• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Have abrahamic faiths and multiculturalism cucked the west?

Sorry so long to respond, it's been a crazy week! :)

Again agreed. I will not argue with faith. But if you start to say you have evidence of a god or even a good reason for belief then i will argue the point. As an atheist i take the view that the lack of belief in a god arises from the fact that no evidence of one has ever been produced nor has anyone ever come up with a good reason for the existence of one. Therefor their is no reason to even consider a god let alone argue the existence of one.

Yup, no worries, no one's trying to convince you. :)

No, not really. The jews have there own books to follow and ignore the bible. The new testament is nothing more than a christians ( paul) attempt to sell the religion to the gentiles. Hence the change from a covenant with god the jews had to a more acceptable acceptance of jesus which the gentiles have.

Mmmm..no. The old testament and the tanakh are essentially the same thing, here's a good explanation I was able to find:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-the-Hebrew-Bible-and-the-Old-Testament

No hate to disillusion you there but... if you take the religion out of it all you have left is a really badly written self help book. Leave the religion in and what you have is a book so badly written that one could take from it that you should help little old ladies across the street or pick up a gun and start murdering abortion clinic doctors.

lol...ok, well, first of all, you're not disillusioning me here, as I think we are probably both pretty confident in where we stand. :) I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. That's allowed.

Unfortunately it is a case that good people will do good things regardless of whether they are a christian or an atheist. And bad people will do bad things. But there is also a third catagory of people who do bad things in the name of a god. And you have to be a theist to be that kind of person.

Hmmm...but if one must consider the third category, then you also must acknowledge a fourth: people who do good things in the name their god. They are theists too... And, a fifth and a sixth: people who do good and bad things in the name of someone else's god, being non believers themselves, but borrowing the branding. So confusing! Not conclusive evidence that religion is bad...

That was just the easy bit. Like the conversation with pilate. Wait till we get to the flogging and nailing of your beliefs to a cross. Then we will see if your so generous.

Ok, let's get on with the flogging and nailing, then. :) Maybe if you let me know which of these beliefs are problematic (other than the belief that God exists, which I've taken out of scope of this conversation, since we agree that this is a non-debatable for you), I can give my 2 cents on them to work through it? Spoiler alert: I may agree with you on some of them...hehe... But let's see what you've got.
 
Mmmm..no. The old testament and the tanakh are essentially the same thing, here's a good explanation I was able to find:
.

Are you suggesting that you are a follower and believer in the old testament. That it is the covenant strict obedience to the Mosaic Law, that you hold to instead of the new testament and jesus forgiveness of sin.



lol...ok, well, first of all, you're not disillusioning me here, as I think we are probably both pretty confident in where we stand. :) I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. That's allowed.

Regardless of whether we agree or not there is still the matter of you claiming that the bible is merely a story from which to gain insights into how to be a better person. Any self help book can do that. And i would say that any self help book would do it better than the bible which is full of contradictions and gives people excuses to be not a better person. Otherwise how would you explain the action of westboro baptists for example.
Hmmm...but if one must consider the third category, then you also must acknowledge a fourth: people who do good things in the name their god. They are theists too... And, a fifth and a sixth: people who do good and bad things in the name of someone else's god, being non believers themselves, but borrowing the branding. So confusing! Not conclusive evidence that religion is bad..
.
No There is no fourth category or more. Anyone can do good with or without a god. Atheists also do good things. God is not a necessity in order to good or bad things. But one does need a god in order to do bad things in the name of a god.


Ok, let's get on with the flogging and nailing, then. :) Maybe if you let me know which of these beliefs are problematic (other than the belief that God exists, which I've taken out of scope of this conversation, since we agree that this is a non-debatable for you), I can give my 2 cents on them to work through it? Spoiler alert: I may agree with you on some of them...hehe... But let's see what you've got
Enough to start with.
 
Are you suggesting that you are a follower and believer in the old testament. That it is the covenant strict obedience to the Mosaic Law, that you hold to instead of the new testament and jesus forgiveness of sin.

Nope, just that Jews and Christians share the Old Testament, which seemed to be a point of disagreement in your previous post.

Regardless of whether we agree or not there is still the matter of you claiming that the bible is merely a story from which to gain insights into how to be a better person. Any self help book can do that. And i would say that any self help book would do it better than the bible which is full of contradictions and gives people excuses to be not a better person. Otherwise how would you explain the action of westboro baptists for example.

I'm not saying that, I was simply not wanting to convince you that it is more, because that requires faith you don't have, and I respect that. However, I would argue that the fact that so many people believe it is more makes it carry more weight than your average book by Dr. Phil...hehe...

No There is no fourth category or more. Anyone can do good with or without a god. Atheists also do good things. God is not a necessity in order to good or bad things. But one does need a god in order to do bad things in the name of a god.

Ok, fair enough...but I go back to, people do bad things in the name of all kinds of noble initiatives. Two nuclear bombs were dropped in the name of democracy. Untold numbers of people lost their homes and savings because of shady banking done in the name of capitalism (2008 economic collapse). There are endless examples.

Since this is not limited to religion, I think it falls rather flat, because in root cause analysis you have to go to the root. If religion was the only noble endeavor that resulted in people doing bad in it's name, I'd agree with you. However, since it's not an outlier, and there are other examples of people doing bad in the name of something considered good, you have to further to get to the root, and the root is people do bad ****.

On the flip side, while people can do good without religion, I would counter with the fact that people do good in the name of religion as well. Do a google search on the number of hospitals with the word Saint in their name for evidence, as a starting point, then move through to religious charities... Yes, some are corrupt, see above, but there's been a lot of good done in the name of religion as well... And to do a good work in the name of God, gods, or any other form of religion, you've gotta be a theist, to expand on your example.

Enough to start with.

Ok, back to you. :)
 
Nope, just that Jews and Christians share the Old Testament, which seemed to be a point of disagreement in your previous post.
No, i do not disagree that they are similar, i do disagree that they share. the jews have there own books of which the bible is not one. What you do share is the same god but not the covenant with god.

I'm not saying that, I was simply not wanting to convince you that it is more, because that requires faith you don't have, and I respect that. However, I would argue that the fact that so many people believe it is more makes it carry more weight than your average book by Dr. Phil...hehe...
Do you understand the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. If you do then you would understand why this opinion carries no weight at all.

Ok, fair enough...but I go back to, people do bad things in the name of all kinds of noble initiatives. Two nuclear bombs were dropped in the name of democracy. Untold numbers of people lost their homes and savings because of shady banking done in the name of capitalism (2008 economic collapse). There are endless examples.
True but one does not have to be a theist to do these kinds of bad things atheists are quite capable of bankruptcy and creating weapons of mass destruction. . However it takes a belief in a god to fly a plane into a building or throw a gay man off of the top of a building.
Since this is not limited to religion, I think it falls rather flat, because in root cause analysis you have to go to the root. If religion was the only noble endeavor that resulted in people doing bad in it's name, I'd agree with you. However, since it's not an outlier, and there are other examples of people doing bad in the name of something considered good, you have to further to get to the root, and the root is people do bad ****.
But i did not say it was just people doing bad things. i said it was people doing bad things in the name of a god. For that kind of bad thing, only a theist can commit. Anyone can do a bad thing in the name of something good. A man can steal a loaf of bread to feed his children and be an atheist. But only an theist can blow up innocent people because he considers them to be non believers.

On the flip side, while people can do good without religion, I would counter with the fact that people do good in the name of religion as well. Do a google search on the number of hospitals with the word Saint in their name for evidence, as a starting point, then move through to religious charities... Yes, some are corrupt, see above, but there's been a lot of good done in the name of religion as well... And to do a good work in the name of God, gods, or any other form of religion, you've gotta be a theist, to expand on your example.



Ok, back to you. :)
True again, People do do good and say it is done because of their belief in a god. But again it is not a necessity to believe in a god in order to do good. It is not a necessity to believe in god to do bad. But it is a necessity to believe in a god to do bad in his name.
 
No, i do not disagree that they are similar, i do disagree that they share. the jews have there own books of which the bible is not one. What you do share is the same god but not the covenant with god.

hehe...ok, maybe we're getting caught up here in semantics...let me try again: The old testament and the tanakh are the same thing, with slightly different verse / chapter numbering, and translation / interpretation. Go check out that link I sent you, it will support what I'm saying... But let's go ahead and consider this dead horse adequately beaten, I'm not sure it's important to our chat anyway.

Do you understand the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. If you do then you would understand why this opinion carries no weight at all.

Depends on what you think the opinion is. Again, not trying to convince you of the authenticity of the Bible, rather the power that the Bible has to motivate people to do good over a self help book, because the people that believe it believe that it comes from God, and that's important to them, so it potentially carries more weight than the ideas put forward by some self help guru, for those people who believe... We cool with that?


True but one does not have to be a theist to do these kinds of bad things atheists are quite capable of bankruptcy and creating weapons of mass destruction. . However it takes a belief in a god to fly a plane into a building or throw a gay man off of the top of a building.
`

A particularly vicious atheist homophobe could throw a gay man off the top of a building...and a mentally disturbed atheist with a lot of resourcefulness could fly a plane into a building. (Sorry, my turn to split hairs...hehe) Atrocities are not limited to the religious.

But i did not say it was just people doing bad things. i said it was people doing bad things in the name of a god. For that kind of bad thing, only a theist can commit. Anyone can do a bad thing in the name of something good. A man can steal a loaf of bread to feed his children and be an atheist. But only an theist can blow up innocent people because he considers them to be non believers.

True again, People do do good and say it is done because of their belief in a god. But again it is not a necessity to believe in a god in order to do good. It is not a necessity to believe in god to do bad. But it is a necessity to believe in a god to do bad in his name.

Not it's not...lol... An atheist can do something bad in the name of God any time they want...it only requires them to say it was done in the name of God. But, ok, I get what you're driving at. But if you believe that there are no gods, then what you're describing is someone doing something bad in the name of something they believe in, and I must go back to all the previous examples of people doing bad things in the name of something they believe in of all types, in which case you must also denounce and accuse all of the things I mentioned and more. The world becomes a pretty flat proposition if you wish to eliminate all the things that people believe in or are passionate about that has caused them to do bad things.

I guess I'm being a bit intentionally obtuse here, but it's only to counter your attempt to drive what I'm perceiving as a binary narrative: religion is bad / atheism is good. But we all know there are very few real binary comparisons in the world when it comes to human beings, and while I respect your decision to not believe in any form of deity, I find your attempts to put "all of religion" in a neat and tidy box that validates your beliefs (or lack thereof, however you prefer to think of it) to be both intellectually dishonest and generally unfair. Yes, religion has resulted in some very negative outcomes, however it has resulted in some very positive outcomes as well - which only serves to demonstrate how in line with the human experience religion actually is.
 
hehe...ok, maybe we're getting caught up here in semantics...let me try again: The old testament and the tanakh are the same thing, with slightly different verse / chapter numbering, and translation / interpretation. Go check out that link I sent you, it will support what I'm saying... But let's go ahead and consider this dead horse adequately beaten, I'm not sure it's important to our chat anyway.
It's not that they are different. It is that the bible is no longer a book that is of concern to the jews. it belongs to the gentiles. Nor is the bible an accurate history of the jews. it is a mythological account only.
Depends on what you think the opinion is. Again, not trying to convince you of the authenticity of the Bible, rather the power that the Bible has to motivate people to do good over a self help book, because the people that believe it believe that it comes from God, and that's important to them, so it potentially carries more weight than the ideas put forward by some self help guru, for those people who believe... We cool with that?
Then your using another fallacy called moving the goal post. the proposition i responded to was you saying that " the fact that so many people believe it is more makes it carry more weight". Now you are changing that to some sort of power in the book has the ability to make people do good. And to answer that i would say no. For example, the misinformation in the bible about having sex outside of marriage does more harm than good. Where as a good sex education can do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any religious belief in teaching abstinence will ever do. And that is not opinion but recorded fact.
A particularly vicious atheist homophobe could throw a gay man off the top of a building...and a mentally disturbed atheist with a lot of resourcefulness could fly a plane into a building. (Sorry, my turn to split hairs...hehe) Atrocities are not limited to the religious.
Agreed they could. Which makes my point that bad people will do bad things. However it does nothing to change the fact that a person must believe in a god in order to do these bad things in the name of a god. Nor is that a claim that atrocities are limited to the religious. Only that atrocities committed in the name of god are only committed by the religious.
Not it's not...lol... An atheist can do something bad in the name of God any time they want...it only requires them to say it was done in the name of God.
Then by definition they would not be an atheist just someone telling a lie.
But, ok, I get what you're driving at. But if you believe that there are no gods, then what you're describing is someone doing something bad in the name of something they believe in, and I must go back to all the previous examples of people doing bad things in the name of something they believe in of all types, in which case you must also denounce and accuse all of the things I mentioned and more. The world becomes a pretty flat proposition if you wish to eliminate all the things that people believe in or are passionate about that has caused them to do bad things.
Again agreed. A person can steal a loaf of bread to feed their family. But then he is not calling on a god as justification for his crime. Where as a person who kills an abortion clinic doctor because god said all life is sacred needs to believe in a god to do that.
 
I guess I'm being a bit intentionally obtuse here, but it's only to counter your attempt to drive what I'm perceiving as a binary narrative: religion is bad / atheism is good.
Not at all. religion is bad, there is no doubt about that. But atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god. The above arguments about needing a god to do bad in his name has nothing to do with atheism. or for that matter it has nothing to do with religion either. It takes a bad person to do bad things is still the same when pointing out that bad is done in the name of religion. It is not religion per se that is the problem or a the cause it is merely an excuse.
But we all know there are very few real binary comparisons in the world when it comes to human beings, and while I respect your decision to not believe in any form of deity, I find your attempts to put "all of religion" in a neat and tidy box that validates your beliefs (or lack thereof, however you prefer to think of it) to be both intellectually dishonest and generally unfair. Yes, religion has resulted in some very negative outcomes, however it has resulted in some very positive outcomes as well - which only serves to demonstrate how in line with the human experience religion actually is.
While i can agree that people have done some good and used there religion as an excuse for doing that. The point would be that the religion was not a necessity. If they were good people they would have done that good anyway. If they were bad people they would have done bad anyway.
And i would agree that religion played a necessary part in the formation of civilisation. But it has passed its used by date for that and now is simply an albatross around the neck of civilisation.
 
Most Americans subscribe to Abrahamic faiths. They must follow the Seven Laws of Noah -- which are fundamental to Christianity and Islam. Jews have more Laws.

By attacking Abrahamic Faith you are attacking the values of 80% of Americans.

Abraham is our ancestor. Jews came from his grandson Israel. Muslims came from his son Ishmael. Americans came from his grandson Esau.
 
Last edited:
Most Americans subscribe to Abrahamic faiths. They must follow the Seven Laws of Noah -- which are fundamental to Christianity and Islam. Jews have more Laws.

Newp. Most Americans may mouth platitudes in that general direction, but they don't in any meaningful way 'subscribe' to those faiths.
By attacking Abrahamic Faith you are attacking the values of 80% of Americans.

No. Wrong and rather hilariously wrong.
Abraham is our ancestor. Jews came from his grandson Israel. Muslims came from his son Ishmael. Americans came from his grandson Esau.

No, he's not, and no, we didn't.
 
I think we must reject ALL abrahamic faiths as perversions of western society. The jews, muslims, and christians have NOTHING to offer us.

I hate to be responding to a scoffer, but The Western Civilization is based on Abrahamic Faith. The Jews have kept the Laws of Judaism. The Muslims kept less Laws which were given to them. The Europeans and Americans kept the Seven Laws of Noah from Christianity. Americans also descend from Abraham through Esau.

Many people dislike USA for excesses of US Military like Korean War and Vietnam War, but Esau's blessing was that he will live by his sword.
 
I hate to be responding to a scoffer, but The Western Civilization is based on Abrahamic Faith.

LOL! No, it's not. Not even remotely. Where'd you study history?
The Jews have kept the Laws of Judaism. The Muslims kept less Laws which were given to them. The Europeans and Americans kept the Seven Laws of Noah from Christianity. Americans also descend from Abraham through Esau.

Yawn. Wrong again.
Many people dislike USA for excesses of US Military like Korean War and Vietnam War, but Esau's blessing was that he will live by his sword.

Nope.
 
Newp. Most Americans may mouth platitudes in that general direction, but they don't in any meaningful way 'subscribe' to those faiths.

No. Wrong and rather hilariously wrong.

No, he's not, and no, we didn't.
Abraham is our ancestor. Jews came from his grandson Israel. Muslims came from his son Ishmael. Americans came from his grandson Esau.
So tell us why that is not true. List a source. Those short retorts are hardly credible.
 
the tower of babbel was never built

The Tower of Babel is about the agricultural revolution. In discovering seed planting, people "came too close to God" as it was seen as a kind of creating life (the plant was considered a different life than the seed at the time). Diverse languages developed from dispersion and isolation resulting from agriculture.

Just sayin'.
 
The worst thing to happen to the known world is Christiandom. I'm not talking about idle Christians. I'm talking about when the Roman empire realized it couldn't stop the underground cult and instead co-opted them, turned them into a religious army, and sent it in every direction. America's problem is that it was founded on puritanical Christianity. There are plenty of places in the world where Christians and non-Christians relate peacefully under liberal laws. But it seems that America has never been able to really shake off its Christiandom. The conquering attitude combined with manifest destiny is still very prevalent among our evangelicals, and the problem is growing.

The worst thing to happen to the western world was Constantine choosing Christianity. Worst. Thing. Ever. If there was one thing I could change in history it would be that. Europe would be so different right now and we probably wouldn't have had colonial madness. So many cultures were genocided or assimilated by Roman Catholicism. We also lost many wisdom traditions and brilliant thinkers to blasphemy charges and witch hunts. It's mind boggling to think about. Millions and millions of people.

The world is inherently multicultural, full stop. It's been recently pointed out that people who think they're just white are actually a mish mash of different genetic backgrounds. The idea that we need multicultural policy is a product of centuries of hegemonic colonialism that is trying to make itself look peaceable in order to reap certain benefits - namely, economic ones. Really the same racist elites are running the show, but multiculturalism suits the agenda of neo-liberalism and globalization so it's allowed to stay. Once prosperity is threatened by systemic ineptitude, the first people to be attacked are the minorities. Like clockwork. In tolerant, educated societies this does not happen. They instead go after their government and capture/kill the leaders. That's what any sensible revolution should do, anyway.

There are parts of the world where multiculturalism as an ideology doesn't even exist. Different ethnicities have lived side by side for centuries without much ado about anything. It's just happening and it's a non-issue.

Multicultural policy exists in places where the opposite polarity of intolerance exists. In the absence of such intolerance, people naturally co-habitate. It's only "experimental" in infantile societies that still can't come to grips with their basic differences.

America's problem, more than its evangelicals, is fundamentalism. That puritanical way is in everything. It's in our right wing, it's in our left wing. Once we have found something that works we take it to the extreme. So you have conservatives wanting to build a wall and you have liberals telling people what they can and cannot think. It's all rooted in the type of people who founded our society. It's built in, no matter if you're secular or non.
 
Last edited:
The Tower of Babel is about the agricultural revolution. In discovering seed planting, people "came too close to God" as it was seen as a kind of creating life (the plant was considered a different life than the seed at the time). Diverse languages developed from dispersion and isolation resulting from agriculture.

In Orthodox Jewish Rabbinate there is a debate on which parts of the Old Testament should be taken literally. Likewise there is a similar debate among Christian and Muslim clerics.
 
In Orthodox Jewish Rabbinate there is a debate on which parts of the Old Testament should be taken literally. Likewise there is a similar debate among Christian and Muslim clerics.

I find taking a spiritual work literally and physically to be intellectually unsatisfying.
 
So tell us why that is not true. List a source. Those short retorts are hardly credible.

There is no credible evidence, and no genetics, that indicate not only that Abraham was our ancestor (if you're from Eurasian stock) or that he even existed.

You have no idea what you're braying about.

Please try again.
 
There is no credible evidence, and no genetics, that indicate not only that Abraham was our ancestor (if you're from Eurasian stock) or that he even existed.

You have no idea what you're braying about.

Please try again.

I put as much effort into that as you did.
 
The Tower of Babel is about the agricultural revolution. In discovering seed planting, people "came too close to God" as it was seen as a kind of creating life (the plant was considered a different life than the seed at the time). Diverse languages developed from dispersion and isolation resulting from agriculture.

Just sayin'.

Interesting theory but not one shared by the religion. genesis 3:17-19 clearly suggests that agriculture is a curse.

genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Which in turn would suggest that agriculture began from the start before the story of babel.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. religion is bad, there is no doubt about that. But atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god. The above arguments about needing a god to do bad in his name has nothing to do with atheism. or for that matter it has nothing to do with religion either. It takes a bad person to do bad things is still the same when pointing out that bad is done in the name of religion. It is not religion per se that is the problem or a the cause it is merely an excuse.

While i can agree that people have done some good and used there religion as an excuse for doing that. The point would be that the religion was not a necessity. If they were good people they would have done that good anyway. If they were bad people they would have done bad anyway.
And i would agree that religion played a necessary part in the formation of civilisation. But it has passed its used by date for that and now is simply an albatross around the neck of civilisation.

Well, it's been an interesting conversation, and thanks for not being the type of atheist who feels most vindicated when being as nasty as possible to religious folks...hehe... I'm not sure we'll find common ground on everything, primarily because you won't convince me that an organization of any type that encourages people to be the best, most decent version of themselves is a bad thing, and because I won't convince you that the Church inspires folks to be better than they would have been without it. :)

I fully acknowledge and work against the negative elements that have been added to the original message over the centuries...you should see the conversations I have with "Christians" who weaponized the Bible, they are far less civil than the chat you and I have had...hehe...for lots of reasons, but not the least of which is that they make these conversations with folks like you that much more difficult...hehe... But I'm not one for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I've seen, and still see, a lot of positive stuff coming out of many of our denominations, as well as from other religions.

If I could offer any (highly unsolicited) advice, it would be to consider that contribution as well when you rail against us, or any other religion that commits itself to doing good work in their communities, in the name of their god. Religion isn't going away any time soon, despite your "albatross" designation, and the polarization between certain groups of atheists and certain groups of religious types is unnecessary. My hope is that eventually folks will all be secure enough in their own belief (or lack of belief) systems that they won't need to constantly brawl with "the other side" in order to validate their own, and we go to the part where we all just live and let live, working together to eliminate as much of the negativity in the world as possible, regardless of where it originates, even if that means taking a long hard look at ourselves. Maybe on this we can agree?
 
In Orthodox Jewish Rabbinate there is a debate on which parts of the Old Testament should be taken literally. Likewise there is a similar debate among Christian and Muslim clerics.

Yes, the "debate" ultimately is argued with munitions, oppression and anti-intellectualism. How all of these people, who practice (that's the important part) differently, can call themselves by the same labels is astounding to me. I guess god is soooo mysterious that he doesn't even have to make sense to believers. Believers are so used to god being incomprehensible that they use that as proof of His existence. What we can't understand MUST be magically, literally, over our heads.

The truth is, we're just primates pretending **** and then backing up our fantasies with violence and empty platitudes about peace. It's a long-standing tradition for which only the names of the deities change.
 
Judaism and Christianity are Abrahamic, Islam is not. Throwing this out there for debate. Please, feel free to engage.
 
Thanks for proving my point. Again.

How many posts of yours say exactly that? That is like saying nothing, which sums up your contributions.
 
Back
Top Bottom