Quote: And the 'Lord of the Rings' is a historical thesis proving that Middle Earth did indeed, exist.
So the existence of works of fiction in literature is PROOF that all literature is fiction? Interesting logic.
Quote: You're confusing persecution of Christians with persecution of religion. Of course there are places you can be killed for being Christian. But the article you quoted didn't mention persecution of Buddhists or Taoists (the most prominent religions in China), did it?
So Atheists are tolerant because they only kill Christians? Is the Atheist interpretation of tolerance really that you only persecute minorities you outnumber or can get away with persecuting? That's a pretty cowardly morality.
Quote: your argument that atheist states like the Soviet Union killed 100 million people is irrelevant unless you can show how many of them were killed because they were religious.
There is absolutely no way you can argue that more people have been killed in the name of atheism than in the name of God. This is quite clearly ridiculous.
By that logic the only relevant evidence of "Christian" brutality is when they have killed Atheists. You haven't been so particular in your criticism. Its relevant because it shows that the most brutal regimes, have been Atheist ones, not limited by any morality except what is expedient in achieving their goals. Many "Christian" societies have done terrible things in order to expand borders, for economic gain or power, but in each circumstance there were Christians challenging them, and in the end it was the realization that this activity was contrary to Christian principles that ended them. The only limits on Atheist nations behavior is the economic impact of the activities and the perception of other nations, who do make moral judgments.
Quote: Religion appeals to the primitive, violent side of humanity. The sooner we grow out of it the better.
the idea of having the person making the decision whether or not I go out to fight and risk my life think that when I die I will live for ever in bliss. This delusion can justify a lot of unjustifiable shit and has.
The opposite is true. Religion appeals to ideals and elevates humanity by setting standards of behavior which are not determined by your social and economic status. The concept of the afterlife and Godly judgment and rewards for good behavior encourages good behavior. A person may be more willing to sacrifice them self in a just cause, whether in war or by allowing them self to be martyred rather than reject their faith, but it only justifies it is a just cause. It limits the stuff people will justify in trying to obtain their goals.
Atheism only motivates a person to fulfill what they consider their needs and wants, and allows no moral judgment upon the means they use to obtain those goals. It unleashes the primitive, violent side of humanity which always exists without placing any moral limits upon it. Survival of the fittest is all that matters. If you are hungry theft is justified, and it is only bad if you get caught. Lying to get a job, or a promotion ahead of your coworker is justified because morality is just a social imposition. If you murder and get away with it, that's the same as being innocent because there is no God to judge and no afterlife.
Quote: A goodly amount of biblical narrative incorporates Hellenistic mythic themes. And people wonder why Jews with an already ancient tradition did not and do not want to embrace pagan notions of Deity taking flesh
Most of those multitudes just don't see the Jesus stories in perspective with religions of antiquity. All they know is what they were taught by other non-scholars without perspective.
A large portion of the Jewish population did accept it, because it mirrored precisely the thousands of prophesies in the Old Testament predicting it. Everything in the New Testament is a reflection and a natural progression of the Old Testament. Unless you believe the Old Testament prophets were copying the Greeks too?
If there are parallels with other societies how does this make the story less likely? I would have thought ancient Chinese texts of a Noah type figure would support the Biblical text, but somehow atheists use this to support a vast paranoid conspiracy theory that everyone throughout society committed their entire lives, and were frequently willing to sacrifice them, just to trick them.
These parallels demonstrate a common need in man for God, and an effort to understand him, as well as Gods efforts to reveal himself to mankind. It is not unreasonable to expect that some concepts would appear in other religions texts and Judaic ones. That there are parallels with Greek concepts and stories shouldn't be a surprise. It reflects man's common need for God.
Why is there an assumption that the Jews were the copiers and not the other way around? Particularly when these other societies sought to incorporate other ideas into their societies. A polytheistic society like Greece is more likely to incorporate aspects and adopt aspects of a foreign faith than a monotheistic one. The Jews were consistent in both demonstrating their beliefs, and denying outside influences. Every teaching in the New Testament was justified by the writers using texts from the Old Testament. There's not a single quote from Buddha or Zeus in there.
Atheists will latch on to a specific Atheist writers interpretation of scripture, with absolute faith, while ignoring the majority of scholars writings which contradict them. You haven't accepted their teaching because of the correctness of their methodology or completeness of their study, but because their conclusion matches what your faith tells you to believe. If a person has their conclusions written before beginning their research, how is it any more valuable that religious scholars who researched it? You treat the writings of academics with agendas as though they are an unquestionable Priesthood.
Your faith requires you to ignore the historical record, that there is no evidence of scripture being altered, and adopt unprovable concepts like scripture being copied from other religions. It requires you to believe that none one of the early christian leaders believed what they were teaching, that they were all con artists seeking ....well suicide apparently. Most were martyred and didn't renounce their faith, none sought secular positions of authority, and none got rich off it. Paul had to finance his ministry by making tents. Likewise it requires you to believe that all believers are delirious and stupid, which is a pretty contemptuous and unhealthy position to take, considering the only thing justifying your point of view is faith.
There has been a consistent argument throughout that a persons beliefs do not influence their conduct. Is a person who believes murder is intrinsically wrong, really no less likely to commit murder than someone who believes life is just a cosmic accident, that it is only wrong under the current legal code which changes over time, and that getting cause might be frowned upon by your neighbors or lead to prison time?
|