Does Atheism make sense?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Sigh... okay oraganiccornflake. Before I answer your ridiculous question, I feel the need to point something pertinent out.
Do you realize your response is 11 pages long, yes? I know this because I copy-pasted it to microsoft word with 1 inch margins, times new roman font with a 12 text size.
That's fucking ridiculous. If you can't make a cogent point as opposed to responding to practically every. single. sentence. I make, I can only assume that you have none and you're merely responding viscerally to components of my arguement instead of the points I'm making.
Do you understand what I am saying?

I can tell just by looking at your post that this isnt' even a discussion anymore and based on what I've read, you not only don't seem to have any real arguement anymore and it looks like you're just nitpicking minor points and not addressing the major issues I've brought up at all. It just looks like you don't even have an arguement anymore which is strange because you bothered to write me a freaking novella.

I have things to do with my time and granted I'm procrastinating by just being here but stop wasting my valuable procrastination time. You have my full permission to make shorter posts. I don't care about most of these details as long as the larger point carries across. You don't need to do that by responding to practically every sentence I write.

To answer your ridiculous question which obvioulsy seems to be a result of only looking at the question above it and not the greater context of my larger response, let alone any over points I made in the whole post, yes, the Christian culture has influenced modern society.

I have made no arguement against its influence my arguement is against its morality which I don't understand why you missed it because I spelled it out in the lines above.

Please cite the scripture that states the age of the earth. To save you time; there isn't any. Assuming that you are referring to the genesis story; you still have no means. Genesis was written as a vision to Moses, and interpreted my moses. Moses wrote what he saw. Visit this link to understand my belief on this matter.

For crying out loud, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS!
My arguements are against the BIBLE. NOT YOU.

I did a google search on the matter so I could attempt to point out to you why the bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Here are the results:
Is the bible clear about the age of the earth and universe?
Biblical Age of Earth
Creation Days and Orthodox Jewish Tradition
CREATION AND CATASTROPHE CHRONOLOGY

So apparently all the people above seem to agree that it's in the bible that the earth cannot be more than approximately 6,000 years old. The last link in particular is in fact entirely devoted to not only making that point but attempting to reconsile it with the scientific findings (and breaking innumerable laws of physics in the process, but I'm not arguing that any of this shit is true.)

In any case, those Jews know their old testiment better than most christians, but hey if any of my sources are erroneous, I'll find better ones but I can guarentee that the result won't change.

And where do you suppose those laws came from? What influenced those laws?

Myself and other humans.

This is simply not true. For an athiest who's agenda is to disprove the bible, of course you would refuse to dig deeper into the culture and meaning of scripture, as you are content with believing that the bible condones rape and murder as it fits your agenda.

That sounds like the response of someone who can no longer use scripture to defend his points. Like I said earlier, you're twisting and spinning the words of the bible to mean something other than what is there, word for word, exactly as I described it, in context.

The fact that you can't accept it is only telling of how you're deluding yourself with the bits and pieces of the bible you do accept. I would recommend chucking everything else in the bible entirely and just believing what you want to believe because at least then you wouldn't be forced to defend these ridiculous morals of the bible, but you basically already have - you've just deluded yourself into believing that the bible agrees with your assessments.

Why would he condemn these things universally? Does a single country write laws for the world? Of course not.

The bible isn't the fucking consititution of the nation of Israel (or any other nation.) It's the fucking bible.
If I wanted to be a seventh day adventist (or most other christian religions), I would be handed with one of these things, I would be told to read it, and I would be told to follow the teachings of God and Jesus Christ. It's not written as a set of laws for a country (according to people trying to convert me to any hypothetical christian religion), it's supposed to be my moral guide in order to be a better chritian.
So far, you're telling me that all humans deserve hell and that I'm born a sinner and that human lives have no value without god.
Keep spinning buddy, you're going out of control and just throwing any excuse at me now because those are terrible morals.

Jesus didn't abolish slavery, just simply restated what the old testiment said with more clarity. He time and time again taught everyone to interact in love. If everyone did this, then slavery wouldn't be a problem.

I tell you what, why don't you work for someone who treats you well but you are given no free will to make choices in your life and you come back and tell me about how moral that sort of slavery is.
There are, in fact, places, like that in America. It's called prison.

In Ephesians 6:5-9, Jesus tells Masters to act in love, and tells slaves to serve in love.

In Colossians 4:1, Jesus commands Masters to be "fair and equal," as they have a master too.

In 1st Corinthians 12:13, Jesus says we are all equal.

Are you joking? Are you shitting me?
If a person has no free will of his own, but is treated well because Jesus told them so, this relationship is supposed to be equal? Slave and master? Equal?
DO YOU FUCKING LISTEN TO YOURSELF?!

I wanted a passeage where slavery is condemned as amoral by the bible, not where the bible says slavery is okay as long as the master is nice to his slave.
That's still slavery.

Being our divine creator; I would say he deserves more love than anyone else. For a person that has never experienced christ, I dont expect you to understand that.

I have no love or respect for anyone who doesn't value human life.

he is omniscient. He never changed his mind, it was a part of his plan.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to maintain your delusion...

This metaphor is flawed. I find something inherently wrong with adultery, thus the conclusion is much more logical to draw. I don't find anything inherently wrong with having babies.

A better metaphor would be,

"I bought a new house. It's pretty nice. It has two bedrooms, a master bedroom, and two bathrooms. Im happy with my purchase.

The local school is awful. It has all sorts of drug problems."

Is it reasonable to assume that the school is awful because I moved there? Of course not.

That would be a better metephor if I had brought passages out from disparate passages of hte bible that have no relation to one another. Instead, I pointed out a single chapter with a clear logical line of reasoning that you're pretending isnt' there.

It's funny. I would say this same thing to you.

I'm sure you would, but only one of us is reading the bible literally. If only I could link biblical literalists to point something out that disagrees with you that's literally in the bible that you can't refute, like my points on rape, slavery, and the earth being 6,000 years old.

Oh! Oooooh. Yeah. I did that.

Also, a reasoned killing is not murder.

Nope.
"reasoned killing" is the definition of murder.

You couldn't possible grasp why they would see your thoughts as immoral, because this era is all you know.

For someone who has done nothing but try to weakly explain to me how other countries and times have differing moral laws, you seem to forget that you ALSO keep telling me that ALL morals come from one source and not even christians can agree on what those morals are.
I grasp why these are different because the morality of people are different from one another that's rooted in their personality, upbringing, genetics, and a multitude of other sources that defines their personality and outlook on life.
What you don't understand is the inconsistency of people having different morals from a being that's supposed to be giving us his morals.
ALL OF US.

The really sad thing here is that you don't seem to even realize that you're contradicting yourself.

These aren't the morals god is trying to tell you to live by. Read the NT.

The new testiment doesn't fix the OT's problems.

Marrying the rapist was a punishment for the rapist, and security for the victim.

How? Why?

What do you think "if she does not cry out," is trying to say?

I think it means what it says:
"To cry out" such as by yelling for help.

To take this literaly wouldn't make any sense. The man cannot be charged with adultery, as long as she is unconscience? Obviously not. Adultery was one of the worst of crimes back then. This verse is clearly saying "If she is okay with it; then they are both guilty of adultery."

It doesn't make any sense to you because you're trying to twist it to sound like it's not a horrible thing to say.
I love all these unsupported assumptions you make here.
Obvioulsy not? How?
Again, where in this ENTIRE BOOK does it say that 'not crying out' is the same as consenting.
Again, even if it does, it's still punishing the woman for consenting to sex and instead of punishing the victim for being forced into sex, it's just terribly misogynistic. It's not an improvement at all.

Within you atheistic interpretation with the agenda to prove its immorality.

I'm telling you what I'm reading in context literally and you've failed to evidence that' I'm wrong and you're falling back on arguements that don't work.

No. The old testimant doesn't. Which is one of the points I have been trying to make also.

Yes - the fact that the bible doesn't retcon most of the points I've made seems to have been lost on you. I'll give you an A for effort in the post I'm responding to, however because at least you tried.

This is obvious, as you are 100% against any probable interpretation that would validate it's morality.

I am 100% reading your book and only going by what is written in that book. Even when I assumed the 6k year lifespan of the earth in terms of context within the bible, it's at least because other people used the bible in such a way as to figure out a time scale that makes logical sense within the bilble's context.
Your assumptions are either wrong or at least unsupoprted in the bible's literal context - case and point the above arguements regarding God's reasoning in murdering almost all humans because despite the fact that you're trying to tell me that I brought that point out of context (as in, it's unrelated to the passages regarding why god is mad with humankind) you can't even tell me why it's out of context and in what context it's supposed to be in. There's no other context for it to exist within in that chapter.
All your arguement does is point out that you're willing to ignore the fact that god decided that humans are in need of a little eugenics in order to justify murdering his own creation.

On another point, god admits regret in making humans and life in that chapter. Just thought I would mention that the omnicient god changed his mind about humans.

Apparently you didn't catch it the first time.
God impregnated Joseph's 14 year old wife.
God - the ultimate moral authority of the universe who can see the future as easily as an average human can see in front of him and whose morals exist beyond time and culture, impregnated, without Mary's knowledge or consent, a woman who is 14 years of age (age being an issue in the modern age and SHOULD have been a blip on God's moral radar)

The fact remains, it wasn't uncommon for a 14 year old girl to be married and pregnant in that culture (this practice even extended into Shakespeare's era).

I kept my quote above. Reread it because you apparently didn't get the point. If you can't see just in how many ways that this single act is immoral not only to my "modern" sensibilities but the biblical ones (several dicated by god no less) then there is no hope for you and this discussion is over.
I don't understand how you can so clearly miss it since I spelled it out for you.

But another man didn't do it. And marry gave consent.

It's not consent after the fact.

I don't have the time to write down that much scripture. Read it for youself. Time and time again jesus taught love, equality, compassion, and forgiveness. He said that he "fulfilled" the law.

I didn't ask you to write it down. I"ve already read the book I only requested that you find something to disprove or invalidate my OT points. Jesus' other teachings are irrelevant to this discussion.

So I suppose since you believe that you don't deserve punishment for your sins, then you believe that you deserve to be in the presence of a perfect god?

I don't believe in god.

...What? Are you saying that there hasn't been a Christian since the Crusades? Or that there hasn't been Christian influence since the crusades? I don't realize what god's morality has to do with our scientific progression, other than the fact that Jesus' morality is still in practice even by our scientists (theist and otherwise) today.

I'm saying that ever since christians stopped forcing their beliefs on peopel adn stopped persecuting people for questioning the bible (for the most part), we've had a philisophical, artistic, adn scientific Renaissance that has yet to abide and the more that religious influence wanes, the greater the progressoin of mankind.

It's no coincidence that the religious fundementalists and those with heavy religious upbringings tend to do things like try to put biblical creationism or some modern varient (like intelligent design) into science classroom and religious politicians tend to demonize intellectuals while scientists and people like me tend to far more pro-education. Though that is a gross simplification of the complex issues, but that's sort of what it boils down to.