People who adhere to almost all religions, but in particular, Abrahamic religions are invariably corrupt, they believe that no matter what sin they opt to commit, simply repenting will redeem them in the eyes of the almighty and they will inevitably go to heaven!  The most evil people today are religious zealots, utter hypocrites from the likes of Iran's political mollahs to Western politicians like George Bush and his ilk to corrupt and/or perverted paedophilic priests, ministers, rabbis and emams.

Discuss.

But then you could argue whether Satanists are actually pagans. I would say that they are in fact a warped version of monotheists. Most of their ideology can actually be considered to be an Abrahamic heresy. I generally agree with the statement made above. Of course, there's also exceptions, but paradoxically, atheists and agnostics seem to have more moral restraint than  the people who preach it under the Abrahamic umbrella.

I've always considered Satanists to be a branch of mainstream christianity.

All ideologies bring about change in accordance with that which they expound.

When good people hold any office they bring about positive change using any given vehicle of change. It is conversely true for the opposite.

Where u point out a redemption for the repentant you ignore the hell for those whose repentance is not accepted. That is y there exists also apprehension of the wrongdoers. There in is the obvious deterrent for those who may wish to go astray. Therefore it could be argued that the opposite is true for those who fear no apprehension in the hereafter and lack a deterrent.

In my view the ultimate deterrent in the world is enforceable laws which none should have the ability to circumvent. Extended obviously to international law. For i think that most state laws and international laws are actually pretty good, the problem is one of enforcement. As for the way forward it has to be ideologies based on secularism, even religious secularism. That ideal however is a looooooooooooooooooooooong way away.

Zargos, that�s quite a generalization.

Of course as a Christian (just a Christian, not devout don�t go to church ect) I disagree with all other faiths. If fact, if I didn�t disagree with other faiths what would be the point of my faith? It's not arrogance to disagree with other faiths .

Atheists can be corrupt people as well. Just look at Communistic countries, there are a dime a dozen corrupt officials.

And lets drop the BS. Atheists (ald all others) can be arrogant b-tards. You think I have never heard Atheists poking fun at Christianity? Hell all of you atheists here probably do it. You probably say f---- God ect ect.

As human beings, we�re all the same. If I saw a Muslim man/woman in dire need of assistance I would rush over in a heart beat because it�s a human being. I can even br friends with people of other faiths. What they believe in is between them and their own consciousness no matter if I disagree.

Now are atheists better people? don�t maker me laugh. What proof is there of this? Are most Christians willing to kill infidels because they don�t agree with Christianity? What BS.

I agree 100%.  Everything you say here is in complete concordance to how I feel.  Abrahamic religions are especially evil but Confuciansim is a close second.  All it is is a tool to repress creativity and hold society back for the benefit of the ruling cadre.

And communism counts as a religion Loknar.  Ive seen Mao's tomb and how he is worshipped.  The communist movement has prophets, blind followers and everything else.  Indeed, politics is a religion of sorts which is why I say never trust anyone with an non practical ideology.

I have to say you atheists are so damn funny. I honestly don�t take you guys seriously. You sit back, swirling a glass of fine wine, and reminisce about how you feel so sorry for Christians....and how wrong they are...and how right you are.

You guys are a joke.

I am a historian just like you all are, I know about religions past. So basically, I don�t need a lecture from all you atheists about how I�m wrong.

Kalevipoeg

And let me also explaion something else to you all...if it wasnt the ABrahamic faiths causing trouble, it's be another. It MANKIND that's the problem.

I disagree with the assertion of the initial post.

I don't believe that a people's humanity, corruption, or hypocrisy results from a simple statement of adherence to a system of belief. I do believe that the way in which individuals engage their beliefs determines their overall character development.

For instance, I could call myself a Christian, but not go to church, not take communion, not study the Scriptures, and not pray. Would I truly be a Christian? The same holds for Christians (and others as well) who do not live their faith. For instance a cleric, if he abuses children, imbezzles money, or commits any other form of anti-Christian behavior is not living out his faith. There are disciplinary canonical measures in place to deal with these individuals (although I'll grant you that their application depends on the position and mettle of the church in which they are applied).

I also think that it is misleading to state that one can commit any sin and through a simple repentance be forgiven. While our sins can be forgiven, there is nothing simple about repentance. It isn't the simple mouthing of a prayer, but a real desire to change one's habits, indeed one's very life; a constant struggle with temptation on the path to theosis. While it is there, through the grace of God, for us to receive, forgiveness requires our active participation, not simply through legalistic acts, but through a true desire to conform to the divine image.

Finally, I think I might agree with you when you state that the most evil people today are religious zealots (although I disagree with the inclusion of the American president and certain other generalizations). However, was this always the case? Think back to Stalin and Mao. Still, it is a reasonable--and for that matter helpful--point to make. If we do not come face-to-face with our mistakes, we have absolutely no chance of rectifying them.

Anyway, that's just the opinion of this imperfect Christian in desperate need of forgiveness and strength along to the path of repentance and moral correction.

-Akolouthos

Ah, but you see you are assuming that we would be convinced of the validity of your position.

I believe the issue her is two completely different perspectives. If you do not accept the premises of the Christian faith, then the beliefs of Christians might seem products of stupidity or weakness to you. However argumentation and logic are often applied in theology; read some of the canons and faith definitions of the Ecumenical Councils if you doubt me. Where you would probably like to leave the discussion is where we Christians limit the ability of inherently imperfect man to apply logic. This is the result of a belief in the incomprehensible nature of God. Once again, it requires the acceptance of certain premises, in exactly the same way an acceptance of any "truth" requires the acceptance of certain premises.

Well there have been people who were characterized as "Fools for Christ", although I think that you and I would have different impressions of them.

I would like to know in what sense you use the word commoner. If you are using it purely as a numerical classification you are applying it incorrectly. There are definitely more Christians than atheists in the world.

Also, I think that with true Christians you may be mistaking real love and generosity for what you seem to view as a conspiracy. By the way, how can one be "overly welcoming"? To what degree am I allowed to be kind?  

It is, indeed, impossible for man to truly follow every aspect of God's teaching in the Scriptures; this is the very reason the Son was sent. To say that the Bible can't directly make anything better is patently untrue. Even if you don't subscribe to the forgiving nature of the Father, the redemptive power of the Son or the purifying energy of the Holy Spirit, you can still apply New Testament morality (love, forgiveness, generosity, communalism, etc.) as a system which would significantly improve the world.

As for your assertion that adherence to Biblical morality limits self-thought, I would counter that it inspires the application of self-examination which influences--and indeed completes--self-thought; in essence, it gives us a correct context for our thoughts.

As for liberty, there is a difference between the proper use of free-will and the reckless abuse of free will. God Bless.  (Uh-oh, I smiled. I gotta be less welcoming).

-Akolouthos

You cannot believe in free will and religion.  I used to be Christian and couldnt continue with it past age 11 because I saw all the logical flaws in what I beleived in.  I still went to church for a year after i stopped beleiving and the things I heard sounded more and more evil and twisted.  The bible passages where its okay to kill a son because he disobeyes his father, passages about idiotic standards of behavior, its all on the same level as Mein Kampf but because people believe in it they are incapable of looking at it objectively.

Everything I have seen in my worldwide study of history has shown that the more religion there is in the day to day workings of a society the less creativity and innovation there is.  Greater religion is tied to several other themes, backwardness, intolerance, greater influence of ideology rather than rational thought.

Why do you say: "You cannot believe in free-will and religion?"

-Akolouthos

Because all organized religions are against free will.  They say that because you can do anything you have free will, but if you say that beleiving something else condemns you to hell but you can still do it is basically saying, no debate, no introspection just beleive or die. 

Tends to stifle self examnination and questioning of authority, which are two traits I find absolutely essential in the making of a smart, indipendant human being.

Religion is Humanity's pleasure poison. It brings people�s ability to question without red lights down, way down, and suppresses it. Stampeding it like a crazed group of animals fearfull of its supposed evils. I despise religion and its whole facade. I will admit there are some very good religious people out there who you start to wonder if they would be as good without having a religion, but the masses of people would be better and more ethical people without religion. As Red clay once wrote religion is simply a political system. It is the false, which can benefit the world in some way. Religion is an immoral medium of exploitation. Think of the Vikings and the ancient Japanese. Where if you died as a warrior in battle you would supposedly attain a sweater afterlife then those without such action. King Philip of Macedonia, The Emperor of china.  Self-Acclaimed Gods. Religion impairs critical thinking and the possibility of a morale society. How can it be possible for a society to be morale if it does not understand the reason and consequences of its morale codes? Religion canot allow evolutionary understanding of its morale codes. One, because if it did the government of the church would no longer be seen as beneficial in that state. Two if such happened many followers would have such diverse opinions on the morale code that you could no longer sensibly categorise them under one religion. Three, such morale metamorphosis would simple as said above fragment the unity of the religion as well; therefore religion would no longer be a social group network. This social network is one of the reasons so many people love religion. It makes them feel part of something strong and at the same time above or superior which Leeds me on to my fourth point that the break up would cause controversy. Now it is the lack of major controversy of Religions morale codes that elevates them to such a high status. I experience a lot of people telling me that something has to be right because so many people adhere it. So you see, religion cannot let evolve its morale codes, hence it does not sponsor questioning, hence it does not produce a morale society otherwise it would lead to a road of self-destruction.

Atheists can be corrupt people as well. Just look at Communistic countries, there are a dime a dozen corrupt officials.

It�s interesting but most commie atheists on average probably don�t understand why atheism is better then having a theology (S). I'm sure the first Christians were more morale then the contemporary ones on average. Based on this the ideology that should be held high is not atheism or Theology but rather questioning. Forgot these two useless things they can become corrupted and infected with stupiunethigreedo easily, especially when one attains dominance of the political plain. Just teach people to question without mind boundaries. That�s what�s important.

And communism counts as a religion Loknar.  Ive seen Mao's tomb and how he is worshipped.  The communist movement has prophets, blind followers and everything else.  Indeed, politics is a religion of sorts which is why I say never trust anyone with an non practical ideology.

Your right, in the end communism is another religion except the product type has been pealed of the box and replaced with a incorrect one. Communism is obese with properties of religion.

I have to say you atheists are so damn funny. I honestly don�t take you guys seriously. You sit back, swirling a glass of fine wine, and reminisce about how you feel so sorry for Christians.... and how wrong they are...and how right you are.#

I feel sorry for humanity. I think you have misinterpreted atheism as an ego fair ride. I have cried because of religion, so don�t express to me that the nature of atheism is so.

I personally believe you only become christian by tradition or at a moment of weakness and stupidity that takes away reasonable argumentation of logic.

Yea exactly, they get you when you�re a little lamb, right when you see adults as wise knower of the world and when you lack a substantial amount of concepts to see their ideology flaws.

Choices have consequences, whether they be in the here or the hereafter. We can freely choose to try and better ourselves; likewise, we can freely choose to do evil. As for death, it is an inevitability.

Once again, how does Christian morality stifle self-examination any more than any other belief system? Much to the contrary it gives us a proper context in which to examine ourselves. It also gives us a proper check against false authority. Since all human beings have belief systems, and indeed all recognize authority (even if they recognize themselves), I fail to see how the Christian interpretation of free-will either precludes freedom of choice or hinders self-examination.

-Akolouthos

Then what doesn't count as a religion? Who is to decide? What is the difference between the practical and the non-practical. I believe this treads dangerously close to relativism, which is, in itself, a form of absolutism in this context.

Addressed in a previous post.

-Akolouthos

I'd be a bit more interested in engaging in a conversation regarding your original post and my response than in listening to you compare Christianity to the NAZI movement.

-Akolouthos

I was actually referring to the point by point post on the first page, but this will do as well.

And when you create a universe you may govern it as you will.

Seriously though, you do raise some very important issues. Why doesn't God always intervene on behalf of the oppressed? Part of it is as a consequence of the fall and the continuing disobedience of man--insofar as that is the cause of suffering, etc. Part of it is simply incomprehensible, for God Himself is incomprehensible.

An early Church Father once asked an Angel why some were wealthy, some poor, some strong, others weak. The angel replied that the answers the monk sought belonged to the incomprehensible ways of God, and that it was not to the monks profit to learn of them. I realize this seems unsatisfactory to the uninitiated, but I think it may give you some idea how we Christians can make it through a day without killing ourselves.

Originally posted by Kalevipoeg I don't know about you, but God made me this way, i can't change my way of being or thoughts. I can't ruin Gods work.

I think you should probably read the rest of the post you cited and the post I wrote in response to your initial assertions. Part of your creation was the gift of free-will, which you apply every day. I do take your point though (or at least I hope it was your point): When misinterpreted, the Christian doctrine of free-will can lead to fatalism and a shirking of responsibility.

You actually seem to have a more tolerant view toward the canon than many atheists I have encountered. Most believe that it was a simple set of political goals that inspired the formation of the Canon.

The true basis for the Canon lies in Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit, which was to lead the Church into truth in all things.

Aptly put. A sobering thought, is it not? Still, we know for sure that Enoch and Elijah are there...and there were twelve apostles.

-Akolouthos

I CAN ONLY ADD THESE:

-I AM ALHAMDILLLAH MUSLIM

-CHRISTTIANITY HAS MANY FAULTS(CAUSE IT HAS BEEN CHANGED AND NOT THE ORIGINAL VERSION, AND ALSO IT IS OUTDATED)

-BUT,BEING AN ATHEIST AND NOT BELIEVING THE WHOLE IDEA OF EXISTANCE OF THE CREATOR - GOD IS MUCH, MUCH WORSE

-I JUST WONDER, HOW COME YOU CAN TAKE SUCH A RISKS, JUST ACCORDING TO YOUR LIMITED AND SMALL VIEWS COMPARED TO THE GOD'S, EVEN IF YOU ARE 10 TIMES ENSTEIN?

-REMEMBER, HELL IS FOREVER (MEANING NO END EVER AND EVER!!!)

-JUST IN CASE, COMPARE - AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY SAY 70 YEARS, AFTERWARDS 50%HEAVEN FOREVER OR 50%HELL- NOT FOREVER(IF YOU JUST BELIEVE IN THE EXISTANCE OF GOD)

IF BEING IN YOUR CASE, DEATH IS THE END50%, OTHERWISE HELL 50% FOREVER (SORRY, NO HEAVEN FOR YOU GUYS)

TAKING A 50/50 RISK OF BURNING FOR ETERNITY, ISNT THAT JUST THE MOST STUPID THING THAT A HUMAN CAN DO?

EVEN, HOW MUCH GENIOUS YOUR ARGUMENTS COULD BE, YOU ARE IF LOGICALLY THINKING TAKING THE MOST STUPID RISK TO OF BURNING IN HELL FOR THE ETERNITY

THINK, CAREFULLY

A mischaracterization. Not quite sure how to have the "Christianity is not final revelation/not pure in form --VS.-- Islam is a Christian compound heresy" debate without it degenerating into an inevitable flame war, however. So I will simply refer to the sentence immediately preceeding this one, which states the two points of view.

-Akolouthos

I think you have a point, but am a bit worried by the semantics.

Firstly, there is evidence to support religious systems of belief (and not just my own). They are the Scriptures, miracles, traditions, and tales of religious groups all over the world. It is up for each individual to decide whether or not to accept this evidence. If you had inserted the word "scientific" in front of evidence, I would have no problem with it. Sorry about the nitpickyness, but I do feel these issues are very important.

I also don't feel that it is entirely accurate to say that religion is illogical. True some of the Christian belief contravenes logic, but to say that it is illogical--implying that it is devoid of, or does not observe the principles of logic--I feel, is too strong. After all, much of the Trinitarian and Christological debates, as well as issues of Church governance, sacramental theology, etc. is steeped in logic. I think where we disagree is the degree to which logic can be helpful to us. Thus, I feel illogical is too strong a term.

-Akolouthos

I agree with you.

-Akolouthos

Religion is a political structure created to control the lives and minds of the gullible. Religion for religions sake  has nothing to do with Belief in a greater power, rather your belief turns to the system itself.

 One can believe in a greater power without including heaven or hell in ones belief system. Believing a power great and vast enough to create the universe would be concerned with the destiny of beings as inconsequential as ourselves is illogical.

 Why worry about hell, being fettered and tied to an irrational and inflexible artificial structure during ones life would be punishment enough. 

Why worry about hell, being fettered and tied to an irrational and inflexible artificial structure during ones life would be punishment enough. 

who knows? maybe you'll find out why to worry about hell, when you will be taken there?

but, unfortunately your findings would be too little, too late by then!

      Hell is not in my system of beliefs, you apparently need fear as a controlling element in your life, I do not.

     Religous conflicts have caused the deaths and suffering of millions, I cannot think of a more insane and destructive force.

     Friend ponce- 

  there is no fuss, just an exchange of opinions.   Nothing that a good tomato sandwich can't handle

Is that what religion is really about, being afraid to go to Hell? I don't mind going to hell if it means not seeing all these self-righteous people self-congratulating themselves that somehow they've "made it" (by blindly obeying all those man-made laws and committing all sorts of crimes against other human beings in the name of religion) and sneering at those who don't. Above all, I don't want to meet this so-called "god" creature that is stupid, jealous, hateful, unjust, revengeful, etc.

So bring it on.

Is this an atheist web forum or what??? never met so many of you at once! which scares me, reminding about the apocalypsis!

The holy Quran clearly states, if you reach the meaning carefully, that this current life (passing life) is a test for us, the humans(though, it does not mean a struggle, it all depends on you). Accordingly, how you pass this test, will decide your real future (eternal life) after your death. And all those negative experiences that you might come up to during this passing life are also  a part of the test, though testing your real level of faith.

You just do not know what heaven or hell is, that is easy for you now just speak all what you want. But, the reality is that hell - imagine a place which is worse than you can't even imagine(in other words unimiganably bad place JAHANNAM).

at the other extreme, imagine a place which is better than you can't even imagine (simply, unimiganably good JANNAH)

no 3rd option (you cant stay on earth, its not up to you)

So, every believer should keep in mind that Allah the creator has given him the chance to live, to be a human being, the right to choose (imagine Allah initially made you a stone or even worse has not created you), and plus to this priceless gift he is offering you the eternal good life for you.

He only asks us people, to do those little things for him that he wrote in Quran.

He gives as the chance of experiencing eternal paradise just only if we sacrificy only a bit of our time within that blink of an eye!  

every Muslim should fear Jahannam and aim only at Jannah, because every believer truly understands the greatness of meaning of these extremes. and it is true that everybody streams towards getting to Jannah. and Allah only wants you to give him a little part , alittle effort during that that blink of an eye, in exchange for eternal Jannah!?

Isn't this a fair trade?  

What Quran? I don't know no Quran. I do like reading those Japanese manga, though. Are they the same? Are those manga "holy" too??? I definitely think so.

The amount of atheists on this forum has to do with the level of intelligence of the forum members.  Though I am not sure if I would cassify myself as atheist because I never rule anything out completely, but I do know that if god does exist his followers are so despicable that I would still wage furious resistence against him.

But Sherzod brings up an excellent point I wanted to touch on.  Fear.  Fear is the basis of religion.  That is why so many people are religious, because most humans are cowardly beings.  When I die its like a broken machine, and thus I will simply cease to be sentient and my body will break down in decay.  SO waht?  I see no reason why there should even be such a thing as a soul but lets say there is for sake of argument.  So? theres a soul? Of all the infinite possibilities why is Islam or Christianity somehow correct?  Your prophet told you so? Well some people considered david Koresh a prophet and some people believe in scientology.  Doesnt mean any of that is any more or less preposterous.

Even if you could prove to me that your one narrow dogmatic religion is somehow correct I would still think it would be ethically wrong to go with such a system of opression with a proven track record of failure on the grounds that it would be morally wrong to sell out to such a system just because it was established.  It would be like being a Frenchmen who joins the Vichy government because the Germans rule the country.

Apparently, for all my cyniscm with people, on a philosophical level I have more hope for humanity than religious nuts who want to bring about forced conversions, torture, and the apocalypse so that they can have a greater sense of security like rats hiding in a hole.  I think people can do well enough by dooing it their own way and that they will make a much better world if people figure out whats best for all of us rather than for the imiginary hippy/buddha/genie in the sky.

HANG ON! WHY IS IT ME, WHO SHOULD CONVINCE YOU THAT GOD EXISTS AND ISLAM IS CORRECT? WHY ME? I KNOW FOR MY PART THAT I AM CORRECT, IF I HAD THE WILL THEN MAYBE I WOULD EVEN BRING THE ARGUMENTS. BUT, LOOKING AT YOUR VIEWPOINTS I GIVE THE QUESTION TO MYSELF - WHY SHOULD I HELP THESE PEOPLE? WHO ARE EVEN ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO TEASE THE CREATOR HIMSELF AND HIS RELIGION? WHY SHOULD I SAVE THEM FROM BURNING IN HELL?

THE ANSWER IS - BECAUSE ALLAH NOMATTER WHAT YOU DO IS MERCIFULL, AND I AS THIS IS GODS WILL CHALLENGING YOU IN YOUR MISTAKEN VIEWPOINTS.

JUST TELL ME, WHY SHOULDN'T HE EXIST? 

Abrahamic faiths r to humans what carrot and stick are to donkeys. Just an observation.

Why shouldnt he exist?

Only a stupid person would try to answer that.

       I'll not challenge you on that. It doesn't matter.  What my point is, you believe this and that's fine.  These ideas work for you, great, and I'm not being sarcastic, I respect that.

       My belief system doesn't include these concepts, I have my own and they work for me, and I ask that you respect that as well.   

I accept that, but I can not repect that! Because what you see at me is - a naive guy, who "even" beleives in the existance of God! (I am not losing anything)

but I see in you - a person who is in a mistaken path which contradicts to what Allah has teached, thus a person who needs help before it is too late. My debates, in no means are of value for me, but you should consider them as a value for you, because the only things I am saing is I am trying to help

Why do you think we need your so-called "help"???? Such arrogance and self-righteousness ....

BECAUSE: ALLAH IS THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR

BECAUSE: ISLAM IS HIS RELIGION

BECAUSE: QURAN IS HIS BOOK

BECAUSE: MUHAMMAD IS HIS PROPHET

NOBODY IN THE WORLD CAN RECONVINCE ME IN THIS!!!

PS

read more acurately, maybe some more meanings are due to come out for you! I said accordind to my view point! 

Some are, that's true. So, I guess I disagree with the invariably part but agree with the rest. Most people adhere to some or other ideology, not necessarily religious.

I don't believe it, I had just written out a huge post replying to all of the relevant points made by others only for it all to be lost when i hit post becaus eit had logged me out.

Who says I pity you???? There is no need for "atheist" to pity anyone because, atheist or not, when we die, we just die and then our bodies rot. There is no difference whatsoever between atheists and "worshippers."

In fact if there's anything that I "feel" about "worshippers", it's the following.

I don't believe in fairy-tale like concepts of heaven and hell, unlike you "worshippers." So I don't and never wish people, even those I dislike intensely, going to hell, unlike some of you "worshippers" who have this funny internal struggle in which on one hand, you wish those who don't agree with you to "burn in hell" (even though you don't want to admit it) but on the other hand, since your "benevolent" target of worship supposedly forbids you to harbour such "evil" thoughts (even though that "thing" called "god" is actually the creator of hell, which of course is another issue ... ), you are "forced" to say the otherwise.

Now, that's what I find REALLY amusing. Tell me who is more "evil" one between person A and B

person A who believes that anyone who doesn't believe in what (s)he believes in would "burn in hell" or

person B who thinks and treats others who don't believe in what (s)he believes in just as such

lol

do like i do, after you finish writing your post, highlight it and click on Copy, then click the Post replay botton.

if you were loged out without posting simply log in agian and click the Paste botton and it all will come back and click post replay again.

I am not an atheist. Anyhow the question u asked was quite valid and there in also lies the problem of validating ones position from either viewpoint.

Secondly, to argue, i am right because what i believe is right is not the way to move forward on such an issue. And calm down, no one is attacking you.

i am sure that is a common to most AE users and zargos just forgot.

So in other words you should not believe in what makes most sense, but you have to believe in the religion with the worst hell?

Actually I dont believe in hell either. I used to but then I dont think it makes sense.

Generalization....something which you would break my balls over.

As I said, I dont believe in hell. I think it is a concept used by the church to incite fear in the dark ages (and middle).

The Bible does condem the loving of violence. However, in the old testimate God does give you permission to defend your property from an attacker, however if the attacker fleas you cant harm him (capture him perhaps). Of course I only think this makes sense.

and as I said, Hell does not exist.

If I understood B correctly (that a person treats all persone with respect despite the difference of belief) then B is less evil. And i would consider my self person B.

I'm not a religious man flyingzone, but I revere God. And it isnt my place to condem sombody to "hell" (doesnt exist....it's BS).

So in other words you should not believe in what makes most sense, but you have to believe in the religion with the worst hell?

I havent said that, but bearing in mind and taking seriously the existance of heaven and hell is one of the most important concepts upon which Islam builds up!  

After all there are dozens of religions that claim you'll go to hell if you don't believe in that.
I am not talking about other dozens of..... I am talking about Islam, the only religion Allah has permitted!!!!

good point! If whatever God you think exists is all-powerful, he can all concince us his religion is correct within an the blink of an eye.
So you want Allah himself to make you atheists believe in him, simply that easily? Just think upon your own comments, maybe you'll discover your stupid logic! Just a tip: Allah is not a cheater like you!!!

As for atheists/religious people being good/evil. I remember a quote, don't remember who said it but I agree with it very much: "Without religion you'd have good people do good things and and evil people do evil things. But to have good people to do do evil things, that requires religion"

with the same success this meaningless quote could have been said: "But, to have evil people to do the good things, that requires religion" - this version is more viable in every aspect. Anyway, I don't like these stupid quotes, cause they are said by mortal beings - people (atheists to be correct). and, comparing the teachings from the Holy Book of Allah and these meaningless quotes - just makes your(atheists) lifes easier, cause you are all egoists. 

ps

hmm... I have found another synonymous word for egoists... 

adressed at me?

No, generally

Sherzod illustrates my point that religious people are close minded cowards who have so little self confidence and when they encounter contrary views they begin to freak out.  I think hes a prefect example of how large parts of the Muslim world (and still large parts of America like the south) are more backwards because of their inability to have discussion and challenge their views.  My secular society gives a fair trial no mater who they are (in theory), his society stones people to death on unfounded charges.

There sill has been no proof and the burden of proof isnt on me.  Why should U prove there is no god anymore than I should disprove the crazy homeless guys ranting about smurfs being real.  WHo has time to disprove every crazy nation?  No, the crazy notions must be the ones tha are proven so that acually inelligent and creative people can figure out how to make real society better.

Why do I refuse to beleive in unfounded charges abou divinity? A better question would be why people willingly hold back their societies progress by closing their minds to debate and repressing other peoples freedoms.  Every country needs a Mustapha Kemal.

    I do not need help, yours or anyone Else's. I do not need "saving" [ as I tell the legions of Jehovah's witnesses that besiege me every weekend] and since I do not have your respect I'll close with this.

    Screw your afterlife,What matters is how one conducts oneself in the here and now. I live my life to the standards and principles I believe in and conduct myself as a citizen of the universe, not as a member of any artificial, fear mongering organization that demands adherence to an insane and intolerable set of laws designed to control  and oppress.

     You have your fear, I have shaving, yes, shaving. I shave every morning, and to do this I must look in the mirror.  I can do this without fear.

Addressed to Kalevipoeg:

As you have yet to address my response to your initial post, in which some of your premises were stated, I will respond to your most recent post, in which you make a disingenuous, bigoted, blanket generalization of an entire faith based upon your limited understanding of the premises of that faith.

So you compare Christianity to the Nazi movement? This ignorant, bigoted comparison deserves no formal refutation, but, as I do not feel like letting you make it anymore, I will give one.

First as to premises. The Nazi�s operated from a premise of ethnic hatred and ethnic superiority. Christians believe in freedom of choice; we are allowed to freely choose God. Thus our status as �saved� or �condemned� has absolutely nothing to do with an inherent ethnic state, but with our choices. Second, you are confusing "wrong" with condemned. An incomprehensible God requires an incomprehensible system of judgment; humans, aside from revelatory truth, cannot state who is saved and who is condemned. Third, we are saved precisely because of the fundamental loving nature of God, which outshines both human judgment, and the consequences of the fall. The Nazi�s believed in inherent racial superiority, which could not be influenced by human choice. Christian�s believe in the acceptance of God�s word as a prerequisite for union with God. If you can�t discern the difference between a choice freely made and an inherent state then I suggest you go back to the books (both the logical and the theological).

Now that we have dismissed your identification of Christian�s with the Nazi movement, I feel the need to disabuse you of your �absolute truth�. You posit that Nazism is a more humanitarian ideology than Christianity because the victims of Nazism don�t end up being infinitely tortured. I would answer you thus:

1) You assume that all Christians would jump to defend the Crusades, witch hunts, etc., which displays a fundamental lack of understanding toward the Christian faith. In doing thus you misidentify Christianity with its misinterpreters. In essence, you might as well identify all atheists with Stalin.

2) As stated above, you confuse being "wrong" with being condemned to eternal torment.

3) Your assertion requires the acceptance of certain Christian premises (the existence of Hell, etc.) which you, yourself, refuse to accept. If Hell is not a reality, then why are Christians inherently less moral? Alebeit they may believe this, but in your absolute realm of Kaleviologic, isn't it impossible to pronounce moral judgment based upon the premises of an inherently "stupid" system?

4) You see only the bad in others. I would challenge you to look at your own evils before seeking them in thos with whom you disagree. It can sometimes be trying, but is a lot more profitable than making wild generalizations about others stemming from a deep-seated desire to feel intellectually superior to them in your absence of underlying truth.

I feel the need to mention that your mention of human suffering is a legitimate theological issue, which I would be willing to discuss with you if you stop making this ridiculous, bigoted, and indefensible allegations about faith.

By the way, the intellectual aspects of Christianity have already been discussed. Feel free to respond to my first critique of your bigotry anytime. I�ve been looking forward to it for a while now.

-Akolouthos

But what system of beliefs--for it must always be a system of beliefs--is it that we use to determine what is proven? Many would posit that Christianity is proven through revelation (although few would posit, and those incorrectly, that it could be scientifically proven, as we discussed before).

It really comes down to what system of beliefs you decide to believe in. Most of them have been validated by others according to different systems of justification.

Therefore, it is as much up to an atheist to prove that God doesn't exist as it is up to a "religious person" to prove that God does exist--atheism, itself being a system of belief.

I grant you that this only gets us back to square one which, unfortunately, is relativism. This is where faith kicks in.

-Akolouthos

None...I believe in God 100%, I just am not a religious person.

Most other religions say exactly the same thing. How can one determin which religion is right then?

Really, all this makes no sense. You say "it's wise to believe in Islam, because if you don't you will go to hell." Christians may say "it's wise to believe in Christianty, because if you don't you will go to hell." There's no way in determining which one is right.

I'm not a cheater thank you. You're avoiding my argument. If a God is really omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would surely have made all of mankind believe in him. Since not all people are of the same religion, he clearly didn't which means that:

I don't think religion can make evil people do good things (for argument's sake lets assume that there indeed are good and evil people). Good people exist all over the world, Christians, muslims, athe�sts, agnostics, Hindus etc. I think it can easily be proven empirically that there is not one religion of which the adherents tend to be better. On the other hand I find it hard to believe that all crusaders, inquisitioners, suicide terrorists and other religious madmen are evil people. Surely many of them are potentially good people, but they are so brainwashed by their religion they're doing the most evil things, believing what they do is good.

I'm guessing you mean atheists with that. Could you please explain?

And he also believes that we will and should burn in hell.

That's the difference between talking to a religious person who is smart and one who is not.  

Allah, the merciful. Quran: the ultimate source of information. Really?!

• why can't I drink wine/palinka?
• why can't I eat pig?
• why can I have several wives and a women can't have several husbands?
• who is this prophet of Islam?

*I saw that when reffering to Mohamed some of our forumers write something like "(SAW)". Since I don't know what that's suppose to mean I'll think of Jesus as "CHAINSAW". And Buddha is a "screwdriver". 

      Would a nonreligious person go to a neighbors home, at 10 am on Sunday, dressed, suit and tie, [knowing full well the neighbor will still be in jammies and robe] and attempt to convert that neighbor to his nonreligious beliefs?

        I ask this because, at 10:00, mothers day morning I had 2 Jehovah's witnesses at my door, briefcases in hand, trying to get in to "save"me.  What right does anyone have to do something like that, uninvited.  I was, holding to my own beliefs, polite, courteous but firm in my refusal of their unwanted "spiritual heroics"  

         I view these intrusions as tests of my own beliefs, as what I really wanted to say was, take your damn religious tracts and stick them in your A: drive.  I triumphed, I was still smiling as they grudgingly started for their next victim.

It's true. There are no "atheist" missionaries. (By the same token, there are no "atheist" terrorists either.)

Some AE forumers here (I won't name names) persistently ask the question of why we (atheists, non-believers, non-religious people, etc.) can't just "leave believers/worshippers/religious people alone." I find that question absolutely ridiculous. I am pretty sure it's the experience of all of us who do not want to have anything to do with religion that it's our rights and desire to be "left alone" being violated constantly on a daily basis. (Red Clay's experience is a very good example of this kind of violation. ) But since society is so numb to all that religious crap, every time when we raise our feeble voice just a little (e.g. protesting against the mixing of religion with state), it becomes such a big deal.

This is particularly the case in the United States. One may be able to see a woman elected to the American presidency in 10 years, a Black person maybe in 20, a gay person maybe in 50, but an atheist? You may as well forget about it. That's how oppressed atheists are in the United States.

I'm not entirely sure the best way to fruitfully continue this discussion
is to sit here discussing your preposterous, ill-constructed analogies, but
it does give us both something to do.

So I think the point you are attempting to make is one that is worth
discussing (i.e. All things that are unproven are equally valid).

A Refutation of the�Asphaltarian Heretics /P]

Whence have the Asphaltarians this doctrine? Which synod sanctioned
it? Show me from what source they derive this�heresy and where it is
written? (Well it's what Joseph would have said had he been
confronting the Asphaltarians)

Really? Like where, in the south? Where I live people aren�t gung ho about religion...yes believe it or not America has places like that! Just look in any college class room.

You have it backwards here. An African American has a damn good shot at the presidency. There are many black leaders who command the respect of our population. Women wont be elected to such a high position for 20 years I�d say.

Oh boohoo cry me a river.

Meanwhile you atheists sit back and talk down at us 'worshippers' and our "religious crap". I could careless flyingzone.

Now what? "Atheist rights" crap? Now let me guess, you will do with the homosexuals did and hijack the civil rights struggle of the 60s.

Democracy = tyranny of the majority. No society can get around this. Can I as a far right wing gun slinging man get elected in Canada? Something tells me you'd say no. You damn oppressor (and all your atheist crap�its everywhere�now im oppressed)! There are opposites to all this flying zone, so don�t act so naive. If your Athiest crap was everywhere and I was in a religious minority, I would never be elected and I would subject to your tyranny.

I come from a country that was not long ago deeply religious. It anit shallow now though. As an atheist I feel constantly persecuted against. I have to take a religious class daily during school week.

 The Catholic Church can be very clever some times. One reason why women are not allowed to be priests in Catholicism is because the catholic church has realised that by denying that supposed privilege the schools will feel guilty or have an excuse to open up tons of positions for women to teach religion in secondary schools hence attempting to  braindirt a generation of people within the nation. As for primire schools' their despicable you wouldn�t have to turn a around within them to see a religious icon.

There's a girl in my class who handed me a pamphlet depicting a character who was too lazy to become religious. And in the end he burned in hell. This was a terrible interpretation of the stimulus of atheism. And I was surprised this girl handed me the pamphlet with the whole hell thing on it, the thing is she was worried about me and really did believe I would go to hell if I continued my atheist ways.

I noticed that you have a special liking for responding to my posts, especially those that I consider boring and not to those that are begging for attention (e.g. I am most interested in knowing what's your opinion on "behavioral economics" or the purpose of "doing" history). In any case, I still feel flattered.

There is no political movement called "Atheist rights" as far as I know. Who mentioned that and where and when? Loknar you seem to have a talent in putting words in people's mouths ...

And what exactly do you mean by homosexuals "hijacking" the Civil Rights struggle in the 60's??? The Civil Rights Movement drew all the strengths it needed from all the oppressed groups - ethnic minority, women, gay and lesbian people. Your perception of homosexuals "hijacking" the Civil Rights Movement probably stems from your homophobic interpretation of history.

Would someone like that get elected in the United States too? For as much as I despise George W., I wouldn't call him a "far right wing gun slinging man". If indeed a person like that (or like you???) got elected to the presidency in the United States or anyway, everyone should be concerned, not just me. Most people would call that fascism, you know.

True. But you would still have a right to voice your concerns and this is exactly what I am doing now. So what's your problem? You want to shut me up??? Is that part of your "right-wing gun slinging nature" or your "religious nature" (or an intriguing mixture of both)?

Seriously though, where did it come from? Christian theology, as it exists today, is the product of two-thousand years of intellectual discussion. The brightest minds of classical antiquity (Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, etc.) entered into the Trinitarian and Christological debates in the context of Scripture.

I wrote in a previous post on this topic why Religion cannot be truly morale or inspire intellectual thinking amongst even half of its members otherwise it would fragment and self-destruct. Please read this post, it is the first post I wrote on this topic. Its on page 1.