AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Continued from the Text Comments thread

How about you stop telling people they can't believe things because they interpret a book in different ways.

They can belive anything they want, but if they cant back it up properly, dont expect me to take it seriously. Even in context of the faith itself, it falls apart if the Book most people base their faith on can be interpetated so many different ways that any real argument cant be formed.

The whole thing is a giant collection of metaphor up until the new testament, upon which it becomes something of a historical document type of read, but from different view points
Of course people are going to interpret it differently

Jonah was not bodaciously swallowed by a whale
Jacob did not bodaciously wrestle God to the ground
Noah didn't bodaciously build an ark with every freaking animal on earth onboard

it's all metaphor for lessons and such

Then you do get into the New Testament, and that's been so heavily altered over so long that you basically pick the version of the Bible you like best.

That's not a problem that the bible alone has, it's a problem shared by every form of story that has existed for such a long time.

there's not a lot for people to go on that hasn't been interpreted a different way already, that's why there's such a large split

And on the topic of if it's "God's word", the idea isn't that God himself wrote this, but that people who were close to God did because he either related these stories to them or they were passed down through the religion as it grew.

This subjectivity is the point, some people use it like it's concrete evidence but "some people" do a lot of things. The majority of sane religious men and women would freely admit that there's not much else to go on but faith, but faith means a lot to people. Faith is what can keep people going, it's what can bring them happiness. If they can believe it, who are you, or anyone else, to say they're wrong?

There's nothing in the Bible you can really disprove. You, nor anyone else, really has authority or even the right to claim something is false unless you can prove so.
There's also not a lot you can prove either, but that's where the faith comes in.

Now don't get me wrong, there are bad uses for religion. We see them every day, sadly. The key is that those people are at such a harsh minority it makes no sense to treat them as anything more. People like Westboro, or Al Qaeda.

But, these people are, actually, not following their religious texts. They're taking things out of context, and then twisting the remains. This is not, and should not be, representative of the religion at all. It should only serve to show the lengths at which insane men and women will try and prove they are sane.



this bit is actually interesting

As you seem to have forgotten that conflicting theory and explanations for all sorts of things shows up in science constantly, before a fact is reached. Then, even the fact can be put into question. Science is just as constant and creatively interpreted as religion.

The only things you can back up completely by your own logic are unflinching, cold, hard truths. So, should we ignore your beliefs because they're not totally static?

No. We shouldn't. Just as you shouldn't ignore what other people believe because someone might think differently.

But what makes any one interpretation more valid than any other? Obviously Westboro and Al Quaida and the countless others who sympathize with them are the scum of the Earth, but they interpreted their holy text in this fashion, and its as valid as any other, since no true version exists. Either all versions are valid as long as they have some basis in the text itself, or none of it is. You cant have it both ways. We'd all love it if only the nice parts of the bible were followed, but theyre not, and there's plenty of basis for violence in the book itself. That people NEED their faith to get up in the morning is their problem, not mine, the burden of evidence is still on them if they expect to get proper consideraation for their arguments.

so yeah i already covered that



Al Qaeda constantly subverts the Quran, and completely ignores the parts the contradict. Westboro does the same. You cannot even start to pretend that they're at all reading the same book, because they haven't read the book at all.

that's what makes them invalid



i've yet to see any of your evidence that they're wrong, so once again, by your logic i should just ignore you and say you're wrong straight out right

Also, it's not a matter of validity. If the bible didn't exist it would be something else, some other text. People will find something to worship, something they can glean 'rules' out of. Something that creates order in what otherwise seems like chaos.

Essentially a coping mechanism.
Just because you don't believe that teddy bear protects the kid from closet monsters doesn't mean the kid will sleep any better if you take the bear away.

And what is the context? From what I understood of the passages these groups base their actions on, while certainly contradicting other passages, still hold ground as basis. Yeah, we have the Ten Commandments which specificaally say that you arent allowed to kill, but people still do, in the Bible, under Gods orders, and presumably, thats what these guys think theyre doing. They obviously HAVE read the book, and drawn conclusions based on that. That they dont correspond to the nice stuff only means that the result of THEIR picking and choosing got a lot of nastier results than usual. People spend their lives picking apart and interpreting the Bible, and arrive at wildly different conclusions, which either means that the work itself is flawed, since getting the correct message is so incredibly difficult, or that ALL the interpretations are right.

Everyone picks and chooses from their holy text, the only difference is if what they choose ends up negatively affecting the rest of us.

As for your last argument, thats a flawed comparison. The burden of evidence is on the people who say that something exists, not the people who say it doesnt, since the lack of evidence is the basis of disbelief.

Dire@ Itd be fine if thats all it was, but people demand that their bullshit gets to decide social policy, and they can go fuck themselves if they think Im going to obey the laws their imaginary friend sets up.

You know plenty of people base acts of kindness around the bible too.

And what does it matter if someone has evidence or not for believing if those people aren't hurting anyone. You don't have to provide evidence for living your life in peace.

Thats the thing though, Ive had people state that theyre ONLY good because they think that God will reward them for it. If your only reason for not being a murdering rapist is because a book told you youd get set on fire if you did, you were never a good person in the first place. If someone proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no afterlife, how many people do you think wouldnt go insane and descent into violent hedonism?

hah, it's lucky we have religion then.

If it wasnt religion, itd be something else. My point is that if you only act like a civilized person because you think there's an incentive to do so, then there's an underlying issue that needs to be adressed.

Well people created religion, so really they'd just give themselves another excuse to do good. I'm not too worried.

Both sides have the burden of evidence as both sides are making a claim. You cannot say "you haven't provided evidence, ergo, the opposite conclusion is correct". If you are making the claim that God doesn't exist, and are a part of a dialogue where you insist the opposing side provides evidence, you're just as culpable for defending your assertion as they are for theirs.

Stranger, can I ask why you are so aggressive against religion? You don't follow any of it, fine, that's your business. But you seem to actively harbor anger against those that practice religion.