o_O.Q said:
"The bible is supposedly the word of god. So if you cannot interpret what it says literally, that means that the word of god is flawed"
i don't really believe that the bible is the product of a god, i don't completely dismiss that idea because i just don't know, i think its more likely that it came about as the result of repeated observations of human behavior over a long period of time, out of which certain conclusions were made
but regardless, what you've posted here is not true, information can be encoded in different ways for different purposes, an example being the fact that right now our communications are encoded into bit streams and sent over miles as electrical pulses
"You do not need religion to have morals."
true
" Otherwise, they believe that a loving god condemns everyone to burn for eternity for not believing in him. "
many do and many don't, its about as silly as the claim atheists make that if we could just get rid of all religion then there would be universal peace
it shows they don't have the slightest clue about what the real issue is and that is that people all by themselves without religion are limited with regards to their perception of the world and it is that limitation that causes conflict, not religion
"The concept of religion is to have faith in a psychopath"
no it degenerates into that very often, i'll totally concede that, but no the core principle of religion is to abide by principles that transcend the limited scope of human perception such as fear or love
something else that you are missing here is that psychopaths can move herds of people even more easily without religion, because then all they have to do is stroke the ego of their targets, at least with religion they have to tip toe around the core principles and bend and distort them
"People educating themselves and showing more compassion towards others will benefit society."
yes, if only people were entirely rational and always worked towards bettering themselves and their community |
You make some very valid points, however, I will have to disagree with the comparison of information being decoded differently. Yes we are communicating through different means, despite this, if you interpreted what I was saying to be something else that benefitted you, this would be twisting or misrepresenting my words. If you were to say that you interpret what I am saying as a basis for challenging the government, this wouldn't be correct.
My words are clearly targeted at religion (primarily Christianity due to the topic created). Sure you could argue that a government that endorses a particular religion is problematic. However that would stem from a different argument and not the one I was initially discussing.
If I said "anyone who betrays me will die" and if people interpreted that as "I love you" - that is the sort of misinterpretation that occurs with religious books. The means of communicating those words online or in book is irrelevant.
Otherwise I would say that you make some very valud points. Apologies for not discussing them in depth.
