That's already happening.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's kinda the point. Many people believe in such things even though there is valid proof for their inexistence. The future can only be worse with the continual of all this false knowledge and belief.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ignorance is nothing new though. This has always gone on and always will. It used to be worse too; so who says it won't get better?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Tldr

by Anonymous 12 years ago

How is it trolling? Can you provide me with a logical argument as to why is may be perceived as trolling?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

- attacks the poster - ignores topic of the post - adds nothing worthwhile to the conversation - lies in order to anger

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And who are you saying is the troll and is doing this? The OP? What.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Me

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Are you talking about religion?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Am going to assume you're talking about religion. And if so, I worry about your future.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Threaten me with hell, something I refuse to believe in because it doesn't exist. Go ahead and do that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

i'm not going to threaten you with anything. you're just missing out on all the great blessings and happiness that comes with God.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

God made me an atheist. All I'm doing is abiding him and being what he intended me to be.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I personally think that being close-minded is pretty ignorant

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Do you know the definition of "tolerant" or "freedom of speech"?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Those completely contradict each other. Freedom of speech relieves people of the duty of being tolerant. Legally, anyways.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They do not contradict each other. Freedom of speech cannot exist without tolerance, unless you assume everyone agrees with what everyone says. Sure, you don't have to agree with what they say and you can say what you want in response, but you must be tolerant at least to the point that you don't kill them for saying their opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ah, was she talking about tolerance for what has been said? I interpreted this as being tolerant of others by not verbally degrading them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think you could see it either way. I, sometimes foolishly, try to view people's arguments in the best light possible, so I would say she meant tolerance for what has been said.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I am being tolerant and all I'm doing is stating facts. Disbelieving the aforementioned statement of this post is equal to refusing to acknowledge the sound proof for the invalidity of religion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"You fear the future of mankind when you talk to people who have engrained in their minds such ludicrous thoughts and ideologies that are bogus with knowledge refuting them wholely but they refuse to acknowledge the reality of their teachings being wrong on the basis that they were taught that was the truth from an early age." "You hate religion." Same point, 54 less words.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No. It is not solely religion. Many people believe in similar concepts even though you can prove they're wrong. All these types of people do is impede the further advancement of humanity and it's search for the truth.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The way this was worded really annoyed me...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not quite, your post has the wrong intentions, even if this is about religion. I fear the future of mankind when there's people who have a viewpoint, but never take offered opportunities to learn from both sides of the issue and then decide for themselves. In your post you predispose that one side is right and one side is wrong-- so you've already violated the previous sentence. To make this clearer, an example, going both ways: a person raised a devout Christian from birth should study evolution and decide which they prefer to believe in (or both, as the two don't have to conflict, but that's another story). On the other side, a person raised an atheist should take the time to read the bible or go to church for a few times, and then decide which they want to "become", as it were. It's not that either is wrong necessarily, it's just that if they don't take that opportunity to step outside their early teachings, they'll be fairly close-minded and ignorant, which is not a good thing, persay. As a personal example, I was raised Jewish, but I consider myself agnostic. However I plan to read someday the entire Christian Bible, the Koran, and the rest of the Torah.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The basis for claiming that Christianity is wrong is scientific proof. That was the point of the post: even though there's so much proof and logic to debunk religion, people still feel compelled to go along with it. I am an atheist and am reading the Bible and have read a lot of it. I refuse to believe we should follow such morals as "when you're raping a woman, you will not be killed if you make her shout loud enough that everyone notices. On the other side, if you rape her and she didn't scream enough when she was being raped, you (and her) will be executed!" (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) How can people read whatever the fuck they want from the Bible and ignore the rest? Common sense, you say? Well, it is also common sense that religion contradicts truth and knowledge; it is also common sense that we shouldn't base our morals, facts and actions off a two-thousand-year-old book. As a personal example, I was raised Catholic and through the observance of its corruption and its treatment of kids, not to mention it's contradictions and oxymorons, I am now an atheist. I reinforce my atheism by reading great pieces of science fiction such as the Bible, and soon the Koran and the Torah.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm sorry, but what translation of the verse is that? Can i have a source (that provides the version of the bible/torah that you cited)? Both mine, and my roommate's bibles say "If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death with stones, the wound woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife." (Dut: 22: 23-24 NKJV) Additionally verse 25 says "but if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lays with her shall die but you shall do nothing with the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter" (25-26 NKJV) I'm sorry, I hate religious debates, they make all parties involved look dumb, but I had to check. Thank you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I got it from the King James Version: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A23-24&version=KJV Anyway, the precise bible verse is irrelevant. The point was that the Bible has horrible things from which we should not abide and derive our mentality nowadays.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. This was copy and pasted from your link. I see a pretty big difference between this verse and the one you presented. Question: Do you hate when Christians take verses from the Koran and twist them around/ take them out of context to make Islam seem like a violent religion? Honestly, my biggest question is why would you lie like that? You have lost all credibility now... As for your last point, you can't present me with any verses because you probably switched them around as well. Why? I'm flabbergasted...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I translated its meaning... How does that make it wrong? Can YOU tell me what you think it meant? I think you should've noticed it was adapted when it said "you"—the Bible dislikes the use of that word.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is becoming more ludicrous by the second... Just to make sure the whole "you" bit was false, I typed in the word "you" in a bible search for multiple translations... they all came up with "no results found" because the word "you" is very common. So, I typed in the word "thou" for the king james version. It came back with around 4600 results. Face it, you were caught in a lie... even if you did not intend to present that verse maliciously (although we both know that's not true) you probably could have included something such as "One example is Deuteronomy 22 23-24, which says (insert direct quote here). I interpret this to mean..." Did you do this? No... You presented what you wrote as a direct quote. Just own up to it... I'm not here to debate theology with you, like I said earlier, I hate religious debates... I enjoy intellectual discussions free of mudslinging that may involve things such as religion but what you did there is far from that... However, If you just admit your lapse in judgement, I would be happy to provide my interpretation of the verse.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I gave the translation and then the exact verse so you could check it up. I thought it was blindingly obvious how it was my interpretation of it. I guess not. Why would I blatantly lie AND give you a reference to the exact quotation? How stupid is that?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Based off what i've seen today I wouldn't be surprised... Why would you pass off an interpretation as a direct quote without saying it's an interpretation?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It wasn't a direct quotation off the Bible, it was simply the general interpretation of it. Again, I thought you'd be able to notice it was simply an interpretation. My mistake there, sorry.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Then why didn't you reveal that from the start? You withheld information... Read your second comment... Honestly, your defense has changed so many times that there isn't even a point to arguing this anymore.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sigh...I was really considering not responding to this...but I guess I will, and keep it short. I think you've missed the point of my comment. It's fine for you to be atheist. I'm agnostic, remember? I don't believe in the Bible or the Koran or the Torah, either. Yet, I still show them some respect. I don't go around saying they're wrong well, I have, but that's a completely different argument that this doesn't need to get into because I respect other's viewpoints. I also respect that I, as an individual, have decided for myself what I want after careful consideration. Most of your reply seemed like anti-religion/Christianity bashing and not relevant. I never said anything about common sense. You're making assumptions based upon your own viewpoint, which you're allowed to have, but no need to bash. That last paragraph there-- it's mostly good. It's fine that you became atheist. However, your mindset going into reading those books should not be, oh, I won't find them, they're only "science fiction." Keep your mind open, see what happens.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I do keep an open mind, but the more I read the Bible, the more it makes me disbelieve it. Also, why can't atheists express their disbeliefs without people saying "OMG cristianity is opresed!111111" and the like? This post wasn't even necessarily related to religion, people just interpreted it that way. It refers to general ignorance and unwillingness to learn worldwide.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I also want to say really quickly (slightly unrelated) that parts of this comment thread PROVE my thesis right, in a way. Look at Credetemi and I. We're sort of polar opposites, with her being a devout Catholic (I believe??) and me being agnostic to atheist. But here we agree, because this argument isn't about whether religion is right or wrong, it's about how people, in general, should approach learning and their opinions. (@Credetemi, I hope I'm not presuming anything too much there!!)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Militant atheism does seek for humans to approach learning and their opinions in a different way. Should we keep religion? Good idea. Let's keep all the wars, let's let the Israelis genocide the Palestinians (which according to many American politicans, don't actually exist), let's let Catholics kill Protestants and viceversa, let's let Muslims to continue to kill any homosexual or atheist. Let's let billions of dollars be funded towards prayer instead of action... Seems like a brilliant idea.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

At first I wanted to YYA this bc there were lots of 'big' words but then I realized what you were trying to say.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So are you telling me that Santa is not real?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Nice job trying to sound smart with your word choice and completely muddling and hiding the meaning of the post. You know, you don't sound smart, you sound like a pretentious prat.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You attack ME instead of what I said. How is that any form of logical argument? Can you please tell me why what I said was wrong instead of insulting me?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not arguing with your post, I honestly didn't feel like trying to decipher it. That wasn't my point at all, my point was that instead of loading it with big words you should aim towards clarity so that it's easier for people to actually understand.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This post is so poorly phrased. I *think* I agree but I can't be totally sure...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Too many people were taught that school is the only form of education from an early age, and look at how many of you still believe it and stand by it. Very very few people I talk to have realized otherwise.

by Anonymous 12 years ago