Note: All posts below are sorted by date, from newest (on top) to oldest (on bottom). It sometimes helps the following of certain post series if the same are read in the order they were written.

2010-02-05

Faith and Doubt events - Part V - week 2

Week 2:

This session had the effects of Christianity in world history as the center of topics.
The whole idea behind all topics covered, was to convince the audience that Christianity was the source of a lot of good, and that the deaths caused by religion were a lot less in numbers when compared to modern atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, etc...), and that a lot of the morals and altruism of civilized societies found their roots in Christianity.

Although I do not disagree completely, there were problems:

Critical thinking is hard to accomplish. It is as hard as it is important.
One of the obviously put numerical arguments, in favor of religion, was the fact that in the past, the number of people killed divided by all those centuries of religious oppression, would end up with a very low daily casualty rate when compared to modern wars, specifically, those involving atheistic regimes.

This is an incorrect conclusion.
The reason for this faulty conclusion is simple: it was never taken into account that the technology involved in killing people today is far more lethal and efficient than it was back then.
If the Christian Crusaders of back then were suddenly to pick up the pace they once had, how would the casualties be like if they had access to, for example, a nuclear weapon when invading Arab lands when attempting to convert them?

Exactly. Hiroshima would have happened back then.

As with the first event, there was a surprise factor in this event as well.
After acknowledging the responsibilities of religion in past crimes, an apology was encouraged of all Christians when faced with such historical facts. This was a very rational attitude on their part.

However, one thing needs to be put into focus in this case: history is not the tool to determine who killed the most or the least, neither is that body count the ethical ground on which religion or atheism based their intentions on. The reasoning behind the killings is what was missing here.

The first commandment was certainly put in a very deep drawer that day, month, year, century... centuries...
That is not Christian at all. But in a religion with its share of contradictions, I guess one more won't hurt.

2010-02-02

Faith and Doubt events - Part IV

At the end of the event, this is how complex things got:

Consider Exodus 31:14 and Genesis 3:16.
How hard is it to make God look bad with these texts alone?
One makes him cruel and intolerant, the other makes him sexist.

It is hard to hear, yes, but I would say it is as easy for religious people to be shocked at the texts showed in the presentation, as it is for me to look at these 2 that I picked, and accept that sometimes God wakes up to the wrong side of the bed. Without any context, that would always be the conclusion I would arrive to.

In the interest of fairness, there are militant atheists that are more extreme than others, some that are unfair even, but there are others with good reasons for agreeing with: abortion, the removal of religion and creationism from public schools (not from religious related courses, nor history courses), from public government buildings and procedures, from the money we all carry, and the abolition of tax breaks for religious institutions.
Are these claims and its reasons simple to follow or the same for all militant atheists? Of course not. I wish.
Do they make religious people want to understand them before disagreeing with them?

That is why the reasons aren't here now, they are too long, and too many.
But until we know them, we will never know if our conclusions about any atheist or class of atheism carry any truth or value.

2010-02-01

Genesis 3:16 - Men rule Women. Period.

Discrimination:
Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group that is taken in consideration based on class or category.

Genesis 3:16
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

In other words, women are supposed to bend to men's will. No ifs, no buts, plain and simple. If you are a woman and you have a husband, he owns you. You are no longer free.
If you like to worship a God that discriminates based on gender, Christianity is for you. And if your are a man, you're in the good side of the deal.
Note: You have just read the most recent posts. Feel free to browse our label section for a specific subject, and our archive where all posts are organized by date.