Er enkelte religiøse grupper intolerante?

[RWS]

At Bibelen er skrevet av mennesker har aldri vært en hemmelighet. Hvor i Bibelen står det at den er sann?

Det står ikke direkte, men indirekte, for gud juger ikke og siden gud ikke juger og bibelen sier at gud skrev bibelen må innholdet være sant... Joda, noen kulehoder tror faktisk på den sirkel argumentasjonen...

 

Hvordan går det ut over en boks relevans at det er rom for tolkning? Ellers synes jeg ikke det høres så dumt ut å lese den som en leser annen litteratur.

Bibelen MÅ tolkes, hvis ikke fremstår den guden den pikterer som et monster uten moral eller nåde... Så den MÅ tolkes for å gi den guden den pikterer den favøren enkelte tror den guden skal ha.... til tross for massemord og andre uhyrligheter..

 

Leses den av ateister som leser hva som faktisk står der uten å tillegge det som står i favør av den guden bibelen påstår finnes fremstår jo den guden som det monsteret den guden faktisk er... Men vi "spissborgere" skjønner jo ikke hvordan vi best kan tillegge den guden de beste egentskaper, så hvem er vi til å lese dette mølet....?

Endret 30. mai 2013 av RWS

[IQ84]

Ja, men da er bibelen bare en bok, skrevet av folk for 2000 år siden. Hvorfor i svarteste er det noen som gidde å ta dette for god fisk da?

Bibelen er ikke én bok, men en samling av et titalls forskjellige. Den blir ansett som hellig pga. forfatterne skal ha vært påvirket og inspirert av Gud. At den er gammel er ikke noe grunn til å avfeie alt. Selvom de visste mindre var de fullt like intelligente som oss. Jeg syns den bør leses med et åpent sinn, og så kan du plukke ut det du liker.

[Battaman]

 

Bibelen er ikke én bok, men en samling av et titalls forskjellige. Den blir ansett som hellig pga. forfatterne skal ha vært påvirket og inspirert av Gud. At den er gammel er ikke noe grunn til å avfeie alt. Selvom de visste mindre var de fullt like intelligente som oss. Jeg syns den bør leses med et åpent sinn, og så kan du plukke ut det du liker.

Det er nettopp det som er problemet. Om du velger selv hva du vil tro på er bibelen ubrukelig og du kan like gjerne innrømme at du har en subjektiv moral og ikke følger bibelen.

[Spagettimonsteret]

 

At Bibelen er skrevet av mennesker har aldri vært en hemmelighet. Hvor i Bibelen står det at den er sann? Hvordan går det ut over en boks relevans at det er rom for tolkning? Ellers synes jeg ikke det høres så dumt ut å lese den som en leser annen litteratur.

 

Paulus’ andre brev til Timoteus 3 kapittel, 15-17

Gir rimelig grei beskjed om at her er det Gud som prater. Så stille i timen.

[RWS]

Bibelen er ikke én bok, men en samling av et titalls forskjellige. Den blir ansett som hellig pga. forfatterne skal ha vært påvirket og inspirert av Gud.

Aka de ble inspirert av fantasien sin med andre ord... Og dette fortsetter folk å tro på i dag...?

 

 

At den er gammel er ikke noe grunn til å avfeie alt. Selvom de visste mindre var de fullt like intelligente som oss. Jeg syns den bør leses med et åpent sinn, og så kan du plukke ut det du liker.

Jada, har lest bibelen både som kristen og som ateist og den kom heller dårlig ut når den leses med et åpent sinn, for å si det sånn....

 

For gir man ikke den guden bibelen pikterer den rette favør så fremstår den guden som et monster selv i sin egen bok... Jeg husker selv hvos skamfull jeg var da det gikk opp for meg hva for en gud jeg hadde tilbedt...

 

Så ja til å lese bibelen med et åpent sinn. Vær ærlig og kristisk når den leses, det vil gjøre ateister av de aller fleste som leser den faktisk... no sweat!!

[Zepticon]

Bibelen er ikke én bok, men en samling av et titalls forskjellige. Den blir ansett som hellig pga. forfatterne skal ha vært påvirket og inspirert av Gud. At den er gammel er ikke noe grunn til å avfeie alt. Selvom de visste mindre var de fullt like intelligente som oss. Jeg syns den bør leses med et åpent sinn, og så kan du plukke ut det du liker.

Hva vet vell 2000 gammle hulemenn om hva de var inspirert av. For alt man vet så kunne denne "inspirasjonen fra gud" kommer fra plantene de røyka like fullt som noe annet. Om man foretar et snev, bare et lite snev, av kiledritikk, så faller bibelen sammen som ett korthus. Vi ahr også galehus fulle av folk som "er inspirert av gud".

 

Ja, man skal kanske ha et åpent sinn, men ikke så åpent at hjernen ramler ut.

[Spagettimonsteret]

Et av våre store problemer er at veldig mange av verdens nasjoner lager lover og regler, fengsler og dreper borgerne sine pga. En bok de aller fleste av dem mener vi kan plukke å velge fritt i fra.

Og det kan de gjøre fordi vi gir religiøse carte blanche fordi de av en eller annen grunn er hevet over all kritikk. Selv her i Norge har vi en så latterlig ting som en blasfemi lov.

I dag hylte Simon wiesenthal senteret fordi Aftenposten hadde trykket en tegneserie som gikk løs på religiøs kjønnslemlesting.

På tide å ro verden inn i en rasjonell tidsalder.

[Spagettimonsteret]

Et av våre store problemer er at veldig mange av verdens nasjoner lager lover og regler, fengsler og dreper borgerne sine pga. En bok de aller fleste av dem mener vi kan plukke å velge fritt i fra.

Og det kan de gjøre fordi vi gir religiøse carte blanche fordi de av en eller annen grunn er hevet over all kritikk. Selv her i Norge har vi en så latterlig ting som en blasfemi lov.

I dag hylte Simon wiesenthal senteret fordi Aftenposten hadde trykket en tegneserie som gikk løs på religiøs kjønnslemlesting.

På tide å ro verden inn i en rasjonell tidsalder.

 

Beklager, det var dagbladet som trykket tegneserien.

[Ralith]

Det står ikke direkte, men indirekte, for gud juger ikke og siden gud ikke juger og bibelen sier at gud skrev bibelen må innholdet være sant... Joda, noen kulehoder tror faktisk på den sirkel argumentasjonen...

 

Bibelen MÅ tolkes, hvis ikke fremstår den guden den pikterer som et monster uten moral eller nåde... Så den MÅ tolkes for å gi den guden den pikterer den favøren enkelte tror den guden skal ha.... til tross for massemord og andre uhyrligheter..

 

Leses den av ateister som leser hva som faktisk står der uten å tillegge det som står i favør av den guden bibelen påstår finnes fremstår jo den guden som det monsteret den guden faktisk er... Men vi "spissborgere" skjønner jo ikke hvordan vi best kan tillegge den guden de beste egentskaper, så hvem er vi til å lese dette mølet....?

 

Jeg kan støtte opp om dette. Jeg bor selv i en by der det er rimelig mye konservativ kristendom, og veldig mange er avlet opp på logikken "Bibelen er hellig fordi Gud skrev den fordi den er hellig". Dette er dog ikke noe de kan for - de er rett og slett blitt foret med slikt siden de var små barn. Dette gjelder også andre ting, som argumentene de til tider lirer av seg for hvordan Gud både kan være en allmektig og kjærlig far, samtidig som han gir oss så mye dritt . Jeg tror de fleste av Norges jordlige fedre er markant bedre enn Gud. De dømmer barna sine ialfall ikke til evige pinsler - ikke de fleste da .

 

Noen religiøse grupper er nok mer tolerante enn andre. Selv synes jeg det har en sammenheng med hvor stort behov den ene og andre har for å misjonere og konvertere andre. Dersom din hellige bok lærer deg at du skal spre dens budskap over stokk og stein, og forandre alle du kommer over, tror jeg nok at den også lærer deg mindre toleranse. Se på sikhene her i landet - aldri har vi noen problemer med dem.

Det skal dog være sagt at det også har vært mennesker fra religioner som buddhismen og hinduismen som har gjort lite tolerante ting. Tenker her på en artikkel jeg kom over for en stund siden, der det var snakk om hinduister og buddhister som sloss med sverd....Skal prøve å finne den .

[jjkoggan]

 

That is straight out wrong.

 

Atheists experience very much spirituality as well as religious experiences.

 

Atheism != non-religious

If you accepted that you experienced the presence of a god then you are by definition no longer an atheist

[jjkoggan]

 

How can you know? Of course the atheists experience the same as the Christians, and other religious, but they do not believe that what they experience is of something supernatural, godly... They have their own kind of spirituality. A clean, with more realistic view of the world. We understand the text better than the christians i say. We read it from a critical view, and does not believe everything we hear....

Yes, some atheists have an arrogant view of Christians just as you express it here. The idea of the gullible, stupid Christian persists even though many highly intelligent educated people are devout Christians. Knowledge is not the primary difference, it is belief in the unprovable concept of the supernatural that is the difference. Einstein himself had disdain for many atheists and appreciation for our limited knowledge of the universe

 

But it does not matter. The text is not coherent, and the stories in the text does not back each other up. I recommend this site, go ahead read it, it shoud teach you a few things about the bible;

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

Can you really believe in the bible after reading this carefully?

logic cannot be used to negate religion. Your presumption of ignorance is quite arrogant, again. Do you really think believers do not challenge themselves and are not challenged by others about their faith? Endret 31. mai 2013 av jjkoggan

[тurbonєℓℓo]

Yes, some atheists have an arrogant view of Christians just as you express it here.

Well, I do not think this is arrogant. Its how I see it. Its my personal opinion.

 

The idea of the gullible, stupid Christian persists even though many highly intelligent educated people are devout Christians.

But did I say all the Christians are gullible and stupid? Or did you just say that? My personal opinion is that we atheist have a more realistic view. Off course I would say that! I am an atheist... I do not think that belief in a supernatural force is equal to, or just a litle less realistic as the atheistic view. So I am only telling what I think. I think that the God of the Christians, Jews and the Muslims, are just a human delusion. That God is just a irrational figure, that has its dwelling place in our dreams and imagination. Therefore it can not be, that the Christians have the same realistic view as we atheist do. And therefore It is not natural for me to say they have (...).

 

But is this arrogant?

I do not think that it is arrogant. I do not think that all Christians are stupid... No, i do not. But I think that what they believe is stupid, and irrational. And that is a big difference. I myself have been a Christian, but I have been going through a critical analysis of what I used to believe. I have been studying the faith in depth. I do not think the most intelligent Christians have done, what I have done... And if they do, they will loose their faith.

 

Knowledge is not the primary difference, it is belief in the unprovable concept of the supernatural that is the difference. Einstein himself had disdain for many atheists and appreciation for our limited knowledge of the universe

But it is not rational to believe that a supernatural being exist. We do not have any good reasons for believe there is a such thing. And the world does not look like it have been created by this being. It is irrational to believe that the believers go to heaven and the nonbelievers goes to hell.

We have no good reasons, what so ever, to believe it...

 

Does God exist? We can not prove or disprove.

You can not prove, or disprove something that does not exist.

...It is not reasonable to think that it is a God behind it all when you look at the way things have evolved. And think of all the suffering in the world etc. You HAVE to ignore this things, or you will begin to doubt.

 

logic cannot be used to negate religion.

No, but that is because religion and logic is two different things. =)

Religion are irrational feelings, and irrational rituals, and stuff like that. The religious have a irrational way of thinking... And, they would use a different form of logic to fuck their brains with than us.

 

Do you think that it is logic that an omnipotent, all knowing God of love, creates a world full off suffering and pain? Why do we see evidence for evolution?

Does a almighty God have need for evolution for creating life?

And the afterlife... Heaven. Is it reasonable to think that some of us ends up in heaven, if you have in mind that we came here by evolution? No... It is not. It is very unlikely. Very irrational.

 

Do you think it is logic that a all knowing, omnipotent god of love regrets his own creation after he have made them? (He sure did know the result of making them in the first place as all knowing) Well, the bible tells us so... But it is extremely unlikely that there is such a God. But the Christians do not see it this way. ... Therefore it is very natural for a atheist to think of the Christians as people with no realistic view in this case...

 

Your presumption of ignorance is quite arrogant, again. Do you really think believers do not challenge themselves and are not challenged by others about their faith?

No. It is not arrogant. They have to ignore facts. They have to ignore some problems with the faith to continue believing in a such irrational faith. They just have to... Endret 31. mai 2013 av turbonello

[тurbonєℓℓo]

,

Endret 1. juni 2013 av turbonello

[jjkoggan]

Well, I do not think this is arrogant. Its how I see it. Its my personal opinion.

 

 

But did I say all the Christians are gullible and stupid? Or did you just say that? My personal opinion is that we atheist have a more realistic view. Off course I would say that! I am an atheist... I do not think that belief in a supernatural force is equal to, or just a litle less realistic as the atheistic view. So I am only telling what I think. I think that the God of the Christians, Jews and the Muslims, are just a human delusion. That God is just a irrational figure, that has its dwelling place in our dreams and imagination. Therefore it can not be, that the Christians have the same realistic view as we atheist do. And therefore It is not natural for me to say they have (...).

 

But is this arrogant?

I do not think that it is arrogant. I do not think that all Christians are stupid... No, i do not. But I think that what they believe is stupid, and irrational. And that is a big difference. I myself have been a Christian, but I have been going through a critical analysis of what I used to believe. I have been studying the faith in depth. I do not think the most intelligent Christians have done, what I have done... And if they do, they will loose their faith.

 

But it is not rational to believe that a supernatural being exist. We do not have any good reasons for believe there is a such thing. And the world does not look like it have been created by this being. It is irrational to believe that the believers go to heaven and the nonbelievers goes to hell.

We have no good reasons, what so ever, to believe it...

 

Does God exist? We can not prove or disprove.

You can not prove, or disprove something that does not exist.

...It is not reasonable to think that it is a God behind it all when you look at the way things have evolved. And think of all the suffering in the world etc. You HAVE to ignore this things, or you will begin to doubt.

 

 

No, but that is because religion and logic is two different things. =)

Religion are irrational feelings, and irrational rituals, and stuff like that. The religious have a irrational way of thinking... And, they would use a different form of logic to fuck their brains with than us.

 

Do you think that it is logic that an omnipotent, all knowing God of love, creates a world full off suffering and pain? Why do we see evidence for evolution?

Does a almighty God have need for evolution for creating life?

And the afterlife... Heaven. Is it reasonable to think that some of us ends up in heaven, if you have in mind that we came here by evolution? No... It is not. It is very unlikely. Very irrational.

 

Do you think it is logic that a all knowing, omnipotent god of love regrets his own creation after he have made them? (He sure did know the result of making them in the first place as all knowing) Well, the bible tells us so... But it is extremely unlikely that there is such a God. But the Christians do not see it this way. ... Therefore it is very natural for a atheist to think of the Christians as people with no realistic view in this case...

 

No. It is not arrogant. They have to ignore facts. They have to ignore some problems with the faith to continue believing in a such irrational faith. They just have to...

 

The overall tone of your personal opinion about the religious is condescending. If Christians were "realistic", would " know the bible as well as atheists" or if I read your atheist link it would "teach" me something I presumably didn't already know. This, presumptuous, arrogant personal opinion implies that many? all? some? Christians are ignorant because they are unaware of biblical contradictions and how believing in the supernatural is irrational. On the other hand, if they were students of the bible like you(this implies they are not) and read the links that you do (they are presumably unaware of these contradictions) so they could learn and be more "realistic" they would not suffer the delusions that they do.

 

The overall theme is ignorance, because, after all only ignorance or stupidity would explain the irrational behavior of Christians, right? Einstein(yes he was an atheist) once said about atheists, " They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims"

 

He also understood the limitations of our knowledge and said this-

 

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.”

 

Seen from this perspective, limiting yourself to only what is rational or provable today seems naive and narrow minded. I believe there is more out there than what is known today and not thoroughly irrational or stupid that there is a supernatural, unifying guiding force behind it. Some scholars even argue that Einstein left the door open for that possiblity himself even though he did not believe in a personal god.

 

What I object to most is the naivity and arrogance of the atheist who doesn't see that we all are limited in our knowledge and wants to be condescending to those that harbor a suspicion of the unknown.

[jjkoggan]

 

Then they are worthless as far as guidiance goes and should/could be ignored all togheter.

No, many believe it is the main source of divine inspiration. By that I mean a node of personal communication in which god communicates with you in a personal way. If you look at it simply as a guidebook it is worthless. If you think god speaks to you by reading it it becomes invaluable

[jjkoggan]

 

Sure we do. The only differnce is that we do not attribute it to an higher beeing, but its just a product of our own state of mind. It can be very different reasons as to why we get it, but the feeling is the same across all religions and also for atheists. So when religious people say they have a "divine" experience, its just an "experience" but they cant explain it in other ways than to be a touch of god, because they do not know enough about our mind.

 

Many neurosurgeons believe in divine experiences. It is not about knowledge or ignorance

 

 

 

I never said so, but theya re similar enough, and there are large enough amounts to have laws that make atheism a crime punishable by death.

Those who disagree are not the problem, because theya re not the ones who make laws, or kills in the streets. The "nice" muslims are irrelevant, and anyone with a sense of reason, will understand that when i say "muslims are evil", i am not talking baout the guys who are nice, but "the evil muslims".

.

You should say what you mean. If I said atheists are evil, who would that include exactly?

 

Most crimes are not religiously motivated.

NO crimes are atheisticaly motivated.

How many religious people were killed or harassed behind the iron curtain exactly to purge religion? 20 million?

 

 

 

I have not argued against the right of the individual.

The right as an individual does not make you immune to be classified as a high risk person.

 

It is not discrimination to pick you out for s screening at the airport when you are part of a group that have a statistical higher risk of beeing a criminal. Note that i am drawing a clear line between statistics, and prejudice. If you have documentet numbers that back up your actions, and you act proffesional, its not a violation.

 

I fully accept that young males between 18 and 25, are more prone to speeding, and i would have sence enough to understand why i am beeing checked more often than older people or females. Its a statistical fact, that i am in a high risk population, and thus it will be more effective to target me, that a girl, since i am more likely to be an offender.

But as lons as i am not treated as an offender, but an potential offender, it is okay.

 

There are more ethnic Norwegians that committ crimes than immigrants so I'm guessing police should harass you more often than immigrants?

 

The Supreme Court ruled that in most cases the statistical difference between crime rates of racial groups does not justify profiling. If 98 % of ethnic Norwegians are law abiding and 95% of utlendinger are law abiding, profiling just another name for racism

[Zepticon]

Many neurosurgeons believe in divine experiences. It is not about knowledge or ignorance

Surgeons does not have the needed education or competanse to make any statement with authority. It is like asking a car mechanic how to optimize the efficiency of an engine.

 

Ask scienentists or psychologists about it, and see a totally different opinion.

 

You should say what you mean. If I said atheists are evil, who would that include exactly?

You cant say "atheists" are evil, because there are no links between atheism and evil. Atheism is "lack of belief". And lack of belief does not tell you to do evil. Persons do evil on their own.

 

 

How many religious people were killed or harassed behind the iron curtain exactly to purge religion? 20 million?

That was politics, not atheism. It appears to be a cheap and easy point, but show an obvious lack understanding in atheism.

 

There are more ethnic Norwegians that committ crimes than immigrants so I'm guessing police should harass you more often than immigrants?

That is not true. In Oslo, SSB states that immigrants are overrepresentet on the statisitcs when it comes to crime. Also 100% of the assult rapes in oslo the last three years is comitted by an immigrant.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that in most cases the statistical difference between crime rates of racial groups does not justify profiling. If 98 % of ethnic Norwegians are law abiding and 95% of utlendinger are law abiding, profiling just another name for racism

No, it is not. It is the truth we need to hear and accept in order to do something with the problem. It is no use aiming education against against one group, when statistics clearly show that this is not the group that in fact does the crime.

 

Its would be the same as to have women checked for testicular cancer, just to not insult anyone byt not treating everyone equal.

[jjkoggan]

 

Surgeons does not have the needed education or competanse to make any statement with authority. It is like asking a car mechanic how to optimize the efficiency of an engine.

 

Ask scienentists or psychologists about it, and see a totally different opinion.

. I an a scoentist myself. Many scientists are religious, and in all fields. Some of the best scientists in the USA teach at religious universities. Knowledge is not the determining factor

 

BTW. Neurosurgeons are scientists too with at least PhD level knowledge in biomedical science and are required to study psychology

 

You cant say "atheists" are evil, because there are no links between atheism and evil. Atheism is "lack of belief". And lack of belief does not tell you to do evil. Persons do evil on their own.

. Simply believing in the existence of a god(s) does not in itself imply behaviour positive or negative either. It is the values you extend from these belief systems (believing there is no god is a belief) that create behaviours positive or negative

 

 

That was politics, not atheism. It appears to be a cheap and easy point, but show an obvious lack understanding in atheism.

Most atrocities committed by nations are motivated by politics and power more than religion or in the case of Lenin/Stalinism a belief that religion is evil which is not atheism in its simplest form but the atheism (god doesn't exist) usually includes a belief that religion is evil. In the case of Lenin/Stalin that led to horrific atrocities. So far I have not met an atheist who thinks religion is not pratique destructive and evil. It's good that few elect to violently oppose it

 

That is not true. In Oslo, SSB states that immigrants are overrepresentet on the statisitcs when it comes to crime. Also 100% of the assult rapes in oslo the last three years is comitted by an immigrant.

immigrants are over represented in crime in Norway, that is true but there area my more ethnic Norwegians than immigrants such that more than 80% of all the crime in Norway is committed by ethnic Norwegians

 

Do the math and you will see, there are more ethnic Norwegian criminals than immigrant criminals with the exception of assault rape. Racial profiling should then focus on ethnic Norwegians, not immigrants. You would catch a lower percentage but you would catch many more in absolute numbers

Endret 3. juni 2013 av jjkoggan

[Zepticon]

I an a scoentist myself. Many scientists are religious, and in all fields. Some of the best scientists in the USA teach at religious universities. Knowledge is not the determining factor

 

BTW. Neurosurgeons are scientists too with at least PhD level knowledge in biomedical science and are required to study psychology

And how does the relgiousness in people with higher education compare to the rest of the population?

There are a few 10% percent of the American population that does not believe in a personal god.

For academics with an higher education, this number is 60%.

And if you only look at the top elite of scientists in the US 85% does not believe in a personal god.

 

What does this tell you? Let me help: The more educated people become, the less they believe in fairytales.

 

Simply believing in the existence of a god(s) does not in itself imply behaviour positive or negative either. It is the values you extend from these belief systems (believing there is no god is a belief) that create behaviours positive or negative

Firstly, beleif in a higher beeing, moves the responsibility for your action sup one level. Your bad moral is not YOUR fault, it is your gods. You are doing gods work. "He told me to!"

 

Secondly, lack of belief is just as much a belief as baldness is a hair color.

I have never said i belive there is no god, i just dont belive there is one.

 

 

Most atrocities committed by nations are motivated by politics and power more than religion

Say what? Have you read any history at all? Not to mention he dark ages the entire middle east conflict is between two large religious groups, Jews, and muslims. Tou also have 9/11 terrorism, war in Lebanon and Bosnia, and the list goes on and on.

 

or in the case of Lenin/Stalinism a belief that religion is evil which is not atheism in its simplest form but the atheism (god doesn't exist) usually includes a belief that religion is evil. In the case of Lenin/Stalin that led to horrific atrocities.

Religion and Communism have never been god friends. Marx stated this pretty clearly: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." And Marxism/Communism/Leninism is as i said, politics, not atheism.

 

But yes, many atheists are not very big fans of religion, and believes the world would be a better place without it.

 

So far I have not met an atheist who thinks religion is not pratique destructive and evil. It's good that few elect to violently oppose it

Replace few with, none. There have never been, and will never be violence wehre atheism is the trigger factor. This is simply because atheims, is "nothing" and cant trigger anything.

 

immigrants are over represented in crime in Norway, that is true but there area my more ethnic Norwegians than immigrants such that more than 80% of all the crime in Norway is committed by ethnic Norwegians

Yes? And the point beeing? When we compare the results we still see that per 1000th person, more immigrants commit crimes than ethnic norwegians.

 

Do the math and you will see, there are more ethnic Norwegian criminals than immigrant criminals with the exception of assault rape. Racial profiling should then focus on ethnic Norwegians, not immigrants. You would catch a lower percentage but you would catch many more in absolute numbers

That is not, and have never been the point. Profiling can, and should e used to work more effectivly agianst crime. Young ethnic norwegian males are over represented in traffic crime, focus the preventive work on them. Immigrants are over represented in assault rape, focus on them if you want to prevent it. Similar statistics can be collected on many types of crimes, and the work can be alot more effective.

[тurbonєℓℓo]

The overall tone of your personal opinion about the religious is condescending.

Yes... It may be. I do not believe as they do. I think that what they believe is stupid... But I did not say that all the people that believe in Jesus are stupid. Some of them are of course... But not all. But why do you care about that? Most of the religious sects around the world does not have a positive overall tone when it comes to their opinion of us atheists... Why should I not have a condescending tone when it comes to the ignorant Christians? (I did not say everyone that is Christians are ignorant, but surely they exists too...)

 

If Christians were "realistic", would " know the bible as well as atheists" or if I read your atheist link it would "teach" me something I presumably didn't already know.

If you do not learn something, because you already know it, then you are ignorant of these facts...

 

This, presumptuous, arrogant personal opinion implies that many? all? some? Christians are ignorant because they are unaware

No, no no... I think that you are making a straw man. I did not say that the Christians who is unaware of such things are ignorant. The people that is ignoring these facts, because of their feelings, or other reasons (afraid of the atheistic view, and such (...)) are ignorant... They who have been confronted and should know better, but ignores all the evidence or our arguments, are ignorants... Not the ones who do not ignore these things, and who have a more agnostic view and are open-minded towards other thougts et cetra (...)

 

of biblical contradictions and how believing in the supernatural is irrational.

Yes. Believing in a supernatural being is irrational... It have nothing to do with rationality...

 

On the other hand, if they were students of the bible like you(this implies they are not) and read the links that you do (they are presumably unaware of these contradictions) so they could learn and be more "realistic" they would not suffer the delusions that they do.

If they do a critical analysis of what they believe, read not only Christian links, they would became more reflected, and rational. They would not be as irrational they would be without... If they are intelligent of course. If they do not understand what they read, they would not be any smarter.

 

The overall theme is ignorance, because, after all only ignorance or stupidity would explain the irrational behavior of Christians, right?

Yes, if its true that they are ignoring the facts, yes indeed. If they have not heard of the facts, or the issues, they can not be ignorants. They do not simply have something to ignore. If they are ignoring, Yes, they obviously are ignorants...

 

Einstein(yes he was an atheist) once said about atheists, " They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims"

 

He also understood the limitations of our knowledge and said this-

 

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.”

 

Seen from this perspective, limiting yourself to only what is rational or provable today seems naive and narrow minded.

No. I do not think so... Not when it comes to belief in a certain god described in the bible...

 

I believe there is more out there than what is known today

And I also do... But not a supernatural creator god that created our world...

It is simply not possible if you look at the facts. If you have some insight in how things came to be, you can not come to the conclusion that it is the Christian-Jewish God that stands behind it all...

 

and not thoroughly irrational or stupid that there is a supernatural, unifying guiding force behind it.

It is not rational. It is by its own nature irrational. But its more irrational to think that it is the Christian or the Muslim, or the Jewish god that is this supernatural unifying guiding force behind it, than to asume there is a god of some kind...

 

Some scholars even argue that Einstein left the door open for that possiblity himself even though he did not believe in a personal god.

You are now using the logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia...._from_authority

 

What I object to most is the naivity and arrogance of the atheist who doesn't see that we all are limited in our knowledge and wants to be condescending to those that harbor a suspicion of the unknown.

Hmm... I did not know that atheists didn't see that we are limited in our knowledge?

Is the overall tone of your personal opinion about the atheist condescending? Or do I miss understand?

Endret 3. juni 2013 av turbonello