Rainbow

The bible is a book of myths and it reflects that idea. It endorses slavery, rape, child rape, child abuse, murder, misogyny, and other horrendous ideas. It states that the Earth is flat, the stars are little dots on a glass dome, that the moon is s light source, and that the universe is only 6000 years old. With all these flaws, how could it possibly be the book of an all powerful, all knowing, all good, and completely impossible God?

If one examines the Bible factually, and even within context to its own religions- applying such scientific thinking, your assertions fall apart. The Bible is a book written by humans, much of it is specifically about humans, and those humans interactions with what they claim to be god. So one can’t invalidate religion, or even the Bible based on the facts humans are kinda lousy, have fallible memories, manipulate things, and are prone to bias. There is no part of the Bible supposedly written by god, or by Jesus. John, David, many authors are claimed, and many sources are cited, but little or no external comfirmation is given. So that doesn’t mean the totality of the book or the subject is garbage any more than events in Washington mean that democracy is evil or that a poorly written science paper means science is idiotic. It means shitty authors and researchers perhaps, shitty humans trying to use things to their ends. But the Bible is open to interpretation so what is in it...

... largely reflects what the reader wants to get out of it. Much like many Buddhist or Taoist or other philosophies or teachings- the answer to the question is something we each come up with and the material is just a guide for thought. Stories made to make people engage critical thought on things like morality. More over- it is worth mentioning that many texts written in other times and places have things modern readers would find repugnant, but would be fitting of the culture they are oringinally targeted to. The original Startrek is a moral parable in many ways, yet in 2018 their “enlightened future” is often downright backwards to us because it was the “enlightened future” a 1960’s audience could picture. Why send people a message that is so far beyond their grasp or so offense to them that they can’t abide it? Change is a gradual thing and not generally a revolution, especially in human natures.

Congrats @guest_ you completely invalidated the entire religion of Christianity. If the Bible isn't the perfect, then you admit that Christians believe in fairy tales like I know they do. A book with infinite interpretations has none.

If you can't prove a god to exist, then you have to assume they don't. You can't even claim it's possible for God to exist because to say something is possible requires a pre-existing example demonstrating said possibility which doesn't exist for the case of a god.

I'm not going into this rabbit hole of ignorance known as apologetics anymore. I'm just gonna finish washing my hair.

(Apologetics is when you make excuses for why something that isn't true could be true.)

I don't know who taught you about Christianity, but I don't believe a bunch of things you claim I do.

Spiderwoma. Go fuck a 10 inch spiked dildo you intolerant fuckwit.

@spiderwoman- Thank you for explaining what that big word meant. Our plebeian (that’s Latin for- “of the plebes, referring to lower class or “low brow” in the colloquial vernacular) sensibilities might have missed your intent if you hadn't so gregariously catered to those of us who lack your perspicacity and intellect. You elucidate with such verisimilitude how could anyone question you? Especially with such expert techniques as: “insert opinion- invalidate opinion with self truisms- end discussion as all other opinions are invalid.” You say a thing can’t be proved and yet- you don’t ask for proof. If someone had concrete mathematical or physical evidence to finally end the debate and prove not just possibility, but existence of something like a god, you wouldn’t even scrutinize it as you already have formed your conclusion in absence of all possible evidence. Yes. Wash your hair, but don’t speak of proof when no proof would satisfy you, or even be considered by you were it to exist.

Oh- and for the record? My whole point was sadly (to me) missed if you think anything I said invalidated people’s beliefs (although that does go towards my theory you don’t want answers, only validation to your own beliefs.) on that subject- not only is that a prime example of interpretation as I say above, but also the same exact thinking that leads people to believe so called “fairy tales,” that without being open to any other possibilities and with no proof, one believes as their faith dictates one way or another. You aren’t “better” or “smarter” for not believing in a thing if you do as such, merely the polar opposite side of the coin. Lastly- if one wants to avoid a “rabbit hole of ignorance,” one might avoid discussing topics that are essentially 100% guaranteed to lead to either vehement agreement and self validation all around, or devolve to said “rabbit hole” in a public and diverse forum. Pro tip to save you headaches in life.

As Kyle Kulinski likes to say. You let a fucking Jigglypuff in space influence your ideas? (Jigglypuff in space = "God")
Seriously, stop thinking what space wizard would do and think for yourselves. Religion is a bunch of fairy tales that might be an interesting read but shouldn't dictate one's behavior.

Not much really should or does dictate behavior, but many things influence it. We know that “Shakespear” was a real human entity (most likely anyway.) But we don’t know who he/she/they really were. They told stories, stories that have made people think, feel, contemplate. Was Buddha real? If so was Buddha Devine or other worldly? Does it matter? Because there are koans and parables and stories that real are not- people have mulled over for centuries as mechanisms to tryband better understand themselves and the world, to- as you say- “think for themselves” by puzzling out answers by using these “fairy tales” as tools to make the abstract more relatable. Is Plato or any other philosopher so different that they don’t use hyperbole? Is the oft misunderstood “Schrodingers cat?” A thought experiment is just that. One can think for themselves while applying a system of thought- they aren’t mutyally exclusive.

Plato's philosophy didn't cause a genocide in the form of crusades. You have to admit that the comparison doesn't quite work. One thing is a guy writing about an ideal political system. He was just a guy. Another thing is a collective belief that some higher power wants you to do this or that. And before you argue with "well a genocide also happened during WWII and it was thanks to an influential guy", religion (namely German mysticism) was a big part of Nazi ideology. The common element here is people doing things because they believed it will help some cause that is bigger than themselves. Read Hannah Arendt's book The Origins of Totalitarianism, at least the section about mass society. Because I think a lot of these characteristics about people who, thanks to crowd mentality and the belief that they're doing something for a cause that is much bigger than themselves, applies to Abrahamic religions as well. And it is a dangerous mindset.

Maybe you should not call everyone cowards

It was a joke about how no one wanted to use the rainbow after the gays started using it and you went on a rant like I was oppressing the straights or something.

Eh, my bad. I need sleep. As a combat vet that strongly believes in equity for all, I don't like being called a coward. Good night Diabetes.

What if said beliefs say that gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else? Should we let the religious folk decide who gets rights? Because I'm sure there's a lot of religious folk who has opinions on what other religious folk should be allowed to do.

That’s a tricky and loaded question no one has an optimal answer for. Hate is wrong. We can and should do everything in our power to stop people from treating others unfairly based on who they are. But we can’t control what people think about others, and if we start creating laws to try and control peoples thoughts, or laws that say you can think whatever you want so long as you don’t say what is on your mind, we start down a well intentioned slippery slope that could go to some bad places. Bottom line we must do our best to protect human rights. All human rights, be they bigots, gays, or whoever. We can’t say it’s fair to discriminate against one group (even backwards bigots) but not another just because we like one more than the other. People can say what they like so long as it isn’t a direct danger to others like a threat or incitement to violence. The law must allow all people the rights to express themselves and live their lives so long as they do not stop others from theirs.

You may believe the earth is flat, you are wrong, or I am wrong, and we will both think the other is wrong. But if I don’t stop you from buying groceries or getting a job, if I don’t stalk you, harass you, threaten or abuse you and you don’t do the same- we can both be wrong in the others eyes and keep living life saying what we want about the shape of the earth. It’s when someone crosses a line, calls for the other guy to be lynched, blacklisted, shunned- that’s when the law steps in to say “no.” That’s the only system we have that works. We can disagree on anything and that’s fine as long as everyone keeps it above the board. You wouldn’t want to live in a world where only their way of expressing and believing was legal, so why would you try to do the same to them? You can’t outlaw stupid, only protect against the fallout of extreme idiots. I don’t like em, but a society is judged by how we treat those we like the least, not those we respect the most.