Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12663 comments on the Conservapedia story from Nov 18, 2011, titled Atheism and cowardice. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#9003 May 28, 2013
henry wrote:
<quoted text>All religions are stealing men time life. Religions are of no use for mankind and evil for mankind!
Really? Prove evolution?

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9004 May 28, 2013
henry wrote:
<quoted text>
All religions are stealing men time life. Religions are of no use for mankind and evil for mankind!
Nein ..Nein..Nein ...You know what happens when Atheists take political power ...!!..It's called Berlin Wall ..

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9005 May 28, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Chinatown? The Chinatown courthouse maybe? Public property, is either fair game for every single religion, or it is off limits to all of them.
..Legally "you" are correct ....and , morally too....but, I don't have to like it ...!!

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9006 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Except when the kid is back-talking-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the woman is unfaithful-- then kill her azz. God.
Except when the nation is not a club-member-- then kill the whole country. God.
Except when the slave isn't working-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man steals-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man works on a Saturday-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man wears cotton and wool-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man plants beans with barley-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man eats a cheeseburger-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man eats a a bacon cheeseburger-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man fails to pay 10% of his gross income-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man fails to show hospitality-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man worships an idol (like football)-- then kill his azz. God.
Except when the man travels on Saturday-- then kill his azz. God.
... shall I go on?
..No...I think ,you made your point ...

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9007 May 28, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>But the buybull includes instructions for causing the deliberate end of pregnancy, and it tells the cautionary tale of children who would dare to mock the bald, and it teaches that female chldren be raped, and their infant brothers be slain, and it teaches that there is great joy in ripping from thier mothers bodies, the as yet unborn children.
Children might be precious to human beings, but these things and so many more says, it doesn't come from the buybull god who would make a parent eat their children.
...Look..!!..."your" posts ,take me out of my comfort zone ...!

all the ancient religions were like this ..but, the God of the Israelites did promise to bless them ; did ask for personal relationships ..

I don't believe other gods were such magnanimous ..

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9008 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
<quoted text>
well see, im going to have to get more philosophical now, so follow me on this one for a moment. before the bible, it seems apparent that God still set standards in the hearts of men and women on how they should live, as the bible discribes.
This is not even demonstratively true, let alone archeologically factual. Fail right out the gate.

Thus the rest of your argument falls too.
Ray wrote:
now if this is true, it doesnt seem problematic that other people may get it right here or there even before the legit establishment of the bible.
But it's *not* true-- so your follow-on argument fails as well.
Ray wrote:
so, lets take abraham for a second. from a biblical worldview, he was required by God to live to a standard.
A rather double-standard: one behavior for him, a different one for his wife, and yet a different one for his concubine.

All-in-all, a pretty ugly, misogynistic set of Bronze Age primitivism.
Ray wrote:
but that standard may have had certain similarities wth other faiths.
False again. Abraham was pretty much a bronze-age bigot. Anyone NOT in his exclusive club? Got the boot-- he kicked HIS OWN SON and the concubine mother TO THE CURB, simply because they weren't Jewish enough...

... then, old Abraham thinks god wants child sacrifice--which he apparently does, but the angels don't... but that's another story.
Ray wrote:
like with murder being wrong,
Where? There are MORE verses/commands in the bible telling people TO MURDER and HOW, than there are prohibitions of it.

So the REAL message is: murder is not only okay? It is MANDATORY for the most TRIVIAL of things, too.

No where does it say it's actually... wrong.(it says not to do it-- and then takes that back and commands murder for any little old thing-- but NO WHERE does it say it's wrong...!)
Ray wrote:
if its a "universal truth", wed expect that ofther faiths or cultures would get it right somewhere along the line, regardless of biblical or even divine exposure.
WTF? How on earth do you get to HERE? What have YOU been smoking?
Ray wrote:
i think this statement may be a bit off for one reason: it doesnt account for deeper theological differences that make this faith foundationally different from others. else it would be just the faith that it copied.
It IS faith that was copied-- there is NOTHING original in the ugly bible-- NOTHING.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9009 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
i know the verses of which you speak of, which is why i added the even if to my statement. but the truth is you mistaken on what that verse says, which is why im not fond of trying to discuss biblical outlayings. the verse when translated from the hebrew actually speaks of if a woman is struck and gives birth, and no harm follows, meaning the child is alive, then the culprit will only have to pay the cost of the cjhild. but if harm follows i.e. the baby died, then the person will die.
Sorry?

Lying about what is plain does NOT HELP your credibility!

The ONLY death that requires death is if the MOTHER dies!

NEVER THE CHILD-- only payment of goods, if the unborn dies.

Read it AGAIN.

You got it WRONG. Classic lie, too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9010 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
the bible posts a death sentence for the death of the child, when it says that if further harm occurs the person is to die
No, it does not. Read it AGAIN.

Lying about what is obvious does NOT help your credibility!

I can read it too, you know!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9011 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
lol i like the way you put it lol. well, the truth is the church makes moral claims that foundationally our culture doesnt blend with. so its not just about abortion, but parental responsability, cultural views on parenthood, views on children, etc. so ill get to this in a second.
But.

The US Constitution SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS using RELIGIOUS tests for laws, morality and so forth.

In short? Legislation of moral behavior (penalties for murder, etc)*must* be STRICTLY SECULAR.

If you cannot convince from a STRICTLY SECULAR worldview?

Then it is SPECIFICALLY not allowed, because of the Constitution.

Now, this is not to say there cannot be overlap between secular and religious views-- there are.

For example: secularists say that rape is wrong.

Most theologists agree.

But not your bible: it commands the rape victim to be punished for life, by marrying the rapist....!

Fortunately? Most **modern** theists ignore the bible, and go with the ***SECULAR*** view here.

There are other examples, where modernism has REFUTED the bible's commands, in favor of MODERN SECULAR ideas.

To the benefit of everyone but the preachers/priests (who stand to lose $$ in the process.... too bad)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9012 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
1: the bible is an evil book because of the way it has been used.
False.

The bible is an evil book BECAUSE OF WHAT IT SAYS.

Let's be clear here-- no god who was both GOOD and CARING would suffer such as the bible to even EXIST, let alone be representative of said god.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9013 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
2: God wouldnt allow the usage of his book in such an evil way.
False.

Two points are wrong with this one.

1) you ASSUME the bible is actual from a god-- clearly, due to the evil it contains, and the evil words it says, and the evil commands it tells people to do?

It cannot POSSIBLY be from a GOOD god who CARES.

2) you assume there was some actual good usage from it-- as yet, an unproven claim.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9014 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
<quoted text>
well bob, you are very good at framing your argument, something i envy to a degree lol. ok, so your point can be shrunk to the following claims:
1: the bible is an evil book because of the way it has been used.
well, i see this as a stretch for the same reason i described the rock. we simply cannot measure good or bad usage of the bible and then compare that to its validity as an inspired book. the truth claims must be analized from an internal perspective, not just on its usage. its like blaming darwinism for eugenics. its just not a good policy to play the blame equals validity game so to speak
2: God wouldnt allow the usage of his book in such an evil way.
well, i think we just arent in a position to directly assume that God wouldnt create the bible. lets look at it from a christian perspective for a moment. the greatest good someone in this world could recieve given biblical world view is salvation. so if Gods ultimate purpose is salvation for the many, then God is justified in allowing the bible to be written given that he knows its purpose. its like my favorite knife maker ken onion. ken onion knows why he makes his knives, but he also knows that people could use it wrongly or for evil. but ken also knows that his creating his knives can lead to far greater good when in the hands of the right people. so ken is justified in making his knives because he isnt morally responsible for its misuse, only its original purpose.
And, I'm sorry-- but I did not read your follow-up arguments, because your opening statements were false to begin with.

I saw no point in reading an argument for something clearly wrong at the outset.

Point 3, below.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9015 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
3:the logical problem of evil, bible style
in part, i dont blame you for this view. the church does have its history. but lets see if there is a legit contradicton between God creating the bible and his goodness. to assert this requires another premise: that the bible is evil and that it cannot be seen in another light. but this isnt apparent on its face. i think we can go further and say that we lack the foundation for judging the bible without establishing moral framework.
In point three? You really did not say much of anything, here.

I agree about your requirement for a moral framework though.

The bible fails all *modern* tests of morality.

** it advocates slavery

** it advocates war/genocide against non-members

** it teaches women are 2nd class beings, nothing more than property

** it teaches much the same attitude with respect to children

** it teaches people they should NEVER question authority

** it teaches that knowledge is not only evil, it's literally forbidden (the very first "lesson" hammers that one home)

** it teaches to never trust your senses, but only your "feelings" (a classic way to subjugated people into slavery or slave-like behavior)

There's more, but those are some of the worst offenses.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9016 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry?
Lying about what is plain does NOT HELP your credibility!
The ONLY death that requires death is if the MOTHER dies!
NEVER THE CHILD-- only payment of goods, if the unborn dies.
Read it AGAIN.
You got it WRONG. Classic lie, too.
bob, its gonna be difficult to argue this one because we would need to do two things. one, we would have to take courses in both hebrew culture and phrases, and we would have to become well versed in the usage of the hebrew language down to the very way of saying things. now its fine to leave it at the english translation and claim a sort of victory, but if you really want to say im wrong, do the research and tell me that after careful study, that even in the language of its origin the phrase still means only for the death of the mother. its not an easy task, but itll be fun lol.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9017 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not even demonstratively true, let alone archeologically factual. Fail right out the gate.
Thus the rest of your argument falls too.
<quoted text>
But it's *not* true-- so your follow-on argument fails as well.
<quoted text>
A rather double-standard: one behavior for him, a different one for his wife, and yet a different one for his concubine.
All-in-all, a pretty ugly, misogynistic set of Bronze Age primitivism.
<quoted text>
False again. Abraham was pretty much a bronze-age bigot. Anyone NOT in his exclusive club? Got the boot-- he kicked HIS OWN SON and the concubine mother TO THE CURB, simply because they weren't Jewish enough...
... then, old Abraham thinks god wants child sacrifice--which he apparently does, but the angels don't... but that's another story.
<quoted text>
Where? There are MORE verses/commands in the bible telling people TO MURDER and HOW, than there are prohibitions of it.
So the REAL message is: murder is not only okay? It is MANDATORY for the most TRIVIAL of things, too.
No where does it say it's actually... wrong.(it says not to do it-- and then takes that back and commands murder for any little old thing-- but NO WHERE does it say it's wrong...!)
<quoted text>
WTF? How on earth do you get to HERE? What have YOU been smoking?
<quoted text>
It IS faith that was copied-- there is NOTHING original in the ugly bible-- NOTHING.
bob, everything i wrote follows a line of logic given a biblical worldview.your really not raising points that have anything to do with dismissing the logic of my argument. but you have made your dislike of certain details of my explaination clear lol. so my brother, lets examine briefly what you put, and then im going to bed. you dislike whats in the bible, and thats cool. the bible has different categories which divide its aterial. you have commands, narratives, examples, explainations, etc. all of which needs to be taken in relation to its purpose and its significance. so i have no problem with you not liking the stor of abraham. he was never supposed to have a concubine in the first place. the bible often sets an ideal, and then allows for the reality of matters to be described within its pages. so your not making any claims which are significant to the original discussion. but i digress.

now, you blieve the bible is immoral, and thats fine. i would like to know not only how you came to this conclusion, and the process by which you did. not because i want to be a pain, but i think i see a jump that you keep making that im not sure exactly where its coming from. your making moral claaims about the bible, but im not sure your statement allow for sufficient foundational understanding.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9018 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
But.
The US Constitution SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS using RELIGIOUS tests for laws, morality and so forth.
In short? Legislation of moral behavior (penalties for murder, etc)*must* be STRICTLY SECULAR.
If you cannot convince from a STRICTLY SECULAR worldview?
Then it is SPECIFICALLY not allowed, because of the Constitution.
Now, this is not to say there cannot be overlap between secular and religious views-- there are.
For example: secularists say that rape is wrong.
Most theologists agree.
But not your bible: it commands the rape victim to be punished for life, by marrying the rapist....!
Fortunately? Most **modern** theists ignore the bible, and go with the ***SECULAR*** view here.
There are other examples, where modernism has REFUTED the bible's commands, in favor of MODERN SECULAR ideas.
To the benefit of everyone but the preachers/priests (who stand to lose $$ in the process.... too bad)
bob, you missed your own slip. morals are intrinsic to the foundtion of ones views, you cannot have a strictly secular view, when it comes to law. all law propogates a moral view that is backed by one group or another. so in reality, theres not, christian morality, thers not secular morality, but there is just morality. but more to the point, you fail to provde foundation above your own dislike of what the bible says. yes the bible comands certain things which our modern society views as outdated. but you must also remember that the culture welive in is heavily influenced by the judeo-christian environment that was a big part of this nation. now im not saying that this country is a chritian nation. im saying that the thoughts and ideas that came to this country and helped found it were particularly christian.

now, for you to judge the bible i need to understand a little more about the foundation by which you call it immoral. you continuosly say that the bible is wrong here and there, but i would like to ask, by what foundation are you judging it by? im tired so ill say more later on this. lol

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9019 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
The bible is an evil book BECAUSE OF WHAT IT SAYS.
Let's be clear here-- no god who was both GOOD and CARING would suffer such as the bible to even EXIST, let alone be representative of said god.
again, your making assumptions based on personal beliefs about the bible. your moral claims continue to lack the foundation necessary to judge it, and you miss the mark on assuming that we would know why a God would allow the bible to exist. it claims more knowledge than one can reasonably defend.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9020 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Two points are wrong with this one.
1) you ASSUME the bible is actual from a god-- clearly, due to the evil it contains, and the evil words it says, and the evil commands it tells people to do?
It cannot POSSIBLY be from a GOOD god who CARES.
2) you assume there was some actual good usage from it-- as yet, an unproven claim.
bob, we can go over the moral claims of the bible one by one, thats fine. but to save us time, i want to go over the foundation of it. you make claims that the bible is bad, but you have to do more than just make the claim my brother. you lack the foundational explaination to validate that claim. its not about listing a little verse here and there that you dont like, but i mean really taking the bible as a system of moral thought and trouncing it. im sure youre up to the challenge :).

but back to the discussion, you are actually arguing to your disadvantage. you say the bible isnt from God because it contains evil. but you havent made your claims clear from one end to the other. the lines dont connect all the dots so to speak. you have to add more to the equation to get the answers your giving to be logicly valid. now as for the bible being good for something, your actually raising another pont you cant accurately defend. good on what level? good done by who? good inspired how? these are questions that must be answered before you can claim that no good comes from the bible. ill explain that more tomorrow, im tired lol.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9021 May 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
In point three? You really did not say much of anything, here.
I agree about your requirement for a moral framework though.
The bible fails all *modern* tests of morality.
** it advocates slavery
** it advocates war/genocide against non-members
** it teaches women are 2nd class beings, nothing more than property
** it teaches much the same attitude with respect to children
** it teaches people they should NEVER question authority
** it teaches that knowledge is not only evil, it's literally forbidden (the very first "lesson" hammers that one home)
** it teaches to never trust your senses, but only your "feelings" (a classic way to subjugated people into slavery or slave-like behavior)
There's more, but those are some of the worst offenses.
bob, i know by know im getting quoite repetetive, but please, bear with me here. im not quite familiar with this framework youre using to judgge the bible. im also not sure how youre translating the actions to match todays situations and moral standards. but lets look at your list breifly before i pass out from exaustion. now i cant in all honesty give fair hearing to each point, so well have to take each one one by one at a later point.

slavery- a careful look at the laws revolving "slaves", and one sees peculiar things. the slavery of the hebrews was not the slavery of the west. the slaves of the hebrews were more like indentured servant, but with more freedom. also, we must be careful not to forc our cultural behaviors and ways onto the bible. selling ones self or ones family member into slavery was one way of ensuring that they were fed, alive, and that debts were paid. there was no welfare back then lol. you couldnt just go down to the person you owed money to and ask for an extension. in this time, money wasnt just paper, money was food, cattle, whatever you had of immediate worth. so its only logical that someone might become a servant to feed his family or pay off a debt. plus, the bible says every seven years the servants were to go free. i could say more on this, but a careful examination would be enough to make the slaery point invalid.

war/ genocide advocation- i assume your talking abut the canaanites? well on war n general, war was a way of life for all people of that time. it was necesary to survive. remember that not to long ago in the history of the world, there were others who wished to expand their territories to, and so war wa inevitable. but more to the point, the bible never makes race a reason for killing a person. the canaanites were killed because of the wickedness they were commiting. and when god speaks to araham, he tells him that hes not gonna give him the land just et because the canaanites werent wicked enough for him to just up and kick them out. God was giving them a chance to change. also, its important to note that when the isrealites started doing the same as the canaanites, god sent other countries to enslave them and kick their behinds too. so it wasnt just because of race. it was because of wickedness.

2nd class citizens- this one is not to much of a disagreement. the time period was patriarchal. but one must also examine the culture as well. a woman became a judge in israel, tht was no joke. the culture had a structure that, although in modern times we may not agree with, it was made to help with the survival of the nation. now if we are to examine the culture of the time, well also find that women were not without rights. in proverbs, we see that a woman had the ability to buy and sell, that she ran the house, and had she had significance in her own way. children as well had rights, but remember that children are under a different set of rules. they have to learn responsabilitys before they can begiven privilages, and so the bible isnt specific with rules on children.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9022 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
bob, its gonna be difficult to argue this one because we would need to do two things. one, we would have to take courses in both hebrew culture and phrases, and we would have to become well versed in the usage of the hebrew language down to the very way of saying things.
Too late: I once asked a Jewish Rabbi about this verse-- nevermind why I had the opportunity. But he, being a Rabbi, was fluent in Hebrew. He agrees with me: the unborn is NOT a human, according to the bible.

I've also corroborated using various commentaries and Hebrew<->English translations.

Again: the bible equates unborn to less than human.

In fact? The bible clearly and unambiguously states LIFE BEGINS WITH THE FIRST BREATH--AT BIRTH in other words!

But nice try by you, at apologetics.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Into The Night 52,232
How To Get To Heaven When You Die 28 min xfrodobagginsx 1
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 29 min xfrodobagginsx 3,868
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr IB DaMann 509
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 1 hr Eagle 12 223
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 1,677
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Amused 22,170
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr ChristineM 24,891
More from around the web