No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

 

 

Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying)

 

 

For starters:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02)

 

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable.

 

That's totally wrong. I'm 100% certain Rex doesn't believe in any deity.

 

 

The fact that one has a religous background (such as myself by the way) does not mean one can't be an atheist. IMO, it's on the contrary- after you've been there and realized some things it's more legitimate for you to adhere your opinion than one who's only been to one side.

 

I'm sure Rex is going to present his opinions better than I could (it's his opinions after all), I just feel you're trying to force your opinion on others... I mean "it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away." that's rather off. Many atheists have religous pasts/backgrounds and same works the other way around.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

 

 

Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying)

 

 

For starters:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02)

 

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable.

 

That's totally wrong. I'm 100% certain Rex doesn't believe in any deity.

 

 

The fact that one has a religous background (such as myself by the way) does not mean one can't be an atheist. IMO, it's on the contrary- after you've been there and realized some things it's more legitimate for you to adhere your opinion than one who's only been to one side.

 

I'm sure Rex is going to present his opinions better than I could (it's his opinions after all), I just feel you're trying to force your opinion on others... I mean "it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away." that's rather off. Many atheists have religous pasts/backgrounds and same works the other way around.

 

 

Just my .02$ implies opinion, so of course I can be wrong. Not saying I was right, just my opinion. And no I'm not trying to force my religion on anyone more then you are by having that signature.

Angry atheists make me cry on the inside. :cry:

 

[hide]Or laugh, one of the two.[/hide]

 

I guess you haven't seen angry theists then. Tenfold the drama.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

 

 

Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying)

 

 

For starters:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02)

 

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable.

 

That's totally wrong. I'm 100% certain Rex doesn't believe in any deity.

 

 

The fact that one has a religous background (such as myself by the way) does not mean one can't be an atheist. IMO, it's on the contrary- after you've been there and realized some things it's more legitimate for you to adhere your opinion than one who's only been to one side.

 

I'm sure Rex is going to present his opinions better than I could (it's his opinions after all), I just feel you're trying to force your opinion on others... I mean "it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away." that's rather off. Many atheists have religous pasts/backgrounds and same works the other way around.

 

 

Just my .02$ implies opinion, so of course I can be wrong. Not saying I was right, just my opinion. And no I'm not trying to force my religion on anyone more then you are by having that signature.

 

So your opinion is that Rex is afraid of God because he's afraid he could be wrong? Wow, I'm not even going to go there then, I'll leave it to Rex.

 

 

As for your signature comment.... Just... Lol....

My signature is nothing more than opinion-stating. If anyone wishes to look into it, they may, if not, they may not aswell.

Telling someone his opinion is wrong, and that he's afraid he'd be drawn to the other side of the scales, especialy after you've seen how strongly he feels about his opinion seems (to me) like forcing your own opinion.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

 

 

Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying)

 

 

For starters:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02)

 

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable.

 

That's totally wrong. I'm 100% certain Rex doesn't believe in any deity.

 

 

The fact that one has a religous background (such as myself by the way) does not mean one can't be an atheist. IMO, it's on the contrary- after you've been there and realized some things it's more legitimate for you to adhere your opinion than one who's only been to one side.

 

I'm sure Rex is going to present his opinions better than I could (it's his opinions after all), I just feel you're trying to force your opinion on others... I mean "it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away." that's rather off. Many atheists have religous pasts/backgrounds and same works the other way around.

 

 

Just my .02$ implies opinion, so of course I can be wrong. Not saying I was right, just my opinion. And no I'm not trying to force my religion on anyone more then you are by having that signature.

 

So your opinion is that Rex is afraid of God because he's afraid he could be wrong? Wow, I'm not even going to go there then, I'll leave it to Rex.

 

 

As for your signature comment.... Just... Lol....

My signature is nothing more than opinion-stating. If anyone wishes to look into it, they may, if not, they may not aswell.

Telling someone his opinion is wrong, and that he's afraid he'd be drawn to the other side of the scales, especialy after you've seen how strongly he feels about his opinion seems (to me) like forcing your own opinion.

 

 

As to the first section, I've found it quite common people don't like to be proven wrong. Second, please stop with the condescending attitude. On another note: I really see the irony in the fact you said your signature is "just an opinion" And I never said what he thought was wrong, I stated my opinion. Also, do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact you quoted my post calling my opinion wrong, because I spoke for him (in a sense) then just did the same to me now? Now, if you insist on trying to find something offensive about everything I post, well cbf'd.

 

Besides, I don't care what Rex believes (no offense Rex) I was just posting my opinion. Good grief Romy, I've encountered many Atheists who say that they believe God is real, but refuse to follow him because they don't like him or something. I was wondering if this was the case; next time, let Rex speak for himself.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

 

 

Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying)

 

 

For starters:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02)

 

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable.

 

That's totally wrong. I'm 100% certain Rex doesn't believe in any deity.

 

 

The fact that one has a religous background (such as myself by the way) does not mean one can't be an atheist. IMO, it's on the contrary- after you've been there and realized some things it's more legitimate for you to adhere your opinion than one who's only been to one side.

 

I'm sure Rex is going to present his opinions better than I could (it's his opinions after all), I just feel you're trying to force your opinion on others... I mean "it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away." that's rather off. Many atheists have religous pasts/backgrounds and same works the other way around.

 

 

Just my .02$ implies opinion, so of course I can be wrong. Not saying I was right, just my opinion. And no I'm not trying to force my religion on anyone more then you are by having that signature.

 

So your opinion is that Rex is afraid of God because he's afraid he could be wrong? Wow, I'm not even going to go there then, I'll leave it to Rex.

 

 

As for your signature comment.... Just... Lol....

My signature is nothing more than opinion-stating. If anyone wishes to look into it, they may, if not, they may not aswell.

Telling someone his opinion is wrong, and that he's afraid he'd be drawn to the other side of the scales, especialy after you've seen how strongly he feels about his opinion seems (to me) like forcing your own opinion.

 

 

As to the first section, I've found it quite common people don't like to be proven wrong. Second, please stop with the condescending attitude. On another note: I really see the irony in the fact you said your signature is "just an opinion" And I never said what he thought was wrong, I stated my opinion. Also, do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact you quoted my post calling my opinion wrong, because I spoke for him (in a sense) then just did the same to me now? Now, if you insist on trying to find something offensive about everything I post, well cbf'd.

 

Besides, I don't care what Rex believes (no offense Rex) I was just posting my opinion. Good grief Romy, I've encountered many Atheists who say that they believe God is real, but refuse to follow him because they don't like him or something. I was wondering if this was the case; next time, let Rex speak for himself.

 

I don't have a condescending attitude, or atleast don't feel like I do. I re-read my post and couldn't find it. Weird you feel that way. The only part I could possibly find it is when your signature comment made me laugh- I just found the absurdity in your saying that "it sounds like you still know God exists" and then "I'm not trying to force my religion on anyone more then you are by having that signature" because my signature is a statement about myself, while yours is about someone else.

 

Also, how did I speak for you exactly?

 

Lastly, those you've met are not atheists, they're agnostics. Anyone who believes any divine entity exists is automaticly not an atheist. I believe I already quoted Wikipedia about the definition of atheism here.

 

EDIT: And here it is again-

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Edited February 22, 201016 yr by romy

Angry atheists make me cry on the inside. :cry:

 

[hide]Or laugh, one of the two.[/hide]

 

I guess you haven't seen angry theists then. Tenfold the drama.

Nah, I've seen angry theists; they just make me angry, which doesn't really solve much, it just makes me an angry theist, but in a completely different sense. :razz:

 

 

 

 

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

 

I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact.

I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

 

No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion.

 

You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's.

 

 

Religous people are happier.

But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one.

 

Again, your fact is based on something subjective. It's not really a fact. Happiness is something that can easily change between now and a minute later, and people have difference feelings as to what happiness is. Saying religious people are happier means absolutely nothing.

 

 

Subjective or not, when someone says they're happy (as long as they're not lying), it's because they're happy.

 

 

As for it meaning nothing... Read up the quote. The first guy said he finds the bible a book of joy, and is why I stated religous people are happier.

 

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc.

 

 

It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

 

Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same.

 

 

Thus why I said "happy about your life". If you lost 20$, your answer wouldn't change.

 

 

Again, if someone defines himself as happy, it's because he is.

If someone defines himself as unhappy, that's also because he is.

 

 

In terms of probability, you're more likely to pick a random religous person who'd define himself as happy, than someone who isn't. I don't see what the big deal is.

It also makes quite a bit of sense, if you live your life thinking there's someone there guarding you, and that you'll be promised to live in Heaven etc, you're more likely to be happy (or define yourself as happy).

 

Guess what, your answer would change, You wouldn't be happy with your life if you just lost money when someone asked, you'd be sad/mad about the money. It's something subjective, and it changes with people very easily. It's something you can compare to the tv stars, and think you're not really happy compared to what you could be. Or you could compare it to someone worth less than you, and think you're happier than you are. It's something that can't be accurately measured. You don't understand how complex things like this are, because happiness is not something that easy to understand.

 

No, you may not be happy, but you'd still be happy about your life[/i[ even if you lost 20$.

 

 

I hate repeating myself, but the fact that happiness is measured individualy by each person does not matter, because on the bottom line, if they define themselves as happy, it's because they are.

To make sure we avoid more misunderstandings, I'll rephrase my initial statement- Religous people are more likely to define themselves as happy.

 

 

 

I think your problem with that statement is your (possibly just) hatred towards religion which gets you annoyed when shown in a good light. You must remember that the fact that religous are more likely to be happy (or define themselves as happy for what it's worth), isn't necessarily good, I'd even call it bad. It's just like the example I gave, a drunk person is more likely to find joy in things, but I'd rather be sober most of the time.

 

 

Please understand that the fact religous people are more likely to define themsleves as happy (about their lives...) has good reasoning behind it. A person who thinks someone is out there for them, that they're eventualy going to exist in Heaven, that a perfect entity is on their side, would likely make them happier. There's nothing "insane" about it.

 

I'm actually more annoyed about it being called a fact than it having anything to do with religion. What I'm saying is, emotions are not something that are a constant. When you're happy about something, you're going to probably be thinking about the positive things. Whenever you lose some money though, you're going to be sad/mad. Then there's probably a high chance you'll think about other things that have gone wrong recently, and think you're life isn't that great. It's different for everyone. That makes it difficult for it to be studied, and anyone who actually understands what they're doing would never publish it as a fact. I'm happy with the idea that should I die, nothing happens. Other people who don't believe in God could also be happy knowing their body will continue on forever through multiple processes, such as when it decays it becomes nutrients for trees. How happy it makes people depends on their personal views, which once again makes a study on happiness very hard.

No, I'm saying you are clueless as to what the afterlife will be like. And who says he created you to have you killed? All I'm saying is I think you have never read the Bible, and if you haven't you're not qualified to speak against it. Thus why I don't speak out against the Qu'auran (sp) or many other religious documents, because I've not read them.

 

 

Admit it, even if there was proof God existed and loved you, you would still say he doesn't exist for one solid reason:

 

 

You don't want to be proven wrong.

 

I went to a Christian School for over eight years, to even pass a grade you MUST pass Bible class. In all those years, I didn't learn as much from the Bible as I should have, because they ignored some of the most important parts. I was born gay, but God wants me to die because he created me this way. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)". Hell, I probably know more about the Bible than you do, and it's that reason that the God from the Bible disgusts me. The hypocrisy is just insane, and the amount of people he commands to be murdered is also insane. If there was proof God existed and he loved me, then this situation would be completely different. Problem: it's not, and it's not going to be changing (because God hasn't bothered doing anything in the last 2k years apparently).

 

 

Dude, I'm gay as well. God doesn't hate us at all. I used to hate God because I thought he hated me, but he doesn't! I can post numerous links about facts that GOd doesn't hate gay people. And no, you probably don't know more than me. (Just saying)

 

 

For starters:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Do you still think God hates you? And if your background is the way it really is, then it sounds like you still know God exists, but pretends that he doesn't in hopes he will go away. (just my $.02)

 

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, I probably did. I'm just sick of people claiming to have read the Bible, when its obvious they haven't they just want to appear more knowledgeable.

 

The site actually brought up the exact thing I had assumed would be brought up, that the homosexuality orientation is not a sin. Instead it's the act that is considered a sin. The problem with the site is that many of it's arguments for defending itself are based on calling out other scriptures as wrong, or going completely off topic. It defense against the Levitcus laws is that is steers off into his life story, and then bringing up the laws about masturbation being a sin. Neither of those I would consider an acceptable excuse.

 

As for my belief in God, there is none. I can understand how it comes off that I believe in God, but that's only because of the way I like to argue when it comes the religion. It deals with how the fact I prefer philosophy > science, and that philosophy is a better counter for religion imo. I do also make it appear that I believe God exists, but also is for the sake of arguing. It's not that I think he exists, but should he exist, then he would indeed want me dead.

 

 

Arrgghh, didn't mean to double post.

 

 

 

 

Matthew 13:10-16

 

His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?"

Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not.

To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'*

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

 

It is very difficult to have a religion debate unless you are willing to believe, to accept. I for too long tried to link scientific fact with religion ( big bang, potential god particle etc ) for my own sake, never once letting myself go, have faith and open myself. Now that I have, I'm joyous, thankful, and have changed my attitude for the better. The Bible is an amazing book, until you read it and let yourself go, proving or disproving does not really matter. What matters is your spiritual relationship with Him as only those open to His teaching will be given more understanding ( Matthew 13:12 ) - ironically, just above :P

 

I can have a scientific debate with people if they wish, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to learn.

 

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned.

 

 

As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier.

That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

 

I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

 

 

No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact.

That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

 

I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact.

I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

 

No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion.

 

You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's.

 

 

Religous people are happier.

But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one.

 

Again, your fact is based on something subjective. It's not really a fact. Happiness is something that can easily change between now and a minute later, and people have difference feelings as to what happiness is. Saying religious people are happier means absolutely nothing.

 

 

Subjective or not, when someone says they're happy (as long as they're not lying), it's because they're happy.

 

 

As for it meaning nothing... Read up the quote. The first guy said he finds the bible a book of joy, and is why I stated religous people are happier.

 

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS.

 

 

It is supported by data though. The probability for you to pick someone religous and also happy is higher than the probability for you to pick someone who isn't religous and happy. That's simple math. If math isn't science, what is :P?

 

 

And subjective or not does not matter, because if someone defines him/herself as happy, it's because they are (as long as they're not lying...), and it doesn't matter whether or not their happiness would be "lame" compared to another's- Because if they didn't feel they're happy, they wouldn't say they are.

 

 

 

Religous people are happier than those who aren't, I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting that.

 

No, what you're going with is not science. You're asking random people about something that could easily change within the minute, without finding out the reason behind it, and basing it on a concept that has many underlying conditions (depression, recent events, current issues, sickness, etc...). Something subjective always matters when dealing with science, the reason being is that is so different that it's nearly impossible to record with accurate results. I don't understand how you have such a poor concept of these things, yet think you're a big enough kid to mock other religions in your signature.

 

Lol, you really think researchers just went to people and asked them whether or not they're happy? These researches are usualy built on 40+ questions and are spread across various areas. The happiness question was probably more ilike "Are you happy about your life in general?" etc.

 

 

It was also not done by only one researcher, it was done by researchers all across the world, multiple times, and at different times.

 

Once again, it's something subjective that just asking a question can not answer. Question type questions would work for other subjects, but something like "happiness" which has many other conditions, can not be answered purely by questions. Happiness is also different for different people, meaning saying one group is happier than another is just wrong. Also, say you just lost 20$, and you're asked if you're happy with life in general. I would say no, because that issue throws me off, and I'm sure other people would say the same.

 

 

Thus why I said "happy about your life". If you lost 20$, your answer wouldn't change.

 

 

Again, if someone defines himself as happy, it's because he is.

If someone defines himself as unhappy, that's also because he is.

 

 

In terms of probability, you're more likely to pick a random religous person who'd define himself as happy, than someone who isn't. I don't see what the big deal is.

It also makes quite a bit of sense, if you live your life thinking there's someone there guarding you, and that you'll be promised to live in Heaven etc, you're more likely to be happy (or define yourself as happy).

 

Guess what, your answer would change, You wouldn't be happy with your life if you just lost money when someone asked, you'd be sad/mad about the money. It's something subjective, and it changes with people very easily. It's something you can compare to the tv stars, and think you're not really happy compared to what you could be. Or you could compare it to someone worth less than you, and think you're happier than you are. It's something that can't be accurately measured. You don't understand how complex things like this are, because happiness is not something that easy to understand.

 

No, you may not be happy, but you'd still be happy about your life[/i[ even if you lost 20$.

 

 

I hate repeating myself, but the fact that happiness is measured individualy by each person does not matter, because on the bottom line, if they define themselves as happy, it's because they are.

To make sure we avoid more misunderstandings, I'll rephrase my initial statement- Religous people are more likely to define themselves as happy.

 

 

 

I think your problem with that statement is your (possibly just) hatred towards religion which gets you annoyed when shown in a good light. You must remember that the fact that religous are more likely to be happy (or define themselves as happy for what it's worth), isn't necessarily good, I'd even call it bad. It's just like the example I gave, a drunk person is more likely to find joy in things, but I'd rather be sober most of the time.

 

 

Please understand that the fact religous people are more likely to define themsleves as happy (about their lives...) has good reasoning behind it. A person who thinks someone is out there for them, that they're eventualy going to exist in Heaven, that a perfect entity is on their side, would likely make them happier. There's nothing "insane" about it.

 

I'm actually more annoyed about it being called a fact than it having anything to do with religion. What I'm saying is, emotions are not something that are a constant. When you're happy about something, you're going to probably be thinking about the positive things. Whenever you lose some money though, you're going to be sad/mad. Then there's probably a high chance you'll think about other things that have gone wrong recently, and think you're life isn't that great. It's different for everyone. That makes it difficult for it to be studied, and anyone who actually understands what they're doing would never publish it as a fact. I'm happy with the idea that should I die, nothing happens. Other people who don't believe in God could also be happy knowing their body will continue on forever through multiple processes, such as when it decays it becomes nutrients for trees. How happy it makes people depends on their personal views, which once again makes a study on happiness very hard.

 

And that's why I rephrased and said they're more likely to define themselves as happy. Now we're arguing over nothing, really.

Okay. So the happiness thing.

 

A study found that by their (the researchers) operationally defined definition of happiness (which cannot encompass all aspects of happiness, but is sufficient for most scientific research, especially in psychology), that religious people are, on average, happier than non religious people.

 

Calling it a "fact" is just a way of saying that it has been scientifically proven, at least for that particular operational definition of happiness.

 

I can't say more without reading the article and commenting on their methods.

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

You know what, who cares??

As long as the religion isn't suffocating scientific progress or telling me to chop my testes off I'm cool with it. The latter is why I'm not such a big fan of Matthew 19:12.

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

Just because someone is gay does not make them a sinner. Being a homosexual alone does not make them a sinner. It is carrying out gay activity (i.e. any form of sodomy).

 

I also don't agree with the calling of homosexuals sinners because it seems to single them out. To err is human, I'm not gay but I'm even though I try to be good I know that I'm a pretty bad sinner, but the point of the Good News is the promise of forgiveness and acceptance.

 

After reading this read for a bit and seeing some comments, some less in intelligence to say the least I leave with this:

"And then a scholar said, Speak of Talking, And he answered, saying: ...[skip irrelevant section] And in much of your talking, thinking is half murdered."

For the first time in a long time I picked up my copy of the Bible. The thing is 2,000 years old. It might have made perfect sense and been perfectly acceptable then, but society has progressed since then. But then, it makes sense. If you were to travel back in time and tell an early Christian about any piece of technology we take for granted today s/he'd have looked at you as if you were crazy.

Meh I've heard all those arguments before, and I'm just not going to buy it no matter what logic any athiest presents. I'm starting to think that athiests just don't understand the root reason a lot of people cling to their faith. This may come as a bit of a shock to some people, but really it shouldn't: theoretically, if it were possible to disprove the existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I was presented with this evidence and forced to accept that truth...

 

...I'd shoot myself. Really, what's the point of living if everything we do is ultimately in vain? Experiencing as much pleasure as we can before we die, in whatever form that may take? And how much of that will we remember when we no longer exist? How many of the material possessions will we keep after we finally die? Nothing. Without some kind of hope for eternal life in some form or another, I find all of the suffering and woe of this life completely needless.

 

Perhaps if there is no God, that is in fact the function religion serves for mankind: a morale boost, more than an explanation for the unknown. I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot of people who think like I do about life.

Meh I've heard all those arguments before, and I'm just not going to buy it no matter what logic any athiest presents. I'm starting to think that athiests just don't understand the root reason a lot of people cling to their faith. This may come as a bit of a shock to some people, but really it shouldn't: theoretically, if it were possible to disprove the existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I was presented with this evidence and forced to accept that truth...

 

...I'd shoot myself. Really, what's the point of living if everything we do is ultimately in vain? Experiencing as much pleasure as we can before we die, in whatever form that may take? And how much of that will we remember when we no longer exist? How many of the material possessions will we keep after we finally die? Nothing. Without some kind of hope for eternal life in some form or another, I find all of the suffering and woe of this life completely needless.

 

Perhaps if there is no God, that is in fact the function religion serves for mankind: a morale boost, more than an explanation for the unknown. I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot of people who think like I do about life.

 

It is possible to disprove the existence of a God who is based upon standards. It's been done multiple times. It isn't science used to disprove God either, just a bit of sense.

 

Personally my belief is Nihilism, which is based on the fact that morality, meaning, and other such things do not exist at all (much more to it, but this is an extremely simplified version) I don't see any reason to kill myself for that, because that just seems like a bad idea. Instead my goal in life is what I give it. That reason is to have fun with it. When I no longer exist, it doesn't matter at all. Everyone is going to have the exact same thing happen when they die. Eternal life means nothing to me, and instead that idea seems like it's making this world worse. We could advance in many ways, but there are people with the idea that "playing God" is a bad thing. We should be playing God, because we don't see God doing anything to advance us anyways.

 

Since I believe there is no God, I can offer the top three reasons (in that order) that I think the idea was made for. 1) Control. 2) Wtf, how do natural events happen. 3) Insanity. A morale boost is further along the line somewhere.

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

 

Why did God create that urge then?

It is possible to disprove the existence of a God who is based upon standards. It's been done multiple times. It isn't science used to disprove God either, just a bit of sense.

 

Funny, a lot of atheists stand behind the principles of science like it is doctrine. Yet when it comes to disproving God all you need is a bit of sense? Sense could lead one either way, it all depends on one's point of view / outlook on life.

 

And of course I wouldn't take my own life unless I could be absolutely certain that there was no God and thus life had no purpose. I'm not totally certain about anything, really. But I just cannot accept that life has no purpose. Not unless I am given concrete, irrefutable evidence.

Life isn't pointless if there's no god. You just have to make one for yourself. A lot of non-religious people get a lot of joy out of life, whether it's from friends, family, a job, charity work, whatever.

 

What is the point in God existing? What is the point in going to heaven?

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

 

 

 

Umm, without coming off as a douche:

 

I respect your opinion, however I beg to differ, allow me to explain.

 

I was raised Presbyterian Christian, (Mother was Catholic, Father Free Methodist) and now I'm non denominational, which I like better. I believe as I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe as well: that everyone is born with original sin. From birth we are sinful, and need Jesus' forgiveness to become clean. However, after this point, I define sin as something that is done wrong, on purpose, and is morally, or faithfully incorrect, as well as unlawful by the laws in the establishment. (from stealing cookies from the cookie jar, to rape and murder in the big city.) No one is sinless save Jesus, because know one can overcome sin, though there are some that sin quite rarely, if you even look at a girl based on her body (based on some translations of the bible) that is considered lust, and is a sin. Ever miss church? Unless it was a complete accident, that is a sin (unless you are unable to get to church). These are on purpose, you chose to check out the girl's [wagon], or party Saturday night and miss church. Its your fault and no one else's (an exception is as stated there's no way to get there, like you have no ride etc.)you have put an idol before God, and sinned.

 

Now, along the years, the Church has twisted the words of the Bible to promote Slavery, war and racism. (The Isrealites enslaved a tribe, therefore we can enslave Africans!) Without really even trying to get the real meaning out of a message. As posted on either this thread, or same sex marriage the Christian church used to not allow interracial marriages, etc. However, it has come to light that being of a different race is infact not a sin, as some honestly believed. If you are born black, you will stay black. Theres obviously nothing wrong with it, and you were born that way, you didn't choose it.

 

Now I ask, whats the difference between being Gay, and being an African-American? They're both quite similar inthat they are not a choice, they're not 'inferior,' they're not detrimental to society and most certainly not a sin to be. If you say being Gay is unnatural, its tantamount to saying being black is unnatural.

 

If I, and many others did not choose to be Gay, and no malicious ideas are behind us being gay, how is being gay a sin? Ever read the Bible? Ruth, a woman God dearly loved, was a lesbian. SAY WHAT. She even had a book dedicated to her.

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, or condescending etc.

It is possible to disprove the existence of a God who is based upon standards. It's been done multiple times. It isn't science used to disprove God either, just a bit of sense.

 

Funny, a lot of atheists stand behind the principles of science like it is doctrine. Yet when it comes to disproving God all you need is a bit of sense? Sense could lead one either way, it all depends on one's point of view / outlook on life.

 

And of course I wouldn't take my own life unless I could be absolutely certain that there was no God and thus life had no purpose. I'm not totally certain about anything, really. But I just cannot accept that life has no purpose. Not unless I am given concrete, irrefutable evidence.

 

I don't care what atheist do. Do you see me standing behind scientific principles anywhere on this thread (other than arguing with someone about science and facts).

 

Now, there difference between science and religion is something to be taken into account. Science deals with things that can be observed and measured, while with religion it's just the books says it. Using what the book says though, you can refute the God. Science requires something similar, which would be science refuting other things in science. The problem with using the Bible against science is the fact the Bible is wrong a ton, like when it calls bats birds. Science can also be wrong, but at least when there are things wrong they can be changed. With religion, if it's wrong, then you have a much bigger problem (since it's supposed to be perfect).

 

Whether life means anything or it does, why does that make a difference? Are you that weak that you can't simply choose to live on? I mean, I understand life is hard, but at the same time it's fun. I believe life has no purpose, so I just take what I can/want out of it.

Life isn't pointless if there's no god. You just have to make one for yourself. A lot of non-religious people get a lot of joy out of life, whether it's from friends, family, a job, charity work, whatever.

 

What is the point in God existing? What is the point in going to heaven?

 

 

I sometimes ask myself that and I've come to two conclusions:

 

 

1) Who says there has to be a point? Surely humans want to rationalize why things happen, but maybe there just isn't a point.

 

2) Flip it around, why are humans here? Clearly an atheistic standpoint, but sometimes I wonder myself. The Bible says to 'bring' glory to God, but why does God need glory?

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

 

 

 

Umm, without coming off as a douche:

 

I respect your opinion, however I beg to differ, allow me to explain.

 

I was raised Presbyterian Christian, (Mother was Catholic, Father Free Methodist) and now I'm non denominational, which I like better. I believe as I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe as well: that everyone is born with original sin. From birth we are sinful, and need Jesus' forgiveness to become clean. However, after this point, I define sin as something that is done wrong, on purpose, and is morally, or faithfully incorrect, as well as unlawful by the laws in the establishment. (from stealing cookies from the cookie jar, to rape and murder in the big city.) No one is sinless save Jesus, because know one can overcome sin, though there are some that sin quite rarely, if you even look at a girl based on her body (based on some translations of the bible) that is considered lust, and is a sin. Ever miss church? Unless it was a complete accident, that is a sin (unless you are unable to get to church). These are on purpose, you chose to check out the girl's [wagon], or party Saturday night and miss church. Its your fault and no one else's (an exception is as stated there's no way to get there, like you have no ride etc.)you have put an idol before God, and sinned.

 

Now, along the years, the Church has twisted the words of the Bible to promote Slavery, war and racism. (The Isrealites enslaved a tribe, therefore we can enslave Africans!) Without really even trying to get the real meaning out of a message. As posted on either this thread, or same sex marriage the Christian church used to not allow interracial marriages, etc. However, it has come to light that being of a different race is infact not a sin, as some honestly believed. If you are born black, you will stay black. Theres obviously nothing wrong with it, and you were born that way, you didn't choose it.

 

Now I ask, whats the difference between being Gay, and being an African-American? They're both quite similar inthat they are not a choice, they're not 'inferior,' they're not detrimental to society and most certainly not a sin to be. If you say being Gay is unnatural, its tantamount to saying being black is unnatural.

 

If I, and many others did not choose to be Gay, and no malicious ideas are behind us being gay, how is being gay a sin? Ever read the Bible? Ruth, a woman God dearly loved, was a lesbian. SAY WHAT. She even had a book dedicated to her.

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, or condescending etc.

 

Actually, the Bible says that the sons of Ham are destined to be slaves for the other brothers. Most Biblical scholars agree Ham's children are the ones who went Africa. Besides, in multiple cases the Bible supports slavery. There's not really any word twisting needed to be done to show the Bible supported enslaving the African race.

Well I certainly agree it stated to enslave certain people, but the circumstances for which is what they twisted.