[mxlm]

They don't act that way because they intend to offend you, they probably just feel threatened and are acting out of a supposed need to defend themselves. You don't know what they have passed, or the motives behind their behaviour.

The second sentence here indicates that you probably shouldn't have written the first.

But don't worry, I'm just trolling.

[el_magnifico]

They don't act that way because they intend to offend you, they probably just feel threatened and are acting out of a supposed need to defend themselves. You don't know what they have passed, or the motives behind their behaviour.

The second sentence here indicates that you probably shouldn't have written the first.

I fail to see the contradiction, but maybe I redacted it wrong. Let me explain it: It's possible (note that I say possible, I'm not saying I know it for sure) that they act in the way they do because, as atheists, they have received a considerable amount of violence or discrimination from society, which in turn put them on a defensive mood. This is just speculation, based on my own personal experience in the other side of the fence, being a catholic frequently prejudged because of being so.
What I do affirm is that whatever happened to them, they weren't just born being atheists and acting the way they do, just like I wasn't born being catholic and acting the way I do. Our behaviour and ideologies are influenced by our memories and the things we have lived through, amongst other things, at least in my experience.

But don't worry, I'm just trolling.

I see you're offended. Let me put this clear: It was (and is) my opinion that your comment, either deliberately or not, was trolling. First of all, I'm not necessarily right. My word isn't the absolute truth, because I'm just another person. No more, no less. Second, I'm not saying that each and every one of those 203 posts were trolling (because, I assume you would have been banned long ago if that was the case). I'm not even saying a single one of those posts was trolling, apart from the one in the first page of this thread. You have to admit your intervention wasn't very tactful, as much as I have to admit I was unnecessarily blunt. In fact, I'm usually blunt even when trying to avoid it and sometimes without even realizing it. If I offended you in any way, I want you to know that it wasn't intentional, and I apologize.

[Aardwolf]

It's not trolling if it isn't deliberate.

Also, FYI iamzack's a chick, not a dude.

[el_magnifico]

It's not trolling if it isn't deliberate.

And it seemed deliberate to me.
Besides, I really don't understand why he cares so much about the opinion of some random stranger that's probably oceans away and that never spoke to him before. It's not like anybody ever listens to me around here anyway.

Also, FYI iamzack's a chick, not a dude.

Yes, I know that. Where did I said she was a man? It was probably a typo.

[Aardwolf]

I learned something interesting!

Lead-up (skip this part if bored): I had just come up with this great idea, and was telling someone about it, and apparently Thomas Jefferson beat me to it.

TL; DR version: My idea was basically that people should get out the scissors and cut out all the parts of the Bible they don't believe are literally true. Apparently, Thomas Jefferson already had that idea. Now that I'm writing this up, I've also gone and looked up the details; here's the Wikipedia article about Thomas Jefferson and Religion.

So Yeah (conclusion): Let's see some scissors moving! Or text editors, seeing as we've got the technology for it.

[Scotty]

This seems to be an idea that might have some merit to it.  I don't know about cutting out part that one doesn't think are literally true, as they still have lessons in them, but the idea isn't a bad one.

Personally, I tend to ignore everything New Testament that didn't come from Jesus himself.

[StarSlayer]

The Bible edited by River Tam

[Mars]

Okay, that passes. In that case, I will still shun all religious people until I know their beliefs well enough to determine that they are safe to interact with. That's instead of just shunning them forever and pretending they don't exist.

You are not being rational.

[NGTM-1R]

It's zack. That's expected.

[iamzack]

I didn't say it was rational. I treat religious people like I treat strangers. I'm sure most of them don't have bombs strapped to their chests, but it's not worth it to me to find out.

[Ravenholme]

I didn't say it was rational. I treat religious people like I treat strangers. I'm sure most of them don't have bombs strapped to their chests, but it's not worth it to me to find out.

You must be mighty weird to strangers, then. Since, y'know, everyone is a stranger at first.

[iamzack]

That's an understatement.

[Nuke]

people just need to filter out the folk tales. there are lots of these at the start of the old testament. many of which were most likely passed word of mouth generation to generation until someone who knew how to write (moses) wrote them down. while it may be a 4000+ year old theory of everything, and taking it as literal can be a very detrimental thing. then again they are full of allegorical tales, some of which are actually useful. it makes little since just to rip them out of the book. it seems it would make more since to shoot all the people who think they are facts in the ****ing head.

then you got the new testament which starts out as a bunch of low life jesus fanbois tell everyone how "cool" he is. i kinda look at that in the same light as the manson family, a mere cult of personality. many of the people who wrote the new testament where total quacks. depictions of john the baptist or whoever the **** that cricket eating mother ****er was that wrote revelation, was obviously insane. this in itself doesnt bother me. what bothers me is that the disciples that had the capacity for reason had their books conveniently removed from the canonization of the bible. you want a god damned source, watch all those bible documentaries on the ****ing history channel.

[Marcov]

For the Old Testament, some of it may be made up of Jewish mythos/legends probably similar to Robin Hood/King Arthur or something.

For the Newer one, I think there are already too many evidences that it's almost impossible to disprove the existence of Christ. Also, Jesus preached an ideology contradicting that of the Jews, but would be more acceptable to modern us, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Nuke]

my arguments were not about the existence of christ. historical records are everywhere about that. my questions revolved around the intentions of christ and the nature relationship between him and his his followers. my second argument is that some hundreds of years later why some of the disciples' books were canonized, and some left out. cult of personality is a good answer to the first, and the second, because the books seemed contradictory to the others, and those involved in canonization were trying to engineer a convincing religion (i have always considered this a means to preserve the collapsing roman empire) and couldnt have any books contrary to the existing canon.

[Aardwolf]

Wow, I've never seen this side of Nuke before.

[QuantumDelta]

Sorry but considering how many "Jesuses" .... "Jesii?" there were before Jesus (Horus, Attis, Bacchus, Dionysus, Mithra, Krishna, Dumuzu, Zarathustra, Hercules, Buddha, Lao Zi, Karna (though he has more in common with Moses), Hell even Alexander the Great to a degree) You can't call him a historical fact Not based on accounts from the bible.

Most of the above were from virgin births on the 25th of december born in a manger, or cave almost all had been 'fortold' and quite a few had celestial events coinciding with their birth.

Of these, Jesus was the last.


Edit;
Half of them were crucified, buried and then resurrected 3 days later too btw.
The "Original" on this list, if there is truly an original for this, would probably be Dumuzu.

[Nuke]

you left out charles manson

im sure each and every one of them were real people. real people who through their actions and ideas created a cult of personality around them. they were killed for being asshats in the eyes of the norm, and subsequently deified by their followers. it is a very common pattern. very similar to what happened to my favorite hippie.

[QuantumDelta]

There's quite a few more examples after Christ.... I left all of those out

[Nuke]

since you posted before i finished my edit (i tend to go back and backup my asshat remarks with a reasoning behind it, some time after i post them), i will simply add that the existence of the religions, ledgends, and stories is enough evidence to show these people existed. it is entirely possible that they could have been faked, but why? whats the point? its more likely that the people did exist, and left it to their followers to embellish the story and jump to unlikely conclusions (things like immaculate conception, zombification, and that they are children of some deity).