Religion isn't a bad thing. It gives people hope, which is a good thing. People take it to extremes, though, like anything else.

tl;dr Take your evangelical :censor: and cram it next to Verithrax's.

I'm... not sure how that analogy works. However, all I'm saying is, many people think they are doing what they should be, and treating others how they should be treated.

And failing miserably.

wasn't it the thirteenth apostle who quoted "Mankind got it all wrong by takin' a good idea and building a belief structure out of it"

and

"I just think it's better to have an idea. You can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it"



I think parts of the bible are good and beneficial teachings but there are others (as some sections that are currently ignored by the vast majority) that just need to be forgotten.

Rufus?

Also, what I said before was a paraphrased quote from Douglas Adams that said: "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

But, what I was saying with that was that because some people are idiots that listen to someone, doesn't mean you should ignore them. I'm sure anyone would admit that every presidential candidate had idiots following them, and I know for a fact that EVERY religion and political view and, really, anything of any importance has at least an idiot or two. Point is, don't make the idiots the standard for the group.


Edited for the full quote, carry on.

Can we make an exception when idiocy, or at least selective idiocy, is one of the criteria for full acceptance into the group?

Yes.

Awesome!

Marshall Applewhite:
Decorated Army veteran
Successful musician
Orchestrated mass suicide to catch aliens doing a fly-by

Joseph Lieberman:
Successful lawyer
Prominent politician
Believes plants can talk when set on fire

Billy Graham:
Influential speaker for racial equality
Advisor to multiple US Presidents
Believes a publicly executed man will whisk about 1/3 of humanity away to an invisible land of happiness

The difference here being that in two of those three cases, others are harmed by the actions of a few. Although Mr. Applewhite certainly deserves a Darwin Award for his valiant effort at chlorinating the gene pool.

Religion is not a bad thing. PEOPLE can turn it into a bad thing. Humans have an extraordinary ability to turn good things into really bad things.

Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is not there for people to judge. You either are in it and understand why you believe it, or you don't and need to mind your own bussiness. Yes, some religious nut jobs can fling a lot of crap and judge otheres because they haven't "found jesus." Then there are people who criticize those that have faith for believing something they feel as opposed to something that can be poked and prodded in a lab. They are both wrong, for the same reason. They are really just two sides of the same coin.

Once upon a time, a brilliant man was sent to jail because he had the tenacity to believe the sun didn't revolve around the earth. Don't ever assume you know everything.

note: I'm not a christian, but I understand them and don't judge them just because I disagree.

this thread needs to die. It's veered so far off topic

This might be the only worthy sentiment expressed in this thread thus far. Just my opinion.

My opposition to Christianity is rooted in the fact that it is used so often as a valid argument in debate. Because (some) christians believe something they then try to enforce this belief on others, the people who these beliefs are being forced on have every right to then decide if they think those beliefs are valid just like any religion that tries to do such.

By this action Christians open Christianity to criticism by the masses.

Valid is a very subjective word. Muslim terrorists would probably consider all of their beliefs valid, yet we wouldn't. Everyone pushes their beliefs on those they meet. You're doing it right now. So am I. So does every mother telling their child to wash their hands before dinner. So do Christians and Jews and every atheist trying to argue some believer out of their faith.

The problem isn't rooted in pushing your beliefs towards others. It begins when you attempt to take control of the lives of others. Half the Christians I've ever known wouldn't give a fig if I believed in God as they do or not, so long as I did what they told me to do.

Of course, that may be exactly what you meant and I'm just being a jerk, but I like to be clear about things.

Also, nothing Christians do open up their belief to criticism. People criticize anything that exists, and a lot of things that don't, regardless of the details. We're good at that.

A good question is what would "open something up for criticism" if it already isn't.

Relatedly: why is a fringe moderate's version of Christianity a better choice for assessment than a radical's when determining whether Christianity sucks or not? It's by no means clear that the moderates who compromise between their religion and civilised society are following any more pure or valid a kind of Christianity than the traditionalists - quite likely the reverse, in fact. If you boil it down to just the (socially acceptably) moral parts of the Bible, which is something people like to do when asked that, you can do it just as well with secular principles and avoid the stigma Christianity's followers have brought on it over the centuries altogether. Same for "hope."

tl;dr: Not all Christians are bad, obviously, but that isn't good enough for a defence of Christianity.

Also someone should probably start a new thread for this, it's too mixed up with the actual topic of this thread.

I would agree.

Though I will still await an argument brought forth that doesn't involve the bible as a reason against gay marriage.

The whole thing about teaching children that homosexuality is normal is not actually a bad thing in my eyes, considering what ignorance has allowed to happen

In any species that produces sexually, members of that species that do not procreate as designed are, by definition, faulty. So since such members might influence otherwise normal members to emulate faulty behavior... since one could argue that such behavior would be best eradicated for the good of the species, along with other faults that can be genetic in nature, such as myopia, schizophrenia, high risk organ failure/cancer lines, arthritis, retardation, small penises, and cleft chins... it makes a lot of sense to not only bar this type of behavior, but destroy its source!

Luckily, evil Bible-thumpers don't believe in genetics. Unless it has something to do with sin, I think, or bravery? I forget how they do that one, exactly, not that I ever understood it.

Yes, the procreation one is a tough one to work around. Though at the same time with heterosexual couplings resulting in unwanted children, couples who are unable to produce children naturally can take on the responsibility of raising them.

This argument also applies directly to all straight couples who are unable to produce children of course, due to infertility or a simple desire to never have children.

Procreation shouldn't be brought in, or rather the lack of it in this case, as we're gaining an overpopulated worlds. So, we do not want as many children born due to possible shortages in fuel, food production, drinkable water (places are already feeling the shortage of water).

(Back to class for me)

Doesn't really apply to that argument, since the issue in that argument is that contact with faulty individuals can potentially spread that fault and, theoretically, end with the human race having no interest in normal procreation.

Just so it's clear, that's not an argument I believe in at all, though. It's weak, because there is no strong evidence either way, at all. With the one exception of spotty historical records of the existence of homosexuality in early civilizations, which would indicate that it isn't a spreading problem, since most of us still like to get jiggy with the opposite sex.

Head. Desk. Head. Desk.

headdeskheaddeskheaddeskheaddeskheaddeskheaddeskheaddeskheaddesk

The reason the bible is used as a reason against applying the term "marriage" to same-sex unions is because it is a bloody religious ceremony. It's like you're saying you want someone to present you with Tomato Soup, but you don't want them to use Tomatoes in the process. Even if you did it with artifical non-tomato ingredients, anyone who ever had and loved tomato soup will just say "that's not tomato soup if it doesn't involve tomatoes", and they'd be right.

State-Sanctioned -Buddies is the only cure for society's woes, clearly.