Top Ten Reasons why Religion Is Bullshit

[Agoraphobic]

To you label of calling me an atheist - firstly, I do not know exactly what you define an atheist as. One who doesn't believe in a Creator? I may, I may not, my answer is that I do not know but I know that what your bible described in Genesis and all that cannot be totally true. We've gone through this before. You don't need much science and knowledge to explain everything I have said. It just doesn't make sense that God created the universe, and life on Earth in 6 days! Even if he has great strength, and powers, he can't do all these in that period of time - just think about it! It can't be done! I have to go now. Will attempt to answer you tomorrow!

Cheers!

Why are you shifting the issue to the philosophers and hiding behind them? What are YOUR answers to these questions? So long as you deny that there is a Creator God, it is certainly not wrong to be labelled an atheist. No shame in that, except that with this label comes a whole system of belief that cannot withstand scrutiny, especially from a theist. LOL! The question you need to ask yourself is, what is the cause of the universe? Who created the universe? Why do you insist that it cannot be God? Because it is too close for comfort? You have many questions about life being unfair and suffering. Yet are you willing to listen to the answers the Bible provide? It seems that you want the Christian to answer your questions but yet you have no wish to accept the answers.

The rules we make for orderly living are all sprung from the fact that we are moral beings. So you still need to answer the question, why are we moral beings who can judge and discern right from wrong? Where does the concept of moral right and wrong come from? If we are really evolved apes, then why shouldn’t the law of the jungle prevail? You can have incest if you wish, or eat your own child. Why not live like animals then? Can an atheist really say that is wrong? On what basis? See how hopeless atheism is in providing a framework of beliefs that can stand up to scrutiny?

Let me ask you, is truth arrogant? If the house is on fire and I tell you there is only one exit, you will call me arrogant for saying that? Sorry, the irony here is that it would be you who is arrogant to think that no one can ever know that there is only one way out. Truth by definition is objective and exclusive. You have to align yourself with it, not make it bend to you. In fact, what you should do is to ask “is that true? Why? How do you know that?” and seek to find out instead of launching a personal attack at the person by calling him arrogant! That is an irrelevant and inappropriate response to say the least. Again if you want to fault Christianity, first make sure you got the teachings right. You want to fault Christianity with slavery? Fine, first prove that the Jesus teaches we should enslave one another, or that we should go on witch hunts and kill witches. Better still, show that Jesus Himself practised that! Jesus called us to follow Him, and obey Him. So when you want to charge Christians with wrongdoing, first establish whether the actions were in accordance with what Jesus taught. That’s just being fair and objective, isn’t it? Or you throw fairness and objectivity out of the window when it comes to arguing against Christianity?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Our actions, whether collective, or individual mostly stem from an instinctive self-preservation mindset. Not just us, look at other animals in the animal kingdom as well. Every species has evolved a behaviour to protect itself, and carry on its lineage. Animals have social order in their groupings as well, whether it is pack of wolves, or troupe of monkeys, they have a social order. Mothers protect their offspring, as individuals and in their group too. They will kill anything that threatens their survival too, (ie. they will kill for reason other than for food. Lions will kill hyenas, because they view them as competitors for food). They will not kill their own offspring, because it is instinctive to them, their offspring carry their genes forward. Occassionally a rogue animal may display cannibalistic behaviour and devour its own kind or even its offspring - but these are rare and is usually because of some mental condition, that is abnormal. Pack animals with such deviant behaviour will be expelled from the group, and they have to leave and live solitary from then onwards. Its not a happy way to go for them. In our societies, depending on the rules of the community, we have jails for such characters where they are kept away from the rest.

Again, let's not mix up Jesus, the perfect character, with Christianity, the community whose way of life was supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The African slaves brought to North America, that whole operation was justified by Christian societies, who also converted the slaves to Christianiity, gave them Christian names, and taught them cathecism. In that day when it was practiced, there was nothing wrong with it. Considered the correct thing to do. These days, it is seen as a very un-Christian way of thought. No doubt the societies responsible for it feel the guilt, and many are sorry for what their ancestor have done, but the damage is done. What's left in Africa is damaged beyond repair. Jesus did not do it, neither would he have condoned it, but the powers that be, were endorsed by their Christian churches and/or governments.

Cheers!

.......................................................................................................................
The rules we make for orderly living are all sprung from the fact that we are moral beings. So you still need to answer the question, why are we moral beings who can judge and discern right from wrong? Where does the concept of moral right and wrong come from? If we are really evolved apes, then why shouldn’t the law of the jungle prevail? You can have incest if you wish, or eat your own child. Why not live like animals then? Can an atheist really say that is wrong? On what basis? See how hopeless atheism is in providing a framework of beliefs that can stand up to scrutiny?


Let me ask you, is truth arrogant? If the house is on fire and I tell you there is only one exit, you will call me arrogant for saying that? Sorry, the irony here is that it would be you who is arrogant to think that no one can ever know that there is only one way out. Truth by definition is objective and exclusive. You have to align yourself with it, not make it bend to you. In fact, what you should do is to ask “is that true? Why? How do you know that?” and seek to find out instead of launching a personal attack at the person by calling him arrogant! That is an irrelevant and inappropriate response to say the least. Again if you want to fault Christianity, first make sure you got the teachings right. You want to fault Christianity with slavery? Fine, first prove that the Jesus teaches we should enslave one another, or that we should go on witch hunts and kill witches. Better still, show that Jesus Himself practised that! Jesus called us to follow Him, and obey Him. So when you want to charge Christians with wrongdoing, first establish whether the actions were in accordance with what Jesus taught. That’s just being fair and objective, isn’t it? Or you throw fairness and objectivity out of the window when it comes to arguing against Christianity?

 

[Frodo]

To you label of calling me an atheist - firstly, I do not know exactly what you define an atheist as. One who doesn't believe in a Creator? I may, I may not, my answer is that I do not know but I know that what your bible described in Genesis and all that cannot be totally true. We've gone through this before. You don't need much science and knowledge to explain everything I have said. It just doesn't make sense that God created the universe, and life on Earth in 6 days! Even if he has great strength, and powers, he can't do all these in that period of time - just think about it! It can't be done! I have to go now. Will attempt to answer you tomorrow!

Cheers!

There is a distinction between believing THAT God exists, and believing IN God. The denial of the former is what makes you an atheist. The latter assumes the existence of God. You said you cannot believe in the God of the Bible. But hold on, we have been exchanging many posts and on almost every reply I have to refute and clarify the tonnes of misconceptions and wrong ideas you have about God and the Bible. So the issue is more that you have a problem believing in your own caricatured notion of God. And you are still confused about the issue of God’s omnipotence. Do you need me to make it clear for you?

Assuming an all powerful God exists,
Can God create in X period of time?
Did God create in X period of time?
Where X denotes what you wish the time to be, 6 days, 6 billion years etc.

Can you now answer the question? Or still need evasive action?

 

[Agoraphobic]

This God that you are trying to paint for me, is kind of vague. What s/he is able to do depends on the complexity of the task then. For example, in your Bible, your God needs to do certain things, but he gets the help from some mortals (like Noah, to save the animals, David to slay Goliath). If your God was all powerful, he'd be able to do it with just his word, or thoughts! Why engage humans to get involved?

In this subject of creation, to create the universe, - my answer is NO. Because the universe is still expanding, the work is never done, cannot be completed. It still goes on. To create the Earth, - YES. It is a finite mass, land space, water, matter, are finite, just huge Time it took, I guess about 5~6 billion years, plus/minus a few more millions (definitely much more than 6 days!)

Ok. So I have answered your questions. Now can you answer mine - please describe your God. Male/female/genderless/young/old? Long/short hair? Fat/thin? Loves beer? Pizza? Vegan? What kind of music does God like (please, don't say Gospel!!!)

Cheers!

There is a distinction between believing THAT God exists, and believing IN God. The denial of the former is what makes you an atheist. The latter assumes the existence of God. You said you cannot believe in the God of the Bible. But hold on, we have been exchanging many posts and on almost every reply I have to refute and clarify the tonnes of misconceptions and wrong ideas you have about God and the Bible. So the issue is more that you have a problem believing in your own caricatured notion of God. And you are still confused about the issue of God’s omnipotence. Do you need me to make it clear for you?

Assuming an all powerful God exists,
Can God create in X period of time?
Did God create in X period of time?
Where X denotes what you wish the time to be, 6 days, 6 billion years etc.

Can you now answer the question? Or still need evasive action?

 

[Frodo]

Our actions, whether collective, or individual mostly stem from an instinctive self-preservation mindset. Not just us, look at other animals in the animal kingdom as well. Every species has evolved a behaviour to protect itself, and carry on its lineage. Animals have social order in their groupings as well, whether it is pack of wolves, or troupe of monkeys, they have a social order. Mothers protect their offspring, as individuals and in their group too. They will kill anything that threatens their survival too, (ie. they will kill for reason other than for food. Lions will kill hyenas, because they view them as competitors for food). They will not kill their own offspring, because it is instinctive to them, their offspring carry their genes forward. Occassionally a rogue animal may display cannibalistic behaviour and devour its own kind or even its offspring - but these are rare and is usually because of some mental condition, that is abnormal. Pack animals with such deviant behaviour will be expelled from the group, and they have to leave and live solitary from then onwards. Its not a happy way to go for them. In our societies, depending on the rules of the community, we have jails for such characters where they are kept away from the rest.

Again, let's not mix up Jesus, the perfect character, with Christianity, the community whose way of life was supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The African slaves brought to North America, that whole operation was justified by Christian societies, who also converted the slaves to Christianiity, gave them Christian names, and taught them cathecism. In that day when it was practiced, there was nothing wrong with it. Considered the correct thing to do. These days, it is seen as a very un-Christian way of thought. No doubt the societies responsible for it feel the guilt, and many are sorry for what their ancestor have done, but the damage is done. What's left in Africa is damaged beyond repair. Jesus did not do it, neither would he have condoned it, but the powers that be, were endorsed by their Christian churches and/or governments.

Cheers!

Again your answer assumes the truth of evolution, which you are supposed to prove! Moreover, the behaviour of animals need not be explained by any evolutionary just so answer. Animals go by instinct. Humans go by moral codes, ought to. We put criminals away because they have broken the law. I’ve seen a cat devour her own kitten after it died. But we don’t jail it, neither do other cats punish it for doing so. But if you do it to your baby you go to jail, or worst. Why is that so? The answer “oh because we are more evolved” just doesn’t cut it. Animals are created to do what they do, so are humans. We are created moral beings, in God’s image, which sets us apart from the animal kingdom. We are not just different in degree, but in kind.

Regarding slavery. Christianity was birth within the circumstances of its day. Slavery was not invented by Christianity, I am sure you know that. The Roman world in which Christianity was born practiced indentured servitude. Slavery was the norm, and was tolerated. Even the African slave trade, no matter how believers then had justified it, I am sure you would have wised up by now to know that the Bible did not teach that Christians should enslave other people. (It’s OK, no need to thank me for helping you see that) In any case, it was ultimately Christians who abolished the slave trade. Atheists did not do it, they had no incentive to do it. Atheism cannot even pronounce slavery as wrong! It was a moral course taken by WIlburforce, informed by his Christian beliefs.

In any case, it is rather poor excuse to use these examples to argue against belief in God. Why? Because it is illogical to justify your rejection of Christianity based on the bad things that Christians do, while ignoring completely the good things done. Where’s the objectivity? Besides, you really cannot ignore the question of whether the Christians were obeying what Jesus taught or set as example.

 

[Frodo]

This God that you are trying to paint for me, is kind of vague. What s/he is able to do depends on the complexity of the task then. For example, in your Bible, your God needs to do certain things, but he gets the help from some mortals (like Noah, to save the animals, David to slay Goliath). If your God was all powerful, he'd be able to do it with just his word, or thoughts! Why engage humans to get involved?

In this subject of creation, to create the universe, - my answer is NO. Because the universe is still expanding, the work is never done, cannot be completed. It still goes on. To create the Earth, - YES. It is a finite mass, land space, water, matter, are finite, just huge Time it took, I guess about 5~6 billion years, plus/minus a few more millions (definitely much more than 6 days!)

Ok. So I have answered your questions. Now can you answer mine - please describe your God. Male/female/genderless/young/old? Long/short hair? Fat/thin? Loves beer? Pizza? Vegan? What kind of music does God like (please, don't say Gospel!!!)

Cheers!

Vague? How so? Complexity of task? I think you need to check up the dictionary for the word “omnipotent”. And there’s a big difference between saying God “need to” and saying God “choose to”! God does NOT need to do anything. God does not need anything. He is self-sufficient. That’s one thing about God you need to know. But God CHOOSE to work through His creation. What’s wrong with that? God can choose to use man, or choose not to. It’s God’s sovereign prerogative. If God decides to send a global Flood and use some kind of protective force field to envelope Noah and the animals like what Scarlet Witch did in Avengers, He can certainly do it if He so chooses to. And not forgetting that God created humans so that humans can also relate to God. Not because God needs human companionship, but because God delights in fellowship with His creation. As to expanding universe, you take that to mean creation is still happening? That’s as absurd as concluding that because babies are being born every minute so God is still creating man! LOL! Now I will answer your question. God is spirit. Now, please find out for yourself what that really means, and whether it is even logical (see how atheists are not logical?) to ask the kind of questions you are asking me.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Of course we are more evolved than cats and dogs. And some societies have evolved more than others. Because of interaction, wars, revolution, social trends, and other social events that happen. Things change. For example just two or three generations ago, womenfolk among our ancestors practiced feet-binding. Our present society does not permit that practice anymore. How did this change come about? By our exposure to other culture's way of life! And women became more educated, and economically active, had to leave home to work, so had to be more mobile. So our society did away with foot-binding for the female members. These were all part of our society, human-made practices, nothing to do with God! This case of social practice is a small explanation of our evolution. Just that it is social, not biological.

I do not doubt that Christianity has contributed immensely to our societies - just look at the educational and medical institutions around, many were started by Christian missionaries and organizations. But so has other religious bodies done similar works too. There is a social role for religion and their organizations to play in society. That is part of humanity. Not divinity. Jesus wasn't the only sage that preached goodness and humanity. So did all other religions and their prophets (or whatever you call them.)

Cheers!

Again your answer assumes the truth of evolution, which you are supposed to prove! Moreover, the behaviour of animals need not be explained by any evolutionary just so answer. Animals go by instinct. Humans go by moral codes, ought to. We put criminals away because they have broken the law. I’ve seen a cat devour her own kitten after it died. But we don’t jail it, neither do other cats punish it for doing so. But if you do it to your baby you go to jail, or worst. Why is that so? The answer “oh because we are more evolved” just doesn’t cut it. Animals are created to do what they do, so are humans. We are created moral beings, in God’s image, which sets us apart from the animal kingdom. We are not just different in degree, but in kind.

Regarding slavery. Christianity was birth within the circumstances of its day. Slavery was not invented by Christianity, I am sure you know that. The Roman world in which Christianity was born practiced indentured servitude. Slavery was the norm, and was tolerated. Even the African slave trade, no matter how believers then had justified it, I am sure you would have wised up by now to know that the Bible did not teach that Christians should enslave other people. (It’s OK, no need to thank me for helping you see that) In any case, it was ultimately Christians who abolished the slave trade. Atheists did not do it, they had no incentive to do it. Atheism cannot even pronounce slavery as wrong! It was a moral course taken by WIlburforce, informed by his Christian beliefs.

In any case, it is rather poor excuse to use these examples to argue against belief in God. Why? Because it is illogical to justify your rejection of Christianity based on the bad things that Christians do, while ignoring completely the good things done. Where’s the objectivity? Besides, you really cannot ignore the question of whether the Christians were obeying what Jesus taught or set as example.

 

[Frodo]

Of course we are more evolved than cats and dogs. And some societies have evolved more than others. Because of interaction, wars, revolution, social trends, and other social events that happen. Things change. For example just two or three generations ago, womenfolk among our ancestors practiced feet-binding. Our present society does not permit that practice anymore. How did this change come about? By our exposure to other culture's way of life! And women became more educated, and economically active, had to leave home to work, so had to be more mobile. So our society did away with foot-binding for the female members. These were all part of our society, human-made practices, nothing to do with God! This case of social practice is a small explanation of our evolution. Just that it is social, not biological.

I do not doubt that Christianity has contributed immensely to our societies - just look at the educational and medical institutions around, many were started by Christian missionaries and organizations. But so has other religious bodies done similar works too. There is a social role for religion and their organizations to play in society. That is part of humanity. Not divinity. Jesus wasn't the only sage that preached goodness and humanity. So did all other religions and their prophets (or whatever you call them.)

Cheers!

I face/palm at your statement “we are more evolved than cats and dogs”, because you are still making the same mistake of assuming that we really did evolve from pond scum, which is something that is believed, but not proven to be true. Yes, things change over time, no doubt about that. But I am sure you can discern for yourself what kind of change we are talking about. And I am not saying that everything we do have to do with God. Feet binding was never a divine command to begin with, so its eventual doing away also not an issue to me. Yes, religions have done a lot of good, so much for the bigoted atheist (now dead) who wrote that religion poisons everything. Preaching goodness is one thing, claiming to be God is another. Jesus is no mere prophet or sage. To insist that He is, simply shows ignorance of what Jesus taught or claimed for Himself.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I like this Jesus guy. Whether he is real or not, is not important to me. It is his teaching, his way that is cool. He had no army, but earthly kings feared him. He had no classroom, but people called him Teacher, he was a simple man, with no desires for earthly riches, yet he ruled the world, he was no doctor, but he healed the sick, he has given hope to millions of people who have nothing on Earth, he was loved. Truly a cool dude. I don't care what religion he preaches, that's not important, but the example he showed, teaches us a lot. Whilst the early Jews were God-fearing, and believed in sacrifices to God to appease him, Jesus taught people that God was kind, loving, and forgiving. He transformed society into God-loving. I wished this would rub-off onto every person on Earth. Sometimes when we are faced with a difficult decision, it is a good idea to pause, and ask, "What would Jesus do?" And try to follow what he would have done.

Cheers!

I face/palm at your statement “we are more evolved than cats and dogs”, because you are still making the same mistake of assuming that we really did evolve from pond scum, which is something that is believed, but not proven to be true. Yes, things change over time, no doubt about that. But I am sure you can discern for yourself what kind of change we are talking about. And I am not saying that everything we do have to do with God. Feet binding was never a divine command to begin with, so its eventual doing away also not an issue to me. Yes, religions have done a lot of good, so much for the bigoted atheist (now dead) who wrote that religion poisons everything. Preaching goodness is one thing, claiming to be God is another. Jesus is no mere prophet or sage. To insist that He is, simply shows ignorance of what Jesus taught or claimed for Himself.

 

[Frodo]

I like this Jesus guy. Whether he is real or not, is not important to me. It is his teaching, his way that is cool. He had no army, but earthly kings feared him. He had no classroom, but people called him Teacher, he was a simple man, with no desires for earthly riches, yet he ruled the world, he was no doctor, but he healed the sick, he has given hope to millions of people who have nothing on Earth, he was loved. Truly a cool dude. I don't care what religion he preaches, that's not important, but the example he showed, teaches us a lot. Whilst the early Jews were God-fearing, and believed in sacrifices to God to appease him, Jesus taught people that God was kind, loving, and forgiving. He transformed society into God-loving. I wished this would rub-off onto every person on Earth. Sometimes when we are faced with a difficult decision, it is a good idea to pause, and ask, "What would Jesus do?" And try to follow what he would have done.

Cheers!

Truth is, if Jesus is not real, then He is fiction, there’s no need to admire him or follow His teachings. But those who have lived and walked with Jesus, what they experienced was so real that they were even willing to die, while proclaiming and preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. To have a fictional character that influence our lives so much simply does not make sense. It is far easier to accept the portrayal of Jesus as depicted in the Bible as the best explanation. Again, Jesus made claims about Himself that demands a response from us. He said those who are not with Him are against Him. There is simply no middle ground when it comes to Jesus. For believers, asking “What would Jesus do” is fine, but for nonbelievers, the question Jesus would ask of you is “Who do you say that I am?” To treat Jesus as an imaginary or fictional character simply is denying history and is an untenable position. But of course, you are entitled to ignore the truth.

 

[Agoraphobic]

For me, at this point in my life, it is not important whether Jesus actually lived or not. But what I see as important is the story of this man, which has influenced mankind, and set history on its path, very much influenced by him, or his ways. It is not important whether he lived, died, and rose again. It is important that he lives in us. His spirit does.

Cheers!

Truth is, if Jesus is not real, then He is fiction, there’s no need to admire him or follow His teachings. But those who have lived and walked with Jesus, what they experienced was so real that they were even willing to die, while proclaiming and preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. To have a fictional character that influence our lives so much simply does not make sense. It is far easier to accept the portrayal of Jesus as depicted in the Bible as the best explanation. Again, Jesus made claims about Himself that demands a response from us. He said those who are not with Him are against Him. There is simply no middle ground when it comes to Jesus. For believers, asking “What would Jesus do” is fine, but for nonbelievers, the question Jesus would ask of you is “Who do you say that I am?” To treat Jesus as an imaginary or fictional character simply is denying history and is an untenable position. But of course, you are entitled to ignore the truth.

 

[Frodo]

For me, at this point in my life, it is not important whether Jesus actually lived or not. But what I see as important is the story of this man, which has influenced mankind, and set history on its path, very much influenced by him, or his ways. It is not important whether he lived, died, and rose again. It is important that he lives in us. His spirit does.

Cheers!

That’s pretty much a postmodernistic way of looking at things, from a “what it means to me” perspective, who cares whether there is any reality to it or not. Such a way of looking at the world is really to please oneself, but at the expense of truth, which in my view, is a big price to pay. You are basically staking your eternity on it. What’s ironical, or worse, is that for a person who claims to be very logical and rational, this approach you choose is hardly consistent with being logical and rational!

 

[Agoraphobic]

Why should my opinion or view be important to the rest of the world? It is after all MY opinion!

Cheers!

That’s pretty much a postmodernistic way of looking at things, from a “what it means to me” perspective, who cares whether there is any reality to it or not. Such a way of looking at the world is really to please oneself, but at the expense of truth, which in my view, is a big price to pay. You are basically staking your eternity on it. What’s ironical, or worse, is that for a person who claims to be very logical and rational, this approach you choose is hardly consistent with being logical and rational!

 

[Frodo]

Why should my opinion or view be important to the rest of the world? It is after all MY opinion!

Cheers!

LOL! At least you feel that your opinion is worth something, which is why you are posting them here, isn’t it? Anyway, I was pointing out to you that your view about Jesus and the way you choose to deal with it, is not consistent with that of someone who claims to be logical and rational, at least when compared to those religious people. But that’s almost always the case with atheists. At the end of the day, their rejection of God and religion has nothing to do with logic or reason, it is an emotional and even irrational choice.

 

[benedict]

emotion has always been the determining factor in decision making