, there are so many things that cannot be proved either way. What I don't understand is this need to have "credibility" by arguing a certain way and knowing the meaning of certain pertinent words and phrases? Is this what they teach in America equals credibility? How does it make me credibile if I can parrot certain arguments and points of view I have heard from others with said credibility? All seems a bit of a wank to me. If I can understand what you are saying, I think I can answer from MY perspective and opinion. I understand that you might not understand my past. I have studied the bible and many different religions because I was trying to find something that made sense. In a very sincere way. I believed there was a god. I just wanted to find a theology, or belief system I could agree with. So, I am very educated when it comes to bible passages and various interpretations or dogma. The problem is, as Mark Twain once said, It was not what I didn't understand about the bible that bothered me, it was what I did. That started me on to a path to really find "god". As you can guess it was pretty unsuccessful. Then my eyes became open to common sense, science, geology, evolution, sociology, and history. One of the most interesting things I found out is the fabricated slavery of the Jews to the Egyptians. There is no proof of it outside of the bible. To many provable things disagreed with the bible. As a sensible person, one can not simply say that a god you can't prove exists is more creditable that basic science. In my opinion there is no debate as to whether there is a god or not. I'm a bit confused about your question of creditability. If you were researching history. Would you find Grimm's Faerie Tales a creditable depiction of the way people really are? If someone were to find a copy of this book thousands of years in the future, would they think it fiction or a collection of historical happenings?. If you are asking why something has to be a creditable source of information that I am truly confused about your question. I don't think I need any more creditability to say there is no god than anyone who says there is no Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, or Tooth Faerie. It is what it is. I say that I am not an evangelical atheist, but sometimes I just love talking to open minded people about it. To talk with other like minded people is so liberating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Okay this is something that interests me. How come when christians believe what they have been told it is any different from when athiests debate the bible the way they have been taught to do so? Being able to "prove" is not important to me, there are so many things that cannot be proved either way. What I don't understand is this need to have "credibility" by arguing a certain way and knowing the meaning of certain pertinent words and phrases? Is this what they teach in America equals credibility? How does it make me credibile if I can parrot certain arguments and points of view I have heard from others with said credibility? All seems a bit of a wank to me. I'm a bit confused about your question of creditability. If you were researching history. Would you find Grimm's Faerie Tales a creditable depiction of the way people really are? If someone were to find a copy of this book thousands of years in the future, would they think it fiction or a collection of historical happenings?. Well even if it is a fiction, that does not mean it is not a reflection of the way people really are. I suspect that is why people write fiction in the first place, to give us an interesting reflection of who we. Your attached thumbnail says it all. I am getting old now and I tire of hearing the same ideas over and over again of so and so's ideas rehashed and regurgitated. Reminds me of the "this is what we think" rhetoric of chritianity. Nothing better than an open mind that can articulate itself the way it wants to, instead of the way it is told to, no matter the beliefs it espouses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts