(December 27, 2018 at 5:45 pm)tackattack Wrote: sex is only mentioned in the bible around 70 times and hunger around 20. Love is mentioned 300+. Not that I'm an advocate for word counting as a reference, context is important. Perhaps your biases inform your focus?

It does attract people in need of help. A lot of people do find help and comfort in it. People also look for justifications for their bad behavior in it and find it. We all have a tendency to see what we want to see.

If it's old and outdated, what makes it less valuable? I believe anyone who studies the past in any field would disagree with you. Even science is based on previously proven science.

In regards to me, I don't believe in luck.

Quote:sex is only mentioned in the bible around 70 times and hunger around 20. Love is mentioned 300+. Not that I'm an advocate for word counting as a reference, context is important. Perhaps your biases inform your focus?

Quote:It does attract people in need of help. A lot of people do find help and comfort in it. People also look for justifications for their bad behavior in it and find it. We all have a tendency to see what we want to see.

Quote:If it's old and outdated, what makes it less valuable? I believe anyone who studies the past in any field would disagree with you. Even science is based on previously proven science.

Quote:Religion doesn't pollute any more good people than fantasy football does.

(December 27, 2018 at 6:51 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: The point that I was trying to make is that the Bible focuses on irrelevant things.

(December 28, 2018 at 11:55 am)tackattack Wrote: There is no stoning of women which had sex before marriage in modern non-theocratic societies. The fact in theocratic societies there is stoning proves the point that it's relevant. It is also evidence that you can have religious institutions without an enforcing political theocracy and not have that particular tenant, so it's obviously not a universal tenant. That points to a problem with the political regime using theocracy to enforce their beliefs not their religious tenants.

Religion does inform and influence people and that is exactly why it is relevant to people finding comfort. A belief doesn't inform our reality. It's not a one to one relationship, it's a many to one. I am informed by my love of psychology, and philosophy as well as my religious belies and my family and society. These inputs make me feel comforted. Perhaps you don't find comfort in religious doctrines and wish others not to find any comfort in religious doctrines? Why must you, as an anti-theist, feel just in a desire to remove a sense of comfort from those comforted by religion, if they're not proselytizing to you. Even if they were coming to your door and evangelizing every day, how would you still justify a desire to have someone stop believing in something that informs their happiness and comfort in life? If you're solid in what you believe and don't and know why, is there a need for an anti-anything at the individual level? Don't your beliefs stand on their own? Anti-theism isn't just a slam the door in their face thing though. In practice it's just as annoying, intolerant and hateful as what they're professing to be fighting against.

I understand the arguments from annoyance and wasting time. I understand the desire for retribution of a personal wrong. I could even understand retribution at the institutional level for wrongs. My bottom line is if it doesn't really affect your beliefs why would YOU feel justified in limiting or restricting that belief in someone else. I'm all for limiting harmful ACTIONS for a societies sake, but beliefs, not so much.

Take religious no-vaxers for instance. They are entitled to their belief, regardless of how wrong/right I think it is. Schools and daycares are also entitled to limit their children's access to public places because of their actions on that belief. I would even go so far as a public registry or medical bracelets like that of child molesters  or asthma sufferers to protect the public.

(December 27, 2018 at 6:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(December 27, 2018 at 6:51 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: The point that I was trying to make is that the Bible focuses on irrelevant things.

-that magic book talks about sex more than three times as often as hunger is just a case in point.   

Don;t even get me started on biblical "love".

(December 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 27, 2018 at 6:57 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -that magic book talks about sex more than three times as often as hunger is just a case in point.   

Don;t even get me started on biblical "love".

What should be the ratio of talking about hunger compared to sex?  Who or what determines that ratio?