Great arguments to use against Bible Thumpers!

[GeezUS]

I just say 'God doesn't hate' and that ends it.

Indeed I would think not, and while God may not hate, most Christians still think that one will go to hell if they lead their soul astray. And of course Christians have often silly ideas of what is right or wrong, because they have a tendency to believe blindly that it is the truth simply if they are told God says it or it is literally in the bible. When in reality even the literal is a matter of translation, it is rather the current most typical interpretation; which in relation to a historical document is a rather silly means of consideration I would think. But then It is more clear that God would not do things without creating a reason, if we did not need reason we would not have logical minds. Yet then you have for example the Qur'an which actually says one should not follow the beliefs of their parents if not understanding of them; yet even then many are forced by their guardians or by social pressure. It seems that it is an unfortunate quality of socialistic interrelation for people to fall pray to the torrential flow of society, regardless of organized religion, this can be seen in the fashion industry. And yet there are those who make fashions or better yet essential social freedoms, much of which rely on standing up in the crowd of hate, so that others will be more willing to in the future, and so that when they do it will become more and more expected and finally more and more accepted. As such it would seem homosexuality became more free.

[Paul1]

I say: I don't believe in god.

Usually they ramble on, so I respond with: In the time it took you to say all that, I could have fucked five guys - and then I walk away.

[GeezUS]

I say: I don't believe in god.

Usually they ramble on, so I respond with: In the time it took you to say all that, I could have fucked five guys - and then I walk away.

Unfortunately that often makes the problem worse for others as it leads to negative associations.

[fenris]

Maybe it is a much easier way to change the religion.... there are many religions without any Gay, Bi, Sexual-Problems. And that seems - for me - a much better way as to find pros and cons in a anti-gay or better anti-sexual religion.
But anyway I have a problem with patriarchy structures, leaderships, not useful obedience, power claims, womens opression and so on....

I need no church, no war, I´m my own pope,... lucky me... but.... oops .. now I have sinned ... the Eternal mother don´t like selfishness, and direct comparisons of religions.... :redface:

[Merging]

I am an Atheist that is all

[fenris]

I am an Atheist that is all

Do not believe in something takes sometimes more strength as to believe

[dfiant]

I don't argue about anyones interpretation of the Bible, solves nothing.

Being an Agnost, I look for the good in people, and people that are good and they are the people I want in my life.

Throw a Bible at me, you just going to miss and have it end up in a mud puddle, I won't be fishing it out either...it's just a book.

[OrphanPip]

so you do not hold to any of the enlightenment ideas specifaclly informed by those who were influenced by religion? And yet the greeco-romans were religious themselves, and much of the enlightenment if not most was a result of christian thinkers.

That's not the really the point. The validity of ideas, whether they are influenced by a bronze age text or not (which they aren't, but are rather at most influenced by a developed culturally determined understanding of the text), is independent of the virtue of its disparate influences. Whether the thinkers were agnostics, Calvanist, or Catholic is not a testament to the value of the Bible as moral guide in any sense.

I agree but nonetheless much of it came of relation to Ultimates, or Gods, the spiritual. I would not say that anyone is privileged, some are given to some knowledge some are given to other knowledge. I would think there is value in it all, even if that value is in understanding others, though I see more to it then that alone.

I think that is a trite tautology.

Why stick only to what is close in access when one can travel as well? No thing has full clarity, and looking into all aspects of life aids the understanding of more of it, nothing is of no value.

The Bible is plenty useful to help understand the cultural attitudes of people who have held it as an important text, unfortunately it's mostly useless in that task without the aid of secondary sources. It is also of no inherent value as a source of ethical prescription. I hold ethical arguments to a standard that they should be defended without recourse to an appeal to some arbitrary authority of source. The Bible contains moral prescriptions which are defensible, but there is nothing about the Bible that suggests that its moral guidance is useful.

You'd be surprised the number of people who follow greco-roman influences, philosophers especially, I doubt you will face a philosophy class without reading something of Plato, for example. It is simply like many things in reality not on the mainstream and thus not given much media attention, which focus generally on the immediate anyways.

That wasn't the point, the point was that we do not look to Oedipus Rex or The Iliad, which both had religious purposes, for moral guidance merely because of the virtue of some Greek ideas.

[dfiant]

I am an Atheist that is all

I used to call myself an Athiest through my teen years and twenties, but then I was an angry and at times bitter person (Not saying all athiest are).

Now I prefer Agnost as I at peace with myself, my life and my world. I don't believe in god, I believe the bible is a well written novel, BUT I would like to think there is a higher power at play, and I don't think that higher power has anything to do with religion, I think the higher power has to do with YOU.

So my way of thinking is that argueing against the bible is like arguing against Gone With The Wind, or Harry Potter.

[James]

Please to show me what passage in the Bible show Jesus condeming me, Jim