Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest roger

The Atheism Thread

where do you stand?   149 members have voted

  1. 1. if you had to pick...

    • Atheist
      86
    • Agnostic
      56
    • Deist
      2
    • Theist
      5

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
277 posts in this topic

imo one mans belief ,is just another mans religion,so im probably further away from the above belief options than i am from any religion.

Share this post


Link to post
The flipside argument is true as well, though - if God cannot be disproved, neither can it be proved. And if one wishes to go there, to get into that realm of philosophy then one can argue that nothing can be proved or disproved, that in fact reality itself is an illusion, that all that exists are consensual reality and personal reality, both of which are subjective, and that there is no such thing as objective reality. That all our perceptions, all our senses, all we experience are merely products of our own minds and as such are unreliable.

Are you the ruler of the universe by any chance? :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post

invisible-god.gif

lulz

Share this post


Link to post

from the US : http://www.atheists.org/christianity/hangemall.html

All over our country - in the north as well as the south - the battle cry is "Hang Ten!" Ten Commandments, that is. Clergymen, judges, governors, and legislatures have echoed the call. The states are beginning to command by fiat of law that the primitive taboos recorded in the Hebrew bible be displayed on courthouse lawns, in judicial chambers, in halls of legislative assemblies, and in public schools.

Everywhere the claim is made that America was founded on the Ten Commandments - or at least that its system of law and justice is based on that biblical code. Not even the Chief Justice of the United States seems to realize that our governmental system represents a reaction to the principles inherent in that code - in some cases a mighty rejection of that code.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution, for example, is an eloquent repudiation of the First Commandment's prohibition of religious freedom. It is also a repudiation of the Third Commandment's prohibition of freedom of speech.

The Thirteenth Amendment repudiates the institution of slavery which is so cozily assumed by the Fourth and Tenth Protestant Commandments.

Consider: what could be more American than the principle that every person is to be held accountable for his or her crimes only? Could anything be more un-American than the Second Commandment's warning that "I Yahweh, thy God, am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…"? Not even the Common Law would have hung a man because his grandfather had stolen a horse! The Second Commandment (conveniently not enumerated in Catholic epitomes of the "Decalogue") also prohibits the making of "any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth." That would rule out all representational art - including dollar bills that bear the likeness of George Washington! What could be more American than Greenbacks? Yet Chief Justice William Rehnquist seems still to cling to his 1980 opinion that "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States." [stone v Graham, 449 US 39.101 S. Ct. 192.66 L.Ed. 2d 199 (1980)]

The hanging of the Ten Commandments is fraught with problems never considered by the pandering politicians who so eagerly rush to collect the votes of their most superstitious constituents. For example, there is never any discussion as to which of the three sets of Ten Commandments the Bible claims to be "it" should be used. Nor is there any discussion as to which epitome of any one of these sets should be used: Jewish, Protestant, or Catholic. It is blithely assumed that all theists should be happy with their "Hang-Ten" efforts. Yet it is hard to imagine "idolatrous Catholics" being happy with a public monument displaying a Protestant commandment prohibiting their cultic peculiarities. Nor does it seem that Jews could be happy with plaques writing out the whole word "God" - regardless of which set or version is engraved upon the plaque. Orthodox Jews, be it remembered, have a taboo against "uttering" the name of their deity. The prohibition in Leviticus 24:16 ("Whoever utters the Name of the Lord shall be put to death") is taken very seriously. Not only do they not write out fully their god's proper name -Yahweh - they avoid it wherever possible. Just as with Protestant and Catholic versions of the Ten Commandments, the Jewish English versions substitute the word "Lord" for the heap-big-medicine name "Yahweh." In fact, the Orthodox go to the absurd extreme of writing "G-d" for "God" - which Christians fearlessly spell out in its capitalized entirety. Certainly it will shock the sensibilities of Jewish constituents to see public displays that spell "God" with a vowel.

In addition to the problems of which set of commandments to display and whose epitomized versions to enumerate, there is a further problem never considered by the politicians: What are the commandments supposed to mean, and whose interpretations are to be granted state backing? Is the commandment that prohibits "bearing false witness" against one's neighbor a rule for behavior in a court of law, or is it a prohibition of lying or gossiping? Are the prohibitions against "coveting" injunctions against envy, or are they (as some anthropologists claim) a ban against use of the "evil eye"? Is "Thou shalt not kill" a universal ban on killing - of flies and flamingoes as well as fetuses or Fascists - or is it a prohibition of murder? What is murder?

A Modest Proposal

Considering the above-mentioned problems, it seems to me the only solution to the problem of hanging commandments is this: hang them all! Hang all three sets in full text - don't hang just the epitomes. Make sure they are the best English translations possible, rendering the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH as "Yahweh," not the namby-pamby "Lord" of nearly all current translations. (Political correctness would make it advisable for a Spanish-language version be mounted also, wherever Hispanic votes are a force to be reckoned with.) Then, so the probable meaning of the texts can be inferred, mount other biblical verses that seem to clarify Yahweh's intentions on the three occasions when he asked Moses to report the "Big Ten." We should mount all the commandments in adjacent chapters in Exodus and Deuteronomy so the full context can be understood by the average school child or visitor to a courthouse.

Of course, very large walls will be needed for this civic purpose. If monuments are to be erected, care will have to be taken lest they take on the appearance of the Berlin Wall, since thoroughness perforce will make commandment hangers want to stretch their displays as far as necessary.

Let us now consider what all should be displayed upon The Great Wall Of America.

Three Sets of Ten

The standard set of Ten Commandments usually cited by Catholics and Protestants alike is to be found in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. If the full text were mounted - not just the differing epitomes - readers could puzzle out the numbers on their own, so neither Catholic nor Protestant would feel the sting of any governmental discrimination. (Atheists, of course, are never considered important in such deliberations.) The Deuteronomy Ten would read as follows, making the corrections to the text as indicated above:

Deut. 5:6 I am Yahweh thy god, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I Yahweh, thy god am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy god in vain: for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

5:12 Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as Yahweh thy god hath commanded thee.

5:13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:

5:14 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Yahweh thy god: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy male slave, nor thy female slave, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy male slave and thy female slave may rest as well as thou.

5:15 And remember that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and that Yahweh thy god brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore Yahweh thy god commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.

5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as Yahweh thy god hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which Yahweh thy god giveth thee.

5:17 Thou shalt not kill.

5:18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

5:19 Neither shalt thou steal.

5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.

5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou cast an evil eye upon thy neighbour's house, his field, or his male slave, or his female slave, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

5:22 These words Yahweh spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me [Moshe].

I am sure readers will agree that the above corrected translation is much more interesting than the usual listings of the Ten Taboos commonly used in Sunday schools. The uncivilized and primitive - as well as petty - nature of these admonitions is much more obvious when the name of a minor Near Eastern deity is used instead of the grandiose and abstract "the Lord." Then too, the implicit toleration of slavery in this code is more obvious when "servant" is replaced by "slave" - more accurately representing the meaning of the Hebrew text. Finally, replacing the wishy-washy word "covet" with "cast an evil eye" underscores the abysmal ignorance and superstition of the author of this code. One can easily imagine him sporting a garlic necklace and mounting a rabbit's foot on the end of his paddle.

Right beside the Deuteronomy code, we would want to mount the full text of the commandments listed in Exodus chapter 20. We do not need to print the full text of that set here, since in all but several details it is identical to the Deuteronomic text. Nevertheless, the differences are important and must be pointed out. In both sets, Jews are forbidden to work their slaves on the Sabbath. However, the rationale for this oddly humane prohibition is different in Deuteronomy and Exodus. Whereas in Deuteronomy the rationale is that the Jews themselves had once been slaves in Egypt - and should therefore be sympathetic to the condition of their own slaves - the rationale in Exodus is much more primitive:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Posting the Exodus 20 set of commandments in full text would have the beneficial effect of showing attentive readers that the god they worship is not infinitely powerful: he gets tired too. Readers might start to wonder what might happen to the world if Yahweh is prone to napping while resting. If he's sleeping on the days worshipers are in church praying to him...

The other difference is that "coveting" is mentioned twice in the Exodus commandments instead of once as in Deuteronomy, and the order of what is not to be "desired" or "coveted" is reversed. Exodus forbids evil-eyeing the neighbor's house before forbidding the evil-eyeing of his wife. This order makes it a bit more clear that wives are merely chattels - movable property. Yahweh certainly would never allow them to vote or drive an automobile without a chaperone.

Ten More To Hang

It seems almost certain that the lawmakers and judges who are clamoring to have the Ten Commandments hung on public walls do not know that there are three different versions printed in their bibles. Still more certain is that they do not know how bizarre the third set is, nor that it arguably is the oldest (most authentic?) version of the Decalogue. It is found in the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus:

Exod 34:1 and Yahweh said unto Moses, hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

34:2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto Mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

34:3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.

34:4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto Mount Sinai, as Yahweh had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

34:5 And Yahweh descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name Yahweh.

34:6 And Yahweh passed by before him, and proclaimed, Yahweh, Yahweh El, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

34:7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

34:8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

34:9 And he said, if now I have found grace in thy sight, my Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

34:10 And he said, behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of Yahweh: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

34:11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Ten Cultic Commandments

The First Commandment

34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

The Second Commandment

34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god:

34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

The Third Commandment

34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

The Fourth Commandment

34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

The Fifth Commandment

34:19 Every first birth of the womb is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

The Sixth Commandment

34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

The Seventh Commandment

34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the years end.

34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before Lord Yahweh, the god of Israel.

34:24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before Yahweh thy god thrice in the year.

The Eighth Commandment

34:25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.

The Ninth Commandment

34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of Yahweh thy god.

The Tenth Commandment

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk.

Christianity

Christianity Home

Being Seen

Bible & Jesus Myth

Biblical Contradictions

Christian Fish

Daniel in the Debunker's Den

Did Jesus Exist?

Fundamentalism

Hang 'Em All

How Jesus Got A Life

Mary "Faker" Eddy

Nativity Potpourri

Of Bones and Boners

Origins of Mormonism

Race & Religion

The Real Bible

Rehnquist & Ten Taboos

The Twelve: Further Fictions

Spiritual Guide to Gracious Living

Where Jesus Never Walked

To make clear the context and to make people understand that the above commandments (which I have taken the liberty of numbering as one through ten) are really the Big Ten, not just some other commandments Yahweh fancied to add, several of the verses following them should be mounted also:

34:27 And Yahweh said unto Moses, write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

34:28 And he was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.

34:30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

34:31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.

34:32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that Yahweh had spoken with him in Mount Sinai.

If this third set of the Big Ten were displayed, the cultic origins of the so-called moral code would be a bit more obvious. What moral quality is a Gentile going to perceive in abstaining from Goat Stroganoff? It would make it clear that the Decalogue is really just a "Jewish thing," replete with animal sacrifice, special festivals, and opportunities for priests to parasitize the people. (Who do you think ends up eating all those firstfruits and first-borns?) It also should underscore the religious intolerance behind the Ten Commandments, thus highlighting the un-American nature of the code.

Readers of the third set might also be astute enough to note that although Yahweh is represented as promising to write the Decalogue on stone tablets provided by Moses, in the end it is Moses who is indicated as having done the writing - even though nowhere in the text does it indicate he took with him a chisel. It merely says, "And Yahweh said unto Moses, write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." For all anyone might suppose, Moses was taking dictation with pen and papyrus!

The implication of animal sacrifice in the Ten Commandments should appall any right-thinking American - even if he or she isn't an animal-rights activist. Furthermore, reading about 'redeeming' "All the firstborn of thy sons," thoughtful readers might conclude that human sacrifice was originally required. They would, of course, be correct in this inference.

In Leviticus - the book in which Yahweh's taboo manufacturing goes into overdrive - we are commanded (verses 28-29): "Nothing which a man devotes to Yahweh irredeemably from his own property, whether man or beast or ancestral land, may be sold or redeemed. Everything so devoted is most holy to Yahweh. No human being thus devoted may be redeemed, but he shall be put to death." We must suppose that humans thus sacrificed were not eaten by the priests as were the oxen and sheep. But who knows what the Levite appetite may have been like in those barbarous times?

Jews and Christians alike often make a big deal out of the story in Genesis 22 about Yahweh commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac but then, just as Abraham is about to perform the holy deed, stopping the slaughter with the explanation "This was just a test." Hustlers for holiness never mention the more primitive case of Jephthah's daughter - a case where Yahweh receives the life of an innocent girl, completely in accordance with the Leviticus quotation just cited.

The story of Jephthah's daughter is recorded in the eleventh chapter of Judges, beginning with verse 29:

Then the spirit of Yahweh came upon Jephthah and he passed through Gilead and Manaseh… Jephthah made this vow to Yahweh: 'If thou will deliver the Amonites into my hands, then the first creature that comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return from them in peace shall be given to Yahweh; I will offer that as a whole-offering.' So Jephthah crossed over to attack the Ammonites, and Yahweh delivered them into his hands… But when Jephthah came to his house in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him with tambourines and dances but his daughter, and she his only child… When he saw her he rented his clothes and said, 'Alas, my daughter, you have broken my heart… I have made a vow to Yahweh and I cannot go back.' She replied, 'Father, you have made a vow to Yahweh; do to me what you have solemnly vowed, since Yahweh has avenged you on the Ammonites, your enemies. But, father, grant me this one favor. For two months let me be, that I may roam the hills with my companions and mourn that I must die a virgin.' … At the end of two months she came back to her father, and he fulfilled the vow he had made; she died a virgin. [New English Bible, modified]

For Further Clarification

Readers will agree that mounting all the texts and stories quoted above would greatly improve citizens' understanding of the Thirty Commandments, some ten of which politicians want to hang. Too easily, one might suppose that all the commandments are to be interpreted in some absolute manner. If one has only the epitome "Thou shalt not kill," for instance, it is easy to suppose that killing is prohibited. To clarify just what the Sixth Protestant Commandment actually means, we should also hang on the wall some other commandments of Yahweh that serve to limit such sweeping understandings.

We have already cited the commandment of human sacrifice in Lev. 28-29. That certainly should be mounted on the wall right beside the first and second Sixth Commandments. Right after that, we should mount Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and 22:19 "Whosoever lieth with a beast, shall surely be put to death."

Further clarification (although perhaps not edification) of the limits placed by Yahweh's biographers on the killing commandment can be had from other verses in Exodus, from chapters between the first and second sets of Ten Commandments to be found in that book.

Thou Shalt Kill

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto Yahweh only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exodus 21: 17 And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21: 20-21 And if a man smite his slave or his slavegirl with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished: Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. (This one may take a bit of puzzling out on its own, and perhaps it should be mounted beside one of the commandments that presupposes slavery.)

Exodus 22:2 If a burglar is caught in the act and is fatally injured, it is not murder; but if he breaks in after sunrise and is fatally injured, then it is murder. [NEB, modified]

There is another commandment which, although in purport it is a killing commandment, perhaps should be mounted beside the Yahweh's Name commandment. It is found in Leviticus 24:13-16: Yahweh spoke to Moses and said, Take the man who blasphemed out of the camp. Everyone who heard him shall put a hand on his head, and then all the community shall stone him to death. You shall say to the Israelites: When any man whatever blasphemes his God, he shall accept responsibility for his sin. Whoever utters the Name Yahweh shall be put to death: all the community shall stone him; alien or native, if he utters the Name, he shall be put to death. [New English Bible, modified]

Another lovely commandment which all capital punishment advocates will be gratified to see published on public walls is found in Leviticus 24:17: "And he that killeth any man, shall surely be put to death." The "Family Values" people also will be pleased to see the tough-love commandment in Deuteronomy 21:18-21: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the Elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place: And they shall say unto the Elders of his city, This our son is stubborn, and rebellious, he will not obey our voice: he is a glutton and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Just in case readers of public walls should want to rush right out and start obeying all these killing commandments, it is necessary that they be aware of a curious restriction Yahweh is alleged to have placed on such sacred slaughter. Right after the kill-your-drunken-son commandment, in Deuteronomy 24:22-23 we read:

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day: for he that is hanged, is accursed of God; that thy land be not defiled, which Yahweh thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Alas, the Good Book gives no hint as to what "inheritance" modern followers of this commandment may expect to receive, nor in which governmental agency to apply for the righteousness reward. Deeper understanding of the anti-killing commandment would also be gained by sundry verses in Deuteronomy, such as the following:

When a man takes a wife and after having intercourse with her turns against her and brings trumped-up charges against her, giving her a bad name and saying, 'I took this woman and slept with her and did not find proof of virginity in her', then the girl's father and mother shall take the proof of her virginity to the elders of the town, at the town gate. The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, and he has turned against her. He has trumped up a charge and said, "I have not found proofs of virginity in your daughter." Here are the proofs.' They shall then spread the garment before the elders of the town. The elders shall take the man and punish him: they shall fine him a hundred pieces of silver because he has given a bad name to a virgin of Israel, and hand them to the girl's father. She shall be his wife: he is not free to divorce her all his life long. If on the other hand, the accusation is true and no proof of the girl's virginity is found, then they shall bring her out to the door of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death. [New English Bible]

Just where, exactly, one is to find the town gates of Brooklyn or Miami Beach is unclear - as is the question of how the stoning is to be carried out if the non-virgin's father's "house" happens to be an apartment at the Waldorf. But no one ever claimed that the life of the Bible-believer would be easy.

All Christians would agree that Yahweh would have been out of his mind if his anti-killing commandment had been in any way intended to outlaw war. To understand the deadly dimensions of biblical warfare, a brutal passage from Deuteronomy 20:11-18 should be scribed upon the school-room walls:

When you advance on a city to attack it, make an offer of peace. … If it does not make peace with you but offers battle, you shall besiege it, and Yahweh your God will deliver it into your hands. You shall put all its males to the sword, but you may take the women, the dependants, and the cattle for yourselves, and plunder everything else in the city. You may enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemies which Yahweh your God gives you. That is what you shall do to cities at a great distance, as opposed to those which belong to nations near at hand. In the cities of these nations whose land Yahweh your God is giving you as a patrimony, you shall not leave any creature alive. You shall annihilate them - Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites - as Yahweh your God commanded you, so that they may not teach you to imitate all the abominable things that they have done for their gods and so cause you to sin against Yahweh your God. [New English Bible, modified]

Finally, since Right-to-Single-Celled-Lifers (otherwise known as Compulsory Pregnancy People) seem not to be very well versed in the holy book they think they are defending, a passage showing that abortion is not murder - rather an offence on the level of a parking ticket - should be engraved upon school-room walls (perhaps in the restrooms). It is found in Exodus 21: 22:

When, in the course of a brawl, a man knocks against a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but suffers no further hurt, then the offender must pay whatever fine the woman's husband demands after assessment.

To be sure, the passage refers to accidental abortion. But considering that in the entire Judaeo-Christian bible there is not a single mention - let alone prohibition - of intentional abortion, and considering the fact that the Bible does decree death for such seemingly trivial offenses as pronouncing the name 'Yahweh' or for working on the seventh day of the week, it should be obvious that intentional abortion was too trivial to merit mention by the Lord of Hosts.

Space does not permit listing all the other biblical passages that should be mounted for the purpose of clarifying the Ten-Times-Three Commandments. There are many that would need to be cited to explain the institution of slavery, the sacred inferiority of women, and the biblically abominable practice of homosexuality. Even the question of killing could be better understood if several dozen more passages were mounted - despite the considerable attention I have given to the problem in citing the passages presented above. Nevertheless, we may hope that the public walls on which the commandments are to be mounted have more space available than does this journal.

If "the" Ten Commandments are to be hung upon the public walls of America, not just epitomes should be hung. Jews, Catholics, and Protestants epitomize differently. Hanging only one type of epitome would discriminate against the other two. Complete texts of the Commandments should be hung to avoid discriminating against any major "Faith-Based Organization." But hanging just one of the three available sets of ten would also leave one open to charges of discrimination. So all three sets of commandments the Bible claims to be the Ten should be displayed. Finally, since these admonitions are so difficult for modern minds to understand or interpret, other commandments such as those quoted in this article should be hung beside the Big Ten.

My advice to the legislators and judges who are rushing to "Hang Ten!" is that they should not be faint-hearted in their efforts by hanging only epitomes of the commandments. I say, hang 'em all - completely!

Share this post


Link to post
imo one mans belief ,is just another mans religion,so im probably further away from the above belief options than i am from any religion.

so where would you say that you do stand?

Share this post


Link to post

State senator sues God :rofl:

Lawmaker asks court to ban Almighty from 'harmful activities,' 'terroristic threats' August 05, 2008

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71524

A Nebraska state senator is moving forward with a controversial lawsuit against his maker, requesting "a permanent injunction ordering [God] to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats."

State Sen. Ernie Chambers, I-Omaha, appeared before Douglas County District Judge Marlon Polk in a scheduling hearing against God on July 28.

Chambers, an atheist, requested that the court acknowledge the presence of God in the courtroom so he wouldn't be required to "serve notice" of the trial, according to the Omaha World-Herald.

The court had previously told Chambers the lawsuit would be thrown out if he was unable to serve notice to his Creator.

Chambers responded by arguing he attempted to contact God on multiple occasions and he should not be required to verify his existence when the U.S. government acknowledges him by printing "In God We Trust" on its currency.

The complaint drew widespread criticism when Chambers filed the lawsuit against God last year for creating "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like."

Chambers also blames God for causing "calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction."

According to the lawsuit, the Creator "has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that defendant will laugh" when disaster strikes.

Chamber began his grievance as a way to call attention to "frivolous" lawsuits after several senators authored bills barring them. He said the Constitution mandates open courthouse doors to everyone – even those who seek to sue the Almighty.

"This started out as an exercise in the workings of the judiciary," he said. "My point and the crux of the matter is that everyone is entitled to their day in court. That's the whole crux of the matter, and I think people get caught up in the religion end of it – but that's not what this is about."

While Chambers hopes the court will rule against God, he doesn't expect any earth-shaking results from the decision.

"Once the court enters the injunction, that's as much as I can do," he told the World-Herald. "That's as much as I would ask the court. I wouldn't expect them to enforce it."

Edited by roger

Share this post


Link to post

Religion to me is old age law. Just as much bollox as the current age law. Only the threats and punishments these days are more tangible. I don't know what that makes me. Religion is derived from philosophy and packaged to control. I'm god in my universe, in my reality, because I have will, choice and freedom to do as I please. The faith I have is in me.

Share this post


Link to post
State senator sues God :(

Lawmaker asks court to ban Almighty from 'harmful activities,' 'terroristic threats' August 05, 2008

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71524

A Nebraska state senator is moving forward with a controversial lawsuit against his maker, requesting "a permanent injunction ordering [God] to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats."

State Sen. Ernie Chambers, I-Omaha, appeared before Douglas County District Judge Marlon Polk in a scheduling hearing against God on July 28.

Chambers, an atheist, requested that the court acknowledge the presence of God in the courtroom so he wouldn't be required to "serve notice" of the trial, according to the Omaha World-Herald.

The court had previously told Chambers the lawsuit would be thrown out if he was unable to serve notice to his Creator.

Chambers responded by arguing he attempted to contact God on multiple occasions and he should not be required to verify his existence when the U.S. government acknowledges him by printing "In God We Trust" on its currency.

The complaint drew widespread criticism when Chambers filed the lawsuit against God last year for creating "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like."

Chambers also blames God for causing "calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction."

According to the lawsuit, the Creator "has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that defendant will laugh" when disaster strikes.

Chamber began his grievance as a way to call attention to "frivolous" lawsuits after several senators authored bills barring them. He said the Constitution mandates open courthouse doors to everyone – even those who seek to sue the Almighty.

"This started out as an exercise in the workings of the judiciary," he said. "My point and the crux of the matter is that everyone is entitled to their day in court. That's the whole crux of the matter, and I think people get caught up in the religion end of it – but that's not what this is about."

While Chambers hopes the court will rule against God, he doesn't expect any earth-shaking results from the decision.

"Once the court enters the injunction, that's as much as I can do," he told the World-Herald. "That's as much as I would ask the court. I wouldn't expect them to enforce it."

:rofl: Nice one. The world needs more politicians with a sense of humour (shit, the world needs more people with a sense of humour, and the USA certainly does).

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent! lol

Nice post roger,good find. :(

Share this post


Link to post

a bit a bit recent history, ok it may have been a bit of book publicity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cascioli

Luigi Cascioli is an Italian atheist author. When Cascioli was younger he trained to become a Roman Catholic priest, but he left his training to become a pronounced atheist. He asserted that Jesus never existed, but was a fictionalisation of a historical "anti-Roman Jewish insurgent" called John of Gamala.[1] Cascioli's arguments for this hypothesis were presented in his book The Fable of Christ.

In response to this book, in 2002, a local priest, Father Enrico Righi, published a critique of Cascioli in a church newsletter[citation needed]. On September 13, 2002, Cascioli filed a lawsuit against the Catholic Church, and Father Righi in particular, for libel against him, and for promoting fraud by observing that the existence of Christ is historically factual.

Originally, the Italian judge threw out the case, but the Court of Appeal asserted that there was a genuine case to answer. On January 27, 2006, an Italian judge began taking initial hearings to decide whether the case should be allowed to come to court. On February 9, 2006, the judge again threw out the case and recommended an investigation of Cascioli for slander against Father Righi.

On March 20th, 2006, the case was re-evaluated,[2] and in July of that year Cascioli was fined by an Italian appeals court for bringing a fraudulent suit,[3] a prospect that Cascioli dismissed, saying proving the charge would still require Righi to prove Christ's existence.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg had agreed to consider hearing the merits of the case, but the case was closed because the period for presenting the necessary documentation expired.

Share this post


Link to post

one more wiki whilst i'm thinking about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Schools_Foundation

:unsure:

The Emmanuel Schools Foundation (ESF) (previously the Vardy Foundation after its founder, Sir Peter Vardy) intends to set up a total of seven specialist independent schools in the UK under the Government's City Academies Initiative.

At present the foundation runs three facilities- The King's Academy in Middlesbrough, Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead and Trinity Academy in Doncaster. The Foundation put forward an 'expression of interest' to open a second Academy in the Doncaster area, this time in the town of Conisbrough. The scheme, which was enthusiastically backed by Conisbrough council's Aidan Rave and Doncaster Mayor Martin Winter, was shelved following a campaign by the parents of Conisbrough's Northcliffe[1].

ESF has received the green light to build a fourth Academy in the Northumbria area which is to be named Bede Academy (after the famous St. Bede who came from the area).

eta: for each of the above foundation schools the ESF would have had to put £2mil to the gov's £20mil

**********

news article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article447509.ece

Providing millions of pounds to schools to teach creationism is dangerous, say atheist Richard Dawkins and Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford

Edited by roger

Share this post


Link to post
:stoned:

Share this post


Link to post

Unholy warrior - Richard Dawkins interview

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/U...kins.4375690.jp

Published Date: 11 August 2008

By JIM GILCHRIST

Professor Richard Dawkins, who appears at the Edinburgh International Book Festival today, is happy to remain in the vanguard of the fight against creationists and theocrats

THE WORLD’S best-known living atheist sounds slightly piqued. Richard Dawkins, the renowned evolutionary biologist, award-winning author and arch-sceptic, is currently presenting his three-part Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin, during which he takes a London secondary school class on a fossil-collecting trip to Dorset’s “Jurassic Coast”, to introduce them to the rudiments of evolutionary theory.

Some elements in the press have since accused him of foisting atheism on the pupils, a claim he vigorously denies. “It’s very unjust. Never once did I attempt to thrust atheism on these children. I was scrupulously careful not to do that. I was simply trying to persuade them to look at the evidence. It was a pro-evolution point rather than an anti-religious point.

“I do get a bit exasperated at people hearing what they expect me to say, rather than what I do say.”

For Dawkins, author of award-winning books such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and, most recently, his clarion call to atheism, The God Delusion, creation is an awe-inspiring marvel of the natural, rather than supernatural world. In The Genius of Charles Darwin, he describes the pioneer evolutionist’s theories, first published 150 years ago next year, as “perhaps the most powerful idea ever to occur to a human mind”. What he celebrates as the “devastating elegance” of Darwin’s theory of natural selection ineradicably altered the way we look at the world – yet, he says on the programme, possibly as many as four out of ten people in the UK still believe that the Almighty created the Earth and everything in it.

To those of us who have more or less grown up with the concept of evolution, that figure may seem surprising, although in the United States, the legions of those who embrace the Biblical account of creation appear to become ever greater and more strident, particularly in their impact on education, with a recent poll suggesting that one in eight American biology teachers teaches creationism or “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution.

We’re talking in Edinburgh’s Balmoral Hotel, prior to his (sold out) appearance at the Edinburgh Book Festival today. The city has certain resonances: Darwin himself came to Edinburgh to study medicine, and while the blood and guts of mid-19th century surgery repelled him, he sat in on natural history lectures that fired his subsequent thinking. We’re not far, either, from where one of the luminaries of the Scottish Enlightenment, James Hutton, “father of geology” tapped his hammer about Salisbury Crags, striking his own early blow at the Biblical timescale in 1788 when he declared: “We find no vestige of a beginning … no prospect of an end.”

Next year promises to be wall-to-wall Darwin, with the combined 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species and the bicentenary of the ground-breaking naturalist’s birth. Dawkins, a boyish 67 and about to retire from his current post as Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, agrees the anniversaries should strike some blows for evolution, although he doesn’t sound entirely convinced: “One can always hope,” he smiles.

He is deeply concerned at the rise of creationism allied with Christian fundamentalism in the US, and of those he describes as “the theocrats of 21st-century Washington”. Elsewhere, we have Islamic extremists who think nothing of taking countless innocent victims with them on their road to Paradise. The atrocities of 9/11 were something of a watershed in Dawkins’s views on the more pernicious extremes of organised religion.

He himself, of course, has been labelled a secular fundamentalist more than once. “I know: arrogant, strident, shrill, polemical …” he reels off the labels with weary familiarity. “If you actually look at The God Delusion, including those bits people think are strident and shrill and so on, I like to think they’re actually funny.” And he quotes from one passage where he describes the Old Testament deity as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic …” It goes on for some time, but you’ll have got the gist. It is, he says, “an exaggerated set-piece polemic” which invariably raises a laugh when he and his wife, the actress and artist Lalla Ward, use it as an audience warm-up at their joint readings.

The God Delusion he wrote as “a consciousness-raising exercise”, although it appears to have the opposite effect on those who send short and pithy messages of abuse to the forum on his website ( richarddawkins.net – “A Clear-thinking Oasis”), which suggests that, whatever creationists are about, some of them possess a distinctly unevolved litany of expletives. Other responses, however, give him cause for encouragement.

He is all for the “glory of life rather than the glory of God”, but does he worry about pulling the rug out from under the feet of those for whom religion is a huge comfort – the suffering, the bereaved , the lonely? “I do think that is something you can’t ignore,” he replies. “It’s a bit like the dilemma of a doctor who has a patient who has terminal cancer, and the doctor has to decide whether to tell the truth, or regard the patient’s private consolation as outweighing the truth. If I were talking to an individual who had recently been bereaved … I probably would hold my tongue in a way that I don’t for anybody who chooses to read the book.”

Known to profess a soft spot for the Church of England in which he grew up, he doesn’t reject the cultural trappings. “You can’t appreciate English literature, for a start, unless you’re pretty knowledgeable about the Bible, if you don’t understand what it means when someone alludes to “through a glass darkly” or “vanity of vanities”. It would be a step towards barbarism if children had no exposure to these.”

On Desert Island Discs, one of his choices was Bach’s St Matthew Passion – from which he quotes, in German, with some warmth when I mention it. “Just glorious, and it’s not just the music. The drama of the passion of Jesus, as a work of fiction, is something you can lose yourself in, just as one can reading a novel. You don’t have to believe that Heathcliff and Cathy really existed to get caught up in the emotion.”

He certainly can’t be accused of taking himself too seriously, having appeared in a cameo role on Doctor Who earlier this year – (Lalla, his third wife, played Romana, a Time Lady assistant to Tom Baker’s ebullient Doctor, during the late 1970s.)

But the work goes on, and he has another book planned for next year’s Darwin anniversaries. He has been criticised on occasion by fellow scientists who regard his high-profile stance against religion as unhelpful. He acknowledges that, in America especially, the slightest whiff of atheism can curtail any debate about creationism vs evolution. “But if your main object is to understand how the universe works, the question of whether or not there’s a God in the universe is profoundly important.

“So I wouldn’t wish to muzzle myself, or anybody else, for the sake of a skirmish in American schools about evolution.”

• Richard Dawkins’ appearance at the Edinburgh International Book festival today at 11:30am is sold out. The Genius of Charles Darwin continues tonight and next Monday on Channel 4 at 8pm.

RICHARD DAWKINS: A RATIONAL LIFE

1941 Born in Nairobi, where his father is in the British Army.

1949 Family moves back to England, where he has “a normal Anglican upbringing”.

1959 After attending Oundle School near Peterborough, goes to Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962. Continues at Oxford, gaining MA and D Phil degrees in 1966.

1967 Becomes assistant professor of zoology at the University of California at Berkeley.

1970 Lecturer in zoology at Oxford and Fellow of New College.

1976 Publishes The Selfish Gene, which stirs the nature vs nurture debate and becomes an immediate bestseller.

1982 The Extended Phenotype further develops the ideas of The Selfish Gene

1986 Brings out The Blind Watchmaker, a forceful critique of creationist arguments, which wins the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Los Angeles Times literary prize.

1989 Wins Zoological Society of London Silver Medal.

1990 Wins Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of public understanding of science.

1994 Is awarded a Honorary D Litt by the University of St Andrews.

1995 River Out of Eden, about the constant flow of DNA and gradualism in evolution, proves another bestseller.

1995 Becomes Charles Simonyi professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford.

1996 Climbing Mount Improbable further follows the DNA trail.

1998 Publishes Unweaving the Rainbow, which argues that a rational analysis of nature needn’t erode its wonder.

2006 Presents a TV documentary, The Root of All Evil, condemning religion as a malign influence, and publishes The God Delusion, his clarion call for atheism.

2007 Listed in Time magazine as one of 100 most influential people in the world.

2008 Presents The Genius of Charles Darwin for Channel 4.

Share this post


Link to post

Atheist

Agnostic

Deist

Theist

Thats a lot of ists! i love thinking we are evolving and nature needs re-nurturing how can i fit in to any of those descriptions?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0