At the core of their teachings, the most influential organised religions on this earth are violent, bigoted, homophobic, divisive and scientifically unsubstantiated by any sort of factual evidence. I then hold that it is a rational supposition that such beliefs should not hold any sway over the legislative organisations that decide the fate of a much broader cross-section of society than those who wish to close their minds to the realities of the observable universe.
However they do, and that is a serious problem with the world today. The reality is that homosexuals, for instance, are denied equality and subject to an enforced morality because of the influence that religion has over the legislative mechanisms of many Western states, and when you turn your eye to America and some Islamic states, the situation becomes far worse.
To narrow my focus onto the case of homosexuality in Western countries, it is an overwhelmingly religious discourse that has held back the progress of equality in this regard. I reject this as irrational in two ways.
- There is no scientific evidence to suggest that the claims to immorality and societal harm made by religious people in response to calls for homosexual equality are in any way substantiated in a factual sense. Essentially, then, by enforcing that religious discourse of morality that is not in touch with the scientific, social or psychological reality on people that do not subscribe to such a religion, we are breaking down the very idea of secularism at its heart and foisting religious morality on people who do not believe in that religion on the part of people who are not even affected by such laws (i.e. why exactly is it the Church’s business what is legalized and not, and why should their bigoted, bronze-age beliefs stand in the way of equality in a secular society).
- Jesus does not deal with homosexuality in the New Testament, but does state on several occasions that he has come not to override or abolish the Old Testament but to fulfill it, and that, indeed, “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17).
Why is it, then, that Christians cling to the disgusting, bigoted verses of the Old Testament regarding God’s hatred of homosexuals as though it is going out of fashion, but somehow forget the disgusting, bigoted verses in the Old Testament about God slaughtering children, or condoning genocide, or slaughtering Moses’ political opponents, or slaughtering whoever he really feels like when he wakes up that morning? If their God kills children, women and condones war crimes, genocide and rape, who exactly is he to tell us what is moral and immoral about sexuality? As a corollary to that, why do they focus on verses that support their condemnation of homosexuality, but yet attempt to paint a picture of a loving and tolerant God?
Just some thoughts. If anyone actually reads this, feel free to comment.
Godless Musings 
I totally agree with you on this one
There isn’t much evidence supporting you here. Nay-saying and chinese whispers do not throw a good argument. A lot of weasel words.
You forgot to mention that God loves all people, he just detests homosexuality because that’s not what he designed us for. Theists are often accused of being intolerant (google religious intolerance), but if vice versa happens when non-theists condemn theistic principles because of their own personal prejudices, then they themselves are being intolerant of the theistic principles.
This argument seems to be a matter of control, i.e. government/state controlled and church controlled. It is too subjective of a matter to determine which should have more control over the population, but laws are based upon the basic moral codes that many theists adhere to themselves. Of course, it isn’t a law to love thy fellow neighbour, but it is a law to murder and steal. These parallels are necessary for the survival of any society. Theistic principles and approaches to law aren’t solely chosen on church governed power, rather the fact that these moral standing have survived for 2000 years. Those loyal theists would rather fulfil these duties in honour of their deity. Would you prefer following a law because the almighty Kevin Rudd would be pleased with it? Does Kevin Rudd guarantee an eternal life with him in the kingdom of heaven?
If the loyalty of theistic principles have managed to survive for thousands of years, and not government and federal laws then it clearly shows that the followers of this theistic lifestyle are more prone to accepting on the basis of belief and not force.
On another note, if something can’t be scientifically quantified then it can’t exist right? We can’t measure and calculate the vast expanse that is our growing universe but we accept that is real don’t we? Nobody filmed the big bang, thus it didn’t exist, right?
Has science ever measured an act of will? Calculated the works of fate or even a coincidence? Why is it that when I pray to the Lord God that they do get answered?
I don’t see how non-theists can’t coexist with theists. I can live with a non-theist happily, but often times the non-theists have a problem with my belief system, despite me not bringing it up. Who said science and theism can’t co-operate? They are interrelated and correlate with one another. If a set of moral principles that supports the love between people and gratification for it, perhaps we should ditch everything and become a cold, logic based society like the vulcans. Is that what you want?
There are some severe flaws of logic involved here, in the points you are raising. I’ll do my best to answer them as succinctly as I can so we don’t get caught up in some circular argument, so I’ll deal with your points as I see them and if I am wrong in my interpretation of your assertions then please feel free to correct me.
-> God just detests homosexuality because it’s not what he intended for us:
Well I, then, do not understand why an apparently omniscient creator would design the human body such that one could derive pleasure from homosexual sex. He is apparently aware of all possible futures and consequences yet created it so that homosexual sex resulted in physical pleasure. This is incongruous with any Biblical ideology of God. Also, I would find it hard to accept that God ‘loves everyone, even homosexuals’ when he says “If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:13).
-> “Of course, it isn’t a law to love thy fellow neighbour, but it is a law to murder and steal. These parallels are necessary for the survival of any society. Theistic principles and approaches to law aren’t solely chosen on church governed power, rather the fact that these moral standing have survived for 2000 years.”
Your point is rather muddied and vague here. As far as I can understand you are saying that such ideologies and ethics came into existence as a result of religion, you are sorely mistaken. Such ideas of reciprocity and societal beneficiaries pre-date Jesus by thousands of years to the point that little he says is original, and if you think that it took God to tell humans who had existed on a cultural and societal level for almost 10,000 years prior to the compilation of the Old Testament that it WASN’T okay to kill and steal then you are, again, sorely mistaken.
Religion entirely reflects a secular human morality in this case, developed through reasoned, rational discourse.
-> “On another note, if something can’t be scientifically quantified then it can’t exist right? We can’t measure and calculate the vast expanse that is our growing universe but we accept that is real don’t we? Nobody filmed the big bang, thus it didn’t exist, right?”
I don’t mean to be deliberately dismissive here, but this shows that you don’t quite understand the things you’re talking about. Science is naturally concerned with what we can prove and derive from evidential analysis without pre-conceived notions of supreme knowledge, and the scientific method dictates that hypotheses must be revised as the evidence necessitates. We don’t start with a 4000 year old claim by superstitious peasants from Palestine of supreme knowledge and then try and quantify that by splitting a single hair as many times as we can through a discourse of reductive logic.
-> “Why is it that when I pray to the Lord God that they do get answered?”
Do you think that Elisabeth Fritzl prayed to God? Why were her prayers not answered? Those victims of natural disasters, violence and torture that beseech God for help on a daily basis? To say that God answers prayers leaves you in an extremely poor moral and ethical position, quite honestly.
“Well I, then, do not understand why an apparently omniscient creator would design the human body such that one could derive pleasure from homosexual sex”
I could use my iphone as a rock or a frisbee, but I don’t because that isn’t its intended design. Apple would advertise it as both an iPhone or frisbee if it were to be used that way.
“Religion entirely reflects a secular human morality in this case, developed through reasoned, rational discourse.”
Then religion is essentially based upon reasoned and rational values. Because these ideas existed before the Bible does not mean that the creator had no input on it from the beginning. God didn’t begin to exist when the Old Testament did.
“Science is naturally concerned with what we can prove and derive from evidential analysis without pre-conceived notions of supreme knowledge, and the scientific method dictates that hypotheses must be revised as the evidence necessitates. We don’t start with a 4000 year old claim by superstitious peasants from Palestine of supreme knowledge and then try and quantify that by splitting a single hair as many times as we can through a discourse of reductive logic.”
Why then, do many scientific theories about the conditions of the early earth relate so well with the book of Genesis?
In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
— Bible
Genesis 1:1
People 3000+ years ago had no understanding of the early earth. It couldn’t have been imagined could it?
The Earth is shaped like a sphere (round) and rotates – Isaiah 40:22
Luke 17:34-36
That seems credible doesn’t it? For hundreds of years people believed the earth was flat, until science had proven this same fact. Thanks, Galileo.
Light travels in a path, darkness does not. – Job 38:19
—-
etc.
—-
“Do you think that Elisabeth Fritzl prayed to God? Why were her prayers not answered? Those victims of natural disasters, violence and torture that beseech God for help on a daily basis? To say that God answers prayers leaves you in an extremely poor moral and ethical position, quite honestly.”
I don’t know if she did pray, maybe she didn’t. God doesn’t answer all prayers too, he’s not like a wishing well or an ATM machine. You could have asked your father for a pack of cigarettes every day, why wouldn’t he have given them to you? Perhaps he knows better, and not you.
You say:
Believing + Praying = Bad morals/ethics.
I believe in prayers, so I now believe it is ok to kill and steal and rape, don’t I?
I believe in a system designed for the benefit of mankind, so that means I must do the opposite of what is good?
“I could use my iphone as a rock or a frisbee, but I don’t because that isn’t its intended design. Apple would advertise it as both an iPhone or frisbee if it were to be used that way.”
This argument is rather ludicrous, to be honest. Unless your iPod functioned entirely well and rather pleasurably as a frisbee and then Apple threatened people they would burn in hell for eternity and then passed laws to stop people from using something they designed as a perfectly good frisbee as a frisbee … then you’ve got a better comparison.
“Then religion is essentially based upon reasoned and rational values. Because these ideas existed before the Bible does not mean that the creator had no input on it from the beginning. God didn’t begin to exist when the Old Testament did.”
Proof for that? There is none. You’re just infinitely expanding your idea of God to suit your agendas.
“Why then, do many scientific theories about the conditions of the early earth relate so well with the book of Genesis?”
The ‘theories’ you refer to there are, at best, simply lucky guesses. Those same people also asserted that one man collected two species of every single animal on Earth in a wooden boat for just over a month and then let them repopulate the earth from Mesopotamia. They assert that people lived for 900 years, that a man could rip down a temple with his bare hands and kill an entire army with the jawbone of an ass. They assert that snakes can talk, that a man could stop the sun from moving and send the earth orbiting in reverse and other ridiculous things.
So great, you can look at translation issues and vague interpretations and somehow come across two or three points on which the Bible, in this very specific interpretation with the issue confused by translation, may have something to say on the world that isn’t entirely unreasonable. Congratulations.
“You say:
Believing + Praying = Bad morals/ethics.
I believe in prayers, so I now believe it is ok to kill and steal and rape, don’t I?”
Not at all. I said it is a very ethically flawed statement to make, because there are thousands of people daily that pray for perfectly reasonable and Godly things, such as to escape the poverty that God apparently created them in, or to not be tortured to death, for mercy from natural disasters that he could prevent, to not have your entirely livelihood swept away, and he apparently ignores them.
So if God really does ‘answer’ prayers, then he has a lot to answer for as he has left his creations out in the cold, suffering and in pain when they have begged for his mercy in countless instances throughout the history of humanity.
“This argument is rather ludicrous, to be honest. Unless your iPod functioned entirely well and rather pleasurably as a frisbee and then Apple threatened people they would burn in hell for eternity and then passed laws to stop people from using something they designed as a perfectly good frisbee as a frisbee … then you’ve got a better comparison.”
How about going into a library, and playing a game of soccer with an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is fun and easy to kick, despite me using for the wrong purposes. I see on the wall, a sign that says “Please do not misuse these books or damage our property” but I do it anyway because it is fun. Eventually everybody starts doing this and there develops organisations for those who want rights to kick books, while the librarian in the corner is deeply horrified why anyone would want to kick the book in the first place. To prevent this from happening again, she puts a sign up on the front of the library: “Anyone found kicking books in this library will be banned”.
“I sure love kicking books, especially other people’s books. I don’t care if you’re meant to read them, it’s not a choice for me to read or kick them I was born this way. I’ll kick these books all I want. Heck, I don’t even need a library to kick books, I’ll just avoid them all together because I think those rules ruin my fun.”
—-
“Proof for that? There is none. You’re just infinitely expanding your idea of God to suit your agendas.”
It’s historically proven that Jesus existed. His existence reflects his purpose to be on earth. He did not come to earth unknowingly the Son of God, and his teachings also demonstrate exactly that.
—
“The ‘theories’ you refer to there are, at best, simply lucky guesses. ”
Yeah I suppose Newton had a lucky experience when that apple fell on his head. “Hey guys, I’m just guessing, but maybe there’s a reason things fall to the ground?”
“Nah, don’t worry about it Isaac.”
—
“Those same people also asserted that one man collected two species of every single animal on Earth in a wooden boat for just over a month and then let them repopulate the earth from Mesopotamia. They assert that people lived for 900 years, that a man could rip down a temple with his bare hands and kill an entire army with the jawbone of an ass. They assert that snakes can talk, that a man could stop the sun from moving and send the earth orbiting in reverse and other ridiculous things.”
In other words:
“That doesn’t sound feasible, it couldn’t have happened.”
You also seem to have a poor understanding of literary devices and techniques if you can’t separate a metaphor or a parable from a literal event.
Just because it seems a little uncomfortable for you to conceive the notions in the Bible doesn’t refute their validity.
—
“So great, you can look at translation issues and vague interpretations and somehow come across two or three points on which the Bible, in this very specific interpretation with the issue confused by translation, may have something to say on the world that isn’t entirely unreasonable. Congratulations.”
Oh there’s far more than that. And again, your ability to read into things is questionable. You now comprehend verses of the Bible with literal and factual meaning as metaphorical. So these are translation issues and vague misinterpretations? I guess my dreams of becoming a linguist are shattered. Why would I want to learn another language if someone who reads or hears it finds it vague and open to misinterpretation. Why would I want to translate a series of moral and ethical codes when someone might find something wrong with the message as a whole. I’d sure hate to be a translator and pointed out for my slightest grammatical mistakes even when the responder could understand the message.
You also argue against purpose. If there was no purpose for you or me, or this earth, how does suicide sound to you?
This is where I lose patience, so forgive my bluntness.
Your first point about books is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. It is self-defeating and stupid, and it would be patronizing for me to even bother dealing with it.
Your second point about Isaac Newton, once again, shows that you literally could not have missed the point if you tried.
““That doesn’t sound feasible, it couldn’t have happened.”
You also seem to have a poor understanding of literary devices and techniques if you can’t separate a metaphor or a parable from a literal event.
Just because it seems a little uncomfortable for you to conceive the notions in the Bible doesn’t refute their validity.”
The Bible claims these as the facts of the observable universe as passed down to them by God. These facts are wrong. The Bible is consistently wrong on many fronts, it distorts and invents history and describes scientific impossibilities with an entirely serious intention. The fact is, quite frankly, that if you are going to reduce things to metaphors and fables (even though the Bible quite clearly states that this is not its purpose) then you’ve just quashed the entire premise of your belief in such a book.
That being said, it is not a ‘little uncomfortable’ for me to conceive many of the notions in the Bible; they are scientific impossibilities. Adam and Eve never existed; it is scientific fact that we evolved over the past several million years. There was never a flood, snakes cannot talk, the entirety of the world was not populated from Mesopotamia, etc.
Oh and it is historically proven that Jesus existed and little else. This proves nothing regarding his claims or teachings and it is even debatable as to how much of what is attributed to him was actually said by him.
What you find ridiculous is irrelevant.
“These facts are wrong”
That’s it? One sentence that does nothing for your argument?
“The Bible is consistently wrong on many fronts, it distorts and invents history and describes scientific impossibilities with an entirely serious intention. The fact is, quite frankly, that if you are going to reduce things to metaphors and fables (even though the Bible quite clearly states that this is not its purpose) then you’ve just quashed the entire premise of your belief in such a book.”
When and where does it do this? Are the books made hundreds of years later more accurate because Bob the archaeologist said so? I didn’t know historians were the absolute truth.
“Adam and Eve never existed”
Well that seems ridiculous doesn’t it!
What it tells us is how God taught early humans about morals, values and the codes of living for his domain.
So what you non-theists are trying to tell me is that you’re a superior breed of human above everyone else, and claim to have a superior knowledge of the universe?
The scientific foreknowledge in the Bible that I was talking about earlier demonstrates an understanding of the universe which science took hundreds of years to achieve. The – Earth – Is – Round can be translated into multiple historic and dead languages with ease. It’s not a matter of misinterpretation, it’s intolerance for something you don’t want to accept.
Oh and it is historically proven that Alexander the Great existed and little else. This proves nothing regarding his actions or dialogue and it is debatable as to how much of what is attributed to him was actually said by him.
By that brilliant non-theist, science and though based logic, it’s fair to say that anybody that lived before a camera never really existed. And even that camera and its photographs of said person are questionable for their reliability.
“That Isaac Newton is just an urban myth, otherwise what he said and did must have been validly recorded in a manner that can never be questioned. I can question what he wrote down because A: I didn’t see him write it, and B: nobody proved that he actually wrote it. I think he is some ancient man conjured up by bizarre people who want to teach people about something, about gravity.”
“The scientific foreknowledge in the Bible that I was talking about earlier demonstrates an understanding of the universe which science took hundreds of years to achieve. The – Earth – Is – Round can be translated into multiple historic and dead languages with ease. It’s not a matter of misinterpretation, it’s intolerance for something you don’t want to accept.”
So presumably when the Bible talks of the four corners of the earth, it’s talking of the four corners of a sphere? Or is that one of those metaphorical passages which you magically know is not to be taken literally?
“When and where does it do this? Are the books made hundreds of years later more accurate because Bob the archaeologist said so? I didn’t know historians were the absolute truth.”
Exodus is a made up story. The massacre of innocents by Herod in the New Testament is a made up story. The census in the New Testament is a made up story. There are plenty of them.
“The scientific foreknowledge in the Bible that I was talking about earlier demonstrates an understanding of the universe which science took hundreds of years to achieve. The – Earth – Is – Round can be translated into multiple historic and dead languages with ease. It’s not a matter of misinterpretation, it’s intolerance for something you don’t want to accept.”
Great. How do you then ignore the dozens of times that the Bible asserts scientific realities that are absolutely absurd? Like the idea that a man could make the Earth orbit the other way around the sun for an hour or that the entirety of the human population came from two people in Mesopotamia? Like the assertion that giants existed on Earth at some point? That the size of Noah’s Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard? That fire consumes wet wood, stones, and dust, and “licks up” water? That the Earth is a circle (the Earth is actually a sphere)? That those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm?
Now do you see where I’m coming from. The Bible says a lot of absolutely ridiculous things, and if you wish to cherry pick a couple where the Bible says something that is vaguely reasonable by a scientific standard then fine, but you’re going to have to ignore a lot of absolutely impossible and absurd things that it asserts in order to do so.
“Oh and it is historically proven that Alexander the Great existed and little else. This proves nothing regarding his actions or dialogue and it is debatable as to how much of what is attributed to him was actually said by him.”
Not at all. Let me explain, since you clearly don’t understand yourself.
Jesus’ existence, outside of the Bible, is attested to by passages in Josephus and Tacitus, two historians, which state that there was a Jesus of Nazareth (or Christus, as he is called at points) and that he was executed and there was a cult that followed him. That is quite literally what the entirety of the historical evidence outside of the Bible shows, and the New Testament is extremely flexible with the historical truth, as we can see by many of its accounts and the Gospels actually contradict eachother. This is not the mark of a reliable historical source by any means.
The evidence for Alexander the Great and what he did is archaeologically attested, and his actions and life are compiled by dozens of ancient biographers, historians and annalists who give us a very detailed, clean, historically reliable and archaeologically supportable account of his life and deeds that we see tremendous echoes of throughout the Hellenistic world.
Your analogy clearly shows that you don’t understand [a] what the actual historical evidence for Jesus is, [b] how evidence even works and [c] how we go about deriving information from it.
Yes… Because four corners and spheres don’t match. Four corners of the globe is a long lasting figure of speech. Its an oxymoronic contradiction used to illustrate a point, exaggerating the limits of dimension despite considering a shape with no extremes. Given that traveling great distances was seldom done thousands of years ago because such vessels did not exist, it was entirely appropriate to refer and to exaggerate the limits of the earth at an imaginable distance for mental comparison.
When I say that light bulb is a burning sun do you take it so literally that you have to question it? Look at my intentions, I wanted to exaggerate It so my perception of it being bright and hot is sustained through communication.
When I say eyelashes protect the eye, there’s no need to assume it’s a metaphor when it’s a just statement with a different purpose. Statements and intentions like these are designed not to be confused and to effectively communicate sets of information. A poor ability to perceive this shows a different kind of thinking. Maybe you never picked up on the morals in kids stories or you always took every event as a literal action with no meaning. Whichever it may be, you can always find an abridged version of God’s word at your local bookstore so the big words aren’t too difficult to digest.
You know why you are so sure of this? Because you know the world is round because of secular discovery.
How do you know that whoever wrote this didn’t intend for the sphere to be the metaphor and the corners to be the fact? You don’t – you just know what is true and what makes scripture more credible.
Now, this is a pretty easy one today, but it illustrates a point: scripture is inherently unreliable. It is supposedly, to a lesser or greater extent, the word of god, and yet it is riddled with inconsistencies, factual errors, unfounded assertions, confusing metaphor, and immorality. This means that one must twist, turn, scrape and distort it to make it relevant – and for those of us who examine it critically, it puts a very dubious light on it.
Scripture has all the signs of being written by people who had no peculiar insight over others of the time.
No. This has been pointed out over and over that the things that are wrong are not the ‘philosophical’ parts of the Bible but the clear factual statements made by the Bible. If you want to reduce them to stories and decide that the isolated parts of the Bible that make any kind of sense are not metaphors but the parts of the Bible that are completely and utterly ludicrous are metaphors for something or something else then that’s fine but don’t expect to gain any intellectual respect because all you are doing is cherry-picking the Bible for what you like and attempting to justifying (very poorly) your inability to understand the scientific realities of the world.
What you’ve essentially said that the fact that the Bible says that the Earth is a circle (which is a MISTAKE, it is spherical and an entirely different concept, God as the apparent curator of physics and nature and the universe should know thusly) is an example of the Bible being factually correct, but the dozens of mistakes, assertions and suppositions that are absolutely naturally ludicrous in the Bible made within the same context of factual statements and claims of supreme knowledge are just metaphors because you are uncomfortable with the scientific fact.
This is idiocy.
There is a snapshot of the big bang happening it’s called background microwave radiation and is one of the reasons we get static on radio waves.