Every Jew and Christian is going to hell.

[MOBIUS]

You would have thought with the problems that God had with Adam and Eve, he would have ended his human experiment there and then!

Let's face it, for a supposedly omni-whatever God, he does some really douchey things - Christ, even Slowwhand seems smarter than some of the mistakes and errors of judgement God has made...

Maybe Slowwhand is God...!?

[SlowwHand]

Not even.

[Jon Miller]

Which just shows your ignorance of ancient Greek philosophers, not to mention many ancient Eastern philosophies that were atheistic. There wasn't anything "irrational" about them.

"In this subject of the nature of the gods the first question is: do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree, if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly, but in a private discussion of this kind it is perfectly easy to do so."--Cicero

Cicero, and even more recent people, didn't have a solution to the 'how did things come into existence?' question that was reasonable and didn't include god(s). Therefore atheists from before the last ~100 years were irrational.

And yes, I knew about the ancient greek philosophers. The gods of the ancient greeks were fundamentally unsatisfactory and so I understand how people would be unsatisfied with them.

And they don't change my statement from being true. The highest percentages of atheists in the world is only from recent times (and it is still quite low). It wasn't a general issue, even 200 years ago. Most people who argued religion >100 years ago didn't argue about whether a god could exist, rather about a specific god(s).

JM

[MrFun]

I keep saying that I'm not going to discuss religion with idiots. I don't know why I can't just stop. If you don't believe, then don't believe. Why are you mother****ers so concerned with turning believers into those that don't believe? Just screw off.

The purpose of this thread is not to turn believers into unbelievers - I too, believe in God and Jesus Christ.

I'm just trying to make sense out of some Jews and Christians who cherry pick Testament passages that they think only deals with homosexuality, but willfully ignore passages such as those I have posted in the OP.

[DaShi]

It's clear that ancient Israelis were really stupid (no change there!) if God had to repeatedly bash them over the head with things like the 10 commandments, punishing them with fiery death and sending his own son down to them to shout "here I am" just to have to keep proving to them he existed. A bit like doing cheap magic tricks to keep the kiddies entertained.

If he was so keen on proving he existed back then to a small bunch of uncivilised goat herders in one tiny part of the entire world, why is it that he has been so enigmatic and elusive in the 2,000 years since that nobody can agree on or decide what he even said or wanted them to do anymore!!? Surely we need him more than ever now?

Because he wrote himself into a corner in Revelations.

[DriXnaK]

How come Islam isn't included in this discussion? Are you biased against Islam? Aren't Muslims equally deserving of hell as Christians and Jews? You shouldn't discriminate based on religion. I guess you're a bigot then Mr. Fun.

[Al B. Sure!]

How come Islam isn't included in this discussion? Are you biased against Islam? Aren't Muslims equally deserving of hell as Christians and Jews? You shouldn't discriminate based on religion. I guess you're a bigot then Mr. Fun.

Islam gets out of the Bible conundrum by admitting that the Jews and Christians got it all wrong and that the Bible was written by men. You can't hold Muslims accountable for not following what the Bible says.

And MrFun:

I find it ironic how you say gays can't be Republicans because they are supporting a party that is mostly opposed to gay rights, but you take no issue with supporting a religion that is mostly opposed to gay existence.

Makes more sense to be a gay Republican than a gay Christian if you ask me.

[SlowwHand]

I find it more ironic that he had a religious themed sig line while things were going fairly well for him, then dropped it and started this tirade when the bottom fell out.
No, it doesn't make sense, but I'm not saying it does.

[DriXnaK]

This is a pointless discussion anyway since someday they'll find the genes that control homosexuality and fix it. Then, MrFun will worship science instead of God.

[Boris Godunov]

Cicero, and even more recent people, didn't have a solution to the 'how did things come into existence?' question that was reasonable and didn't include god(s). Therefore atheists from before the last ~100 years were irrational.

Uh, no, that's not how it works. "God did it" is not a reasonable default assumption for unexplained phenomena. Name me any other context in which assuming a supernatural cause for stuff in the absence of evidence for it would be "more rational?" Assuming gods exist when there isn't actual evidence is irrational, plain and simple.

The rationality of rejecting divine beings for which there is no actual evidence has not changed since ancient times, it has just been bolstered by actual evidence that refutes specific claims of theism.

And yes, I knew about the ancient greek philosophers. The gods of the ancient greeks were fundamentally unsatisfactory and so I understand how people would be unsatisfied with them.

That's a cop-out. Plenty of Greeks and Romans believed in their pantheon of Gods just as much as modern religious people believe in their gods. And again, there were atheistic philosophical traditions all over the world, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. You view everything through the perspective that what you believe is superior and makes more sense, but that's entirely subjective and due to your circumstances.

And they don't change my statement from being true. The highest percentages of atheists in the world is only from recent times (and it is still quite low). It wasn't a general issue, even 200 years ago. Most people who argued religion >100 years ago didn't argue about whether a god could exist, rather about a specific god(s).

JM

What does this have to do with whether or not atheism was rational or not? Nothing. Rationality stands or falls on its own merits, it has nothing to do with the relative numbers of people who happen to believe or not believe. That's a completely ludicrous thing to suggest. People are inherently irrational beings, and the overwhelming majority of people believe in irrational things, be it gods, superstitions, "traditional" remedies, etc.

There has been a robust philosophical arguments in favor of atheism well before 100 years ago. That's a number you seem to be pulling out of your posterior, since the Enlightenment was 300 years ago, and there was a strong upsurge in atheist philosophy then.

[Jon Miller]

Atheist as westerners mean it is not compatible with what Jains/Buddhists/Taoists believe.

Come on Boris.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't Jesus quoted in the New Testament in saying that he was not here to undo the old laws?

He came to fulfill the law. Do you really not understand what that means?