Opposing Views: Sick of Hearing Christians Claim "Religious Discrimination"

[Phoenix Wright]

Except God doesn't have any laws to follow, so he can't do any wrongdoings. You can though, because of the laws God gave you to follow. No, it's not fair. Did I ever say God was fair? Do you want God to be fair? By His rules, if he was fair, you and I would be dead right now.

Since we are perfect, the laws are meaningless. We were created perfect. We will always be perfect.

This argument is really off topic. Call/talk to a pastor if you want, but this isn't the place.

Do not reply to me directly and then tell me to go somewhere else to argue. That's fucking stupid. Either don't reply to me at all, or expect a reply back.

[Crystal Shards]

I'll just leave this here:

Comments about 'atheists' put off non-religious voters

[Original Alear]

As a Christian, if I find that I'm discriminated against because of my beliefs, I'll just move on. Apparently, I'm not supposed to work there. I'll be a little peeved that I wasted my time with an interview, but I won't go writing an article online to whine about the unfairness of the world or atheists.

Turn the other cheek, huh? That's admirable in its way but for those of us following secular laws, employment decisions aren't supposed to be made over religious choices.

I do see what you are saying in the rest of your post about doubting the authenticity of this particular story.

[Prince of Ravens]

To whom it may concern,

Should anyone want to continue the off-topic argument, he/she should consider calling/talking to a pastor.

Anyway,

This statement categorizes the 16 percent of Hoosiers who are not religious as atheists and makes false statements about them.

I doesn't, unless Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth were considering voting for him. The only statement he made was that Atheism causes brutality, and he gave the reasons that are supported by the athiest's beliefs. That since there's no consequences, you can do whatever the hell you want, and that, in turn causes brutality. I don't know what the problem is. Is this not true?

[Crystal Shards]

Is this not true?

Um, no?

[Phoenix Wright]

To whom it may concern,

Should anyone want to continue the off-topic argument, he/she should consider calling/talking to a pastor.

Anyway,

haha.

I doesn't, unless Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth were considering voting for him. The only statement he made was that Atheism causes brutality, and he gave the reasons that are supported by the athiest's beliefs. That since there's no consequences, you can do whatever the hell you want, and that, in turn causes brutality. I don't know what the problem is. Is this not true?

Absolutely not. There's still these things called "morality," and "guilt." When a person has no faith, it doesn't mean they become a fucking sociopath...

[Rewjeo]

You can't really follow the current Bible word for word. Between bad translations (fallen angel being translated as giant? Okay...) and removed books, the current Bible is an inaccurate version of the Bible, which is probably itself already very inaccurate (stories being passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years are going to get distorted) so using it as some sort of indefinite proof isn't very valid. At all.

Regarding the whole "Atheism causes violence" thing: No, it doesn't. Phoenix's idea does much more. After all, if everyone gets multiple lives, who cares if you get murdered in one? Atheists believe that there's only one life, why waste it? Also: Laws. No consequences my foot.

Atheism means you don't believe in a god, not that you don't believe in things like right and wrong or morality.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Slize

[Esau of Isaac]

To whom it may concern,

Should anyone want to continue the off-topic argument, he/she should consider calling/talking to a pastor.

Translation: "I have lost, but refuse to admit it."

I doesn't, unless Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth were considering voting for him. The only statement he made was that Atheism causes brutality, and he gave the reasons that are supported by the athiest's beliefs. That since there's no consequences, you can do whatever the hell you want, and that, in turn causes brutality. I don't know what the problem is. Is this not true?

You are just so adorable.

[Janissary]

Atheism doesn't necessarily cause brutality, but I would say that it makes it easier to be brutal.

Similarly, religion doesn't necessarily spark genocide, but it does allow to be be justified easier

[Ignatius117]

Atheism doesn't necessarily cause brutality, but I would say that it makes it easier to be brutal.

Similarly, religion doesn't necessarily spark genocide, but it does allow to be be justified easier

In other words, regardless of religion (or lack thereof), one can be brutal.

You can't really follow the current Bible word for word. Between bad translations (fallen angel being translated as giant? Okay...) and removed books, the current Bible is an inaccurate version of the Bible, which is probably itself already very inaccurate (stories being passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years are going to get distorted) so using it as some sort of indefinite proof isn't very valid. At all.

We have access to the Greek and Hebrew, so the translations nowadays are much better than the King James Version, I assure you. Or, are you referring to specific parts of the Bible?

Tell me, what books were removed? I am aware of the 7 books quite a number of Protestants leave off, but what else?

In addition, aside from the Torah, what else was word of mouth for thousands of years?

Though, I do agree that using Scripture to prove Scripture is correct or that God exists is in and of itself a self-serving argument.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Nightmare

[Janissary]

In other words, regardless of religion (or lack thereof), one can be brutal.

Yep, you got the idea. Religion (or lack thereof) only speaks to motivation. Not to possibilities of brutality.

[Esau of Isaac]

Atheism doesn't necessarily cause brutality, but I would say that it makes it easier to be brutal.

How?

[Crystal Shards]

How?

I think he was speaking as if to say, "If this is true, then this must be as well."

[Prince of Ravens]

Ironically, you guys/gals are talking about atheism being lack of religion. It is your religion! You believe that there's nothing to believe. You must see the irony.

Translation: "I have lost, but refuse to admit it."

Actually, I can't lose. There's just no way to prove it to you, unfortuonatly, which is why I directed your attention to someone who can answer any number of your questions more clearly than I can. This way, you can try to utterly and completely refute my religion in front of someone who knows exactly what their talking about, making your victory complete.

You are just so adorable.

Yeah, I know.

You can't really follow the current Bible word for word. Between bad translations (fallen angel being translated as giant? Okay...) and removed books, the current Bible is an inaccurate version of the Bible, which is probably itself already very inaccurate (stories being passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years are going to get distorted) so using it as some sort of indefinite proof isn't very valid. At all.

Inaccurate is not an... accurate word. Unprecise is more accurate. With the original Hebrew and Greek translations, we can get extreemly close to the original meaning. Problems arise when you some across something like the Leviathan in Job. The creature it describes sounds like a dragon, but those don't exist (anymore, anyway). Thus, it must be a different creature, say a crocodile. Then, later when you go back and read of this crocodile that breathes fire and flies, you begin to wonder.

Another problem comes from folk sayings or slang. Suppose I wrote down, "I need to upgrade my software", then someone 8000 years later tries to translate it. He/she sees 'software'. Well, 'ware', sounds like 'wear' (maybe it was a different/misspelling) and what do you wear? Clothes? So soft clothes. Or comfy clothes And upgrade? Simple! So the phrase becomes, "I need to buy better comfy clothes." Which wouldn't make sense in context.

Fortunatly for you, it's easy to discern what a folk saying or slang phrase is in the original language, so our base beliefs are without major flaw. The only flaw would be semantics.

The other thing, the removed books, were removed for a reason. I could explain why, but you probably wouldn't care, because to you the point is that there are books missing. You should ask that pastor if you want to know.

[Crystal Shards]

Ironically, you guys/gals are talking about atheism being lack of religion. It is your religion! You believe that there's nothing to believe. You must see the irony.

Statements like these are exactly how I know you don't have a goddamn clue what you're talking about.

[Balcerzak]

Ironically, you guys/gals are talking about atheism being lack of religion. It is your religion! You believe that there's nothing to believe. You must see the irony.

I'd reply to you, but I'm too busy engaging in my hobby of not collecting bottlecaps, while simultaneously satisfying my addiction for not smoking cigarettes.

[grandjackal]

Ironically, you guys/gals are talking about atheism being lack of religion. It is your religion! You believe that there's nothing to believe. You must see the irony.

So disagreeing is suddenly a religious practice?

Actually, I can't lose. There's just no way to prove it to you, unfortuonatly, which is why I directed your attention to someone who can answer any number of your questions more clearly than I can. This way, you can try to utterly and completely refute my religion in front of someone who knows exactly what their talking about, making your victory complete.

So you admit to having no clue what you're talking about, directed us to someone who "does" as a direct reason of you not knowing what exactly you're talking about, then claim you will always win this argument?

What bizarro dimension did you come from exactly? If you admit that you don't know what exactly you are talking about, why do you still continue to believe in it? Are you just that convinced you're better off not knowing the whole situation?

Inaccurate is not an... accurate word. Unprecise is more accurate. With the original Hebrew and Greek translations, we can get extreemly close to the original meaning. Problems arise when you some across something like the Leviathan in Job. The creature it describes sounds like a dragon, but those don't exist (anymore, anyway). Thus, it must be a different creature, say a crocodile. Then, later when you go back and read of this crocodile that breathes fire and flies, you begin to wonder.

Clearly you haven't wondered an ounce about it.

Another problem comes from folk sayings or slang. Suppose I wrote down, "I need to upgrade my software", then someone 8000 years later tries to translate it. He/she sees 'software'. Well, 'ware', sounds like 'wear' (maybe it was a different/misspelling) and what do you wear? Clothes? So soft clothes. Or comfy clothes And upgrade? Simple! So the phrase becomes, "I need to buy better comfy clothes." Which wouldn't make sense in context.

A play on words does not even come close to translating an entire language to another. For example. The phrase "What" translates to the pronunciation of Nani in Japanese. You would be implying that if a Japanese person asked "What?", you would think they're thinking you are their nanny.

Fortunatly for you, it's easy to discern what a folk saying or slang phrase is in the original language, so our base beliefs are without major flaw. The only flaw would be semantics.

Which could be eliminated with a recording of said phrase in a magical thing called a dictionary.

The other thing, the removed books, were removed for a reason. I could explain why, but you probably wouldn't care, because to you the point is that there are books missing. You should ask that pastor if you want to know.

How would you know why when you've admitted that you don't know what you're talking about? Also, if all the books were of the christian bible and some were removed, how could you follow the teachings and word of god if you got rid of some of his teachings and words?

[Janissary]

How?

Because, your lack of belief in God means this life is all you have, and that you don't find humans to be anything special (as in, created in God's image, etc), so it is easier for atheists to be cutthroat and brutal. I'm not saying Christians can't be brutal, but it just seems that athiesm lays a stronger groundwork for brutality than Christianity.

[Crystal Shards]

Because, your lack of belief in God means this life is all you have, and that you don't find humans to be anything special (as in, created in God's image, etc), so it is easier for atheists to be cutthroat and brutal. I'm not saying Christians can't be brutal, but it just seems that athiesm lays a stronger groundwork for brutality than Christianity.

You're an idiot if you honestly believe that.

[Janissary]

I don't think so. That's not a generalization - it's a general rule. You don't think it'd be easier to be brutal if you feel that this life is everything so you need to be successful than it would be if you believe this life is but a wisp in comparison to your future eternity with God and only matters in that you should glorify God? I think you'd have to be naive to call me an idiot.

[Phoenix Wright]

Because, your lack of belief in God means this life is all you have, and that you don't find humans to be anything special (as in, created in God's image, etc), so it is easier for atheists to be cutthroat and brutal. I'm not saying Christians can't be brutal, but it just seems that athiesm lays a stronger groundwork for brutality than Christianity.

That actually can't be farther from the truth. *Most* atheists care very much for human life, BECAUSE that's all they have. Most care for technology and the overall growth of human beings (which is why most are so into science, aside from wanting to find our true origins). It's not any easier to KILL/MURDER just because you don't believe in God.

In my experiences here, I'd say that without a doubt, atheists care MORE for human life than most Christians do. When you lose a parent, and you're atheist, you'll never see them again. When you're religious, there's always a chance you can see them again (maybe not in their "human form").

Actually, I can't lose. There's just no way to prove it to you, unfortuonatly, which is why I directed your attention to someone who can answer any number of your questions more clearly than I can. This way, you can try to utterly and completely refute my religion in front of someone who knows exactly what their talking about, making your victory complete.

Why argue knowing your answers are insufficient and ridiculous?

Inaccurate is not an... accurate word. Unprecise is more accurate. With the original Hebrew and Greek translations, we can get extreemly close to the original meaning. Problems arise when you some across something like the Leviathan in Job. The creature it describes sounds like a dragon, but those don't exist (anymore, anyway). Thus, it must be a different creature, say a crocodile. Then, later when you go back and read of this crocodile that breathes fire and flies, you begin to wonder.

Another problem comes from folk sayings or slang. Suppose I wrote down, "I need to upgrade my software", then someone 8000 years later tries to translate it. He/she sees 'software'. Well, 'ware', sounds like 'wear' (maybe it was a different/misspelling) and what do you wear? Clothes? So soft clothes. Or comfy clothes And upgrade? Simple! So the phrase becomes, "I need to buy better comfy clothes." Which wouldn't make sense in context.

Fortunatly for you, it's easy to discern what a folk saying or slang phrase is in the original language, so our base beliefs are without major flaw. The only flaw would be semantics.

The other thing, the removed books, were removed for a reason. I could explain why, but you probably wouldn't care, because to you the point is that there are books missing. You should ask that pastor if you want to know.

You don't really expect anyone to reply to this, do you? As you have just stated, you don't know "the answers" as well as you should. Everything you stated here is bullshit. The Bible is God's word, you know. His perfect book cannot be translated incorrectly. Everything about it is one hundred percent up to par from the original. Edited July 9, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Crystal Shards]

I don't think so. That's not a generalization - it's a general rule. You don't think it'd be easier to be brutal if you feel that this life is everything so you need to be successful than it would be if you believe this life is but a wisp in comparison to your future eternity with God and only matters in that you should glorify God? I think you'd have to be naive to call me an idiot.

No, it's a stupid assumption made from someone who obviously doesn't know any atheists. You're the one being naive here because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

MGS summed it up perfectly, but I will say this: It is because I'm an atheist that I fight so hard for human rights. I fight hard for human rights BECAUSE this is the only life we have and as such I want people to be able to live their life to the fullest. That's why I support LGBT rights and the rights of women. That's why I support helping the poor. I don't kill. I don't murder. And it's no easier for me to see a human being or animal hurt because I don't believe in God. Because I am an atheist, I AM THE MASTER OF MY OWN LIFE. I am responsible for my actions as well as the consequences. I don't have anyone to blame if I do wrong but myself.

Morality has nothing to do with God unless you want it to. Morality is more about social contracts. Anyone who thinks that atheists are as you describe are idiots, plain and simple. To argue that we are less moral because we don't believe in a magical fairy that will fix all our problems and doesn't, doesn't make me a barbarian, or anyone else I know. The atheists I know are the kindest, gentlest, most humane people I know... And yet I see Christians exorcising gay people, I see them fighting against love, touting the sanctity of marriage without knowing anything about marriage and while their representatives are getting divorces out the ass. I see them fighting against women's rights, telling women where they should be. I see racism. I see hatred.

Are all Christians like that? No, and a thousand times no. But I don't see any atheist telling me gays deserve going to suffer because of who they are. I don't see any atheist saying that he or she isn't to be held responsible for denying his or her diabetic daughter medical treatment. And you're going to tell me that atheists don't know a damn thing about morality, that we're more likely to be brutal because we don't share your beliefs. Bullshit.

Seriously, just shut up until you know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Esau of Isaac]

Actually, I can't lose.

You seem to have lost pretty badly, though.

Inaccurate is not an... accurate word. Unprecise is more accurate.

Unprecise? Really. You are serious.

Problems arise when you some across something like the Leviathan in Job. The creature it describes sounds like a dragon, but those don't exist (anymore, anyway)

Wow, and he thinks dragons were real at some point people.

Another problem comes from folk sayings or slang. Suppose I wrote down, "I need to upgrade my software", then someone 8000 years later tries to translate it. He/she sees 'software'. Well, 'ware', sounds like 'wear' (maybe it was a different/misspelling) and what do you wear? Clothes? So soft clothes. Or comfy clothes And upgrade? Simple! So the phrase becomes, "I need to buy better comfy clothes." Which wouldn't make sense in context.

Yeah, that'd be a huge problem if the one translating it 8,000 years later was an unqualified hack. Thankfully, there are a large number of references for any modern individual attempting to closely examine the books.

Fortunatly for you, it's easy to discern what a folk saying or slang phrase is in the original language, so our base beliefs are without major flaw. The only flaw would be semantics.

Then what was the point of the earlier paragraph outlining such a difficulty?

The other thing, the removed books, were removed for a reason. I could explain why, but you probably wouldn't care, because to you the point is that there are books missing. You should ask that pastor if you want to know.

"You should ask a pastor" is quickly becoming something you seem to say whenever you can't sufficiently explain it yourself.

Because, your lack of belief in God means this life is all you have, and that you don't find humans to be anything special (as in, created in God's image, etc),

Why can't an atheist view humans to be special, simply because they are not of divine nature?

so it is easier for atheists to be cutthroat and brutal.

I still don't see how you're jumping from your first point to here, even if we were to humor you. Not viewing humanity as special doesn't seem to innately condone brutality of any form on humanity.

I'm not saying Christians can't be brutal, but it just seems that athiesm lays a stronger groundwork for brutality than Christianity.

I am sure you would believe that after being raised in an environment wherein this was repeated continuously.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Because, your lack of belief in God means this life is all you have, and that you don't find humans to be anything special (as in, created in God's image, etc), so it is easier for atheists to be cutthroat and brutal. I'm not saying Christians can't be brutal, but it just seems that athiesm lays a stronger groundwork for brutality than Christianity.

*looks at thread topic*

The irony.

[Phoenix Wright]

*looks at thread topic*

The irony.

It would have been even better if he said this in the "Genocide and God" topic.