Boxcar wrote:

You think the world is only black and white? That there is nothing in between? I'd like to live in whatever world you're from. Here on earth, problems have multiple outcomes, and effect various people in a massive scale of different ways. Every decision we make is not wholly good nor wholly evil.Even things you think are completely benign have a negative impact on someone or something. Add the fact that morals aren't completely objective, and this becomes even more ridiculous.

So what percentage is, say Hitler evil and how much good did he have in him? He killed tons of Jews so I think that would put him at a pretty high percentage, but then again he was nice to people who weren't Jews so I'd put him around 50% good 50% evil. Then again, he committed suicide which was pretty selfish so I probably need to tweak that evil up to about 70%, leaving Hitler with a low, low goodness percentage of 30. Plus the story of Anne Frank was pretty sad - that calls for another deduction. I don't know, I'm going to have to go with a final good/evil ratio of 10:90. Translating this into fraction terms, Hitler was 9/10 evil, or 90% evil.

But we can't forget the fact the experiments done on twins is actually beneficial in today's world, so he gains a few goodie points for that one. I'll jump him up to about 85 evil, 15 good. That's my final score. Honest.

[Edit] I took the liberty of putting my statistics into pie graph form. It's just easier to demonstrate my findings this way.

Masterdarwin88 wrote:

You can't prove that God exist to everyone.


You cant prove god exists to anyone, neither can you fully disprove it. Since religion is based outside of reality, there is no way to be 100% sure either way. But we can show that it is highly unlikely. Refer to Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot for more on this.

In my opinion, Christians (In general) are good. They may try to help others and be kind and do something productive or other "nice" things out of their obediance to a deity that you don't believe in, but aren't they still doing good?

I suppose for the poor, they dont care where the next meal is coming from, even if they have to sit through a sermon afterwards. The problem though is the foundation it sets. They aren't out their helping purely of the kindness of their heart. They are (often) trying to gain converts through this.

Christianity disapproves of any alternate lifestyle. Along with that is the self hatred that causes when anyone thinks differently who is a part of the church.

I think whats really ironic is that often those who speak out the most adamantly against alternate lifestyles secretly part take in them. We hear stories all the time about some preacher/right wing politician being busted with another man after they've taken an anti-gay stance.( I cant wait until they bust Marcus Bachmann.)

Boxcar wrote:

I think whats really ironic is that often those who speak out the most adamantly against alternate lifestyles secretly part take in them. We hear stories all the time about some preacher/right wing politician being busted with another man after they've taken an anti-gay stance.( I cant wait until they bust Marcus Bachmann.)

This is indeed true and this is why I refuse to call myself a Christian, or Baptist or any of those titles. If people even made any attempt at understanding the bible, they would recognize that God does not call his followers "Christians". That term actually came from the Romans and they used it to mock the people who followed Jesus, just like "nigger" was used to insult black people. It's really a derogatory term. But over time, people began to just accept that label. That's why people call themselves "Christian", and why you can find two black people saying "What up, nigga?". They were called it so much until they just started using the term themselves.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

Makes you wonder why someone would bother writing a bunch of stories about whales swallowing people, or talking serpents, or barren women, or boys slaying giants to control peasants. You would think that they would have just written a book full of rules and punishments rather than going all off topic with stories about plagues and marks of the beast.

Besides, I thought they did have law enforcement anyway. As well as methods for execution. Why they would need a book full of stories about supernatural events to control people when they had knights, dungeons, and guillotines is beyond me

um cause a book with action and excitment is better then a book that isnt.
anyways its funny to watch people be stupid its like big brother or 101 ways to leave a game show. i mean like u belive in something with nothing to back it up its like crazy and ekpicaly beliving in something because of pure fear or hopeing that u will still be alive after u die

Alright. You obviously won't agree with everything that is in the bible. But you can't disprove everything. There are historical records of a Jesus Christ existing, and other documents that backup certain parts of the New Testament. The Old Testament is either too old to be sure or just stories with morals behind them.


So, with that out of the way, let's move on. You can't argue God and you can't argue his word. But what is left? Followers. A few religions. A few hundred denominations and cults. A little over 1/3 of the world with the label Christian or Jew. Why is this? Has almost half the world been brainwashed by "garbage", or maybe there is some truth to it...?

If you are arguing truth from numbers you are going to hit a dead end. Propaganda is a powerful tool, and people have fell to it throughout the history of mankind. Numbers should contribute nothing to the value of anything. Everything should just be evaluated at its base.

As far as converting children, I have to vehemently disagree that's ok. It is effectively nullifying the child's ability to think for themselves. It is hard to break away from ANYTHING you learn as a child, be it truth or bullshit. Does this mean that we shouldnt teach our children anything? No. But something that is completely based on faith and not facts should be left up to them at an older age.

However, while I disagree that its morally sound, I wouldn't want it regulated because I don't think government should have the ability to control exactly how you raise your kids. It should protect kids from physical abuse and from severe mental abuse. And I say severe because its hard to distinguish mental abuse and the aforementioned.