That's...that's not even right. The Old and New Testament both verify the same principles of Law and Love that both the Old and New Covenants portray. Both make it clear (and one could argue that it extends further back) that Abram's agreement made Jehovah's (lowercase "l") law on Earth faith in, love for, and obedience to God far before Moses. Even if your previous statement was correct, you should know that the Israelites, Hebrew or otherwise, were mostly bad, faithless people (as most folk are, in general) who constantly trespassed their bounds. Unless you were being facetious (in which case I apologize), you and I both could assume that, within the Bible's framework, the majority of them will go to hell.

Which is why god made them all wander around in the desert for forty years. Once the older generation died off, well, time to go to the promised land.

And, Duo, the first time Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments, he saw his brother Aaron's golden calf idol. This angered him so much, he threw the tablets to the ground and they smashed to pieces. So Moses went back up the mountain, after yelling for a bit, and god had him re-write the Ten Commandments.

Hi ho.

I'm not contending there's something outside the universe; I'm stating that there's no way to know, and to have such vehement hatred towards people who may think there is borders upon absurdity to me.

Sorry, I did a poor job expressing my point in my original post since I wanted to respond to an early post of yours, but by then the conversation had changed a bit, so I wanted to try and fit it to both things.

Aren't there entire fields of mathematics dedicated to the study of equations and problems which are considered impossible to solve? If unsolvable things are worthless in thinking about, why are the fields of philosophy and ethics so ingrained into our society?

Sure, it may not necessarily be possible to prove the existence of a god, but I at least hope you'd realize the side benefits that people can obtain through introspection and self-study while engaging in their quest for religious meaning.

At the expense of sounding silly, as it is implied in scripture yes the Israelites got to the foot of Mt. Sinai under the assumption that murder was acceptable before being told no dice by Moses. All of us can see this notion even today by how often the religious ask the unbelievers, if not from God then where do we get our morality from?

As for whether I believe this, of course I don't. The Israelite could not have made it to that point as a society had they been slaying eath other in the thousands thinking the whole while it was just fun recreation. Obviously they knew murder was wrong which entirely defeats the purpose of Moses chiseling it into a slab of stone.

What is this nonsense? So humans are immoral but faithless ones especially. People like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, the great lights who founded America, are roasting in hell as we speak. Alan Turing who did more than anyone to bring WWII to an end is also roasting in hell. It's only until the doctrines of the gentle Jesus meek and mild do we start punishing the dead under the disgusting banner of Atonement. But providing you say the proper latin phrase and sprinkle the right water an exception will be made in your case. Who can believe this? Why would anyone want this to be true???

I think when they say our conscience and all that jazz comes from God, they mean it as part of the package of being made in his image, or something to do with God's spirit being in us and that's what the "voice in the back of your head" is.

The ten commandments could have been the sort of thing like when your parents get really pissed at you for doing things you know you shouldn't be doing, so they'll put up a formal list of rules for things you're not allowed to do (such as putting a sign on the cookie jar that says NOT UNTIL YOU'VE FINISHED DINNER).

I don't know where you got the impression that I have any hate towards people who hold that position, as far as I am aware I have been entirely civil in my posts, however if you feel otherwise please point out where I have been less than polite. The only feeling I have towards people who think that there is something outside the universe is confusion, since as far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence to support such a view.

I'm afraid I wouldn't know much about that sort of thing, however if there are fields like that I assume there is some benefit to it in a mathematical context. However in my opinion to speculating on whether there is something outside our universe is the same as speculating on the idea that we are merely brains in vats.

In philosophy and ethics people present evidence for their beliefs and then debate on various points, but in the case of whether something exists outside the universe, there is no evidence either way and I doubt there ever will be, so it is incorrect to claim that they are the same.

I don't see why people can't engage in introspection and self-study without religion, I know I don't need a religious quest in order to gain insight in to myself.

My bad on that front, I was getting you mixed up with the boatloads of anti-religion people we have coming in here all the time that think because they don't belong to a religion then they're better than everyone else. I'm just not used to talking with someone that isn't a complete asshole on here. :(

I'm personally still philosophically stuck on the brains in a vat problem. I don't get how any philosopher has thought they've solved it yet. :(

And, actually, another fun thing I was reading today in a journal that reminded me of an old argument is how the entirety of science is circular. How do we prove something in science is right? Well, we make observations and say that every other time has to be the same. Why do we believe this? Because it's worked so well in the past it should keep working in the future too! (Point being that there's no absolutes in anything. We can never know for sure the sun is going to rise tomorrow, there's always a chance it could just not be there.)

Even in debates of what is absolutely good/evil, right/wrong, or those kinds of things?

I don't either, but I feel if it helps them find a better life, then how can I say it's not a good thing? I mean, just as there are religious people that turn non-religious, there are non-religious people that will turn religious. Maybe we just haven't felt that divine spark yet. ;)

I know you don't actually mean to infer that antitheism necessarily leads to assholery. After all, if you happen to be anti-nazism are you not worried you may offend people sympathetic to nazism? It's not my business to respect what I believe to be at its core something evil. But my attacks remain polite and towards religion not the individual believer.

You're talking about David Hume and his skepticism towards mathematical induction. My question however is, if empiricism can't answer our epistemological questions why would an ancient text like the bible fare any better? Which incidentally also relies heavily on empirical data. There isn't much a priori knowledge that I am aware of held within the text.

If those believing in Nazism are willing to fit into society and behave as society in general seems to deem fit, then I don't see why I should act as the thought police against racist or nationalist people.

I don't think either can answer our questions, but both can be a path towards self-fulfillment. I just don't get why one was has to be better than the other if they have the same final result.

It is the very definition of a unanswerable and therefore unimportant question.

The vast majority of philosophers believe that the question of morality is an inherently subjective subject and that there is no such thing as absolute good and evil, hence things like utilitarianism.

If it makes them feel better than fine, but they shouldn't go around pretending that there is any logical basis for their beliefs, let their beliefs contradict things like common sense or scientific discovery, or try to inflict their beliefs on anyone else.

Umm, yeah, but if I'm not mistaken, they were worshipping the godlen calf, making sacrifices to it and such.

The final result is that there's a bunch of religious people who are bigots and hate anyone who doesn't conform to their worldview. I'm not saying this is EVERYONE that practices religion, it just seems like a rather large number of them.

Even people who aren't openly hateful, or even conscious of the fact that they support--whether directly or indirectly-- such people and policies.

I've even noticed this in practitioners of extremely passive eastern religious philosophies. They think so highly of themselves that egotism, indifference and apathy becomes commonplace.

Yeah, I was basically verifying your story, albeit with a little more biblical accuracy.

And you don't notice this in atheists at all?

The push back is simply unfamilar to the religious as they have enjoyed the last several hundred years sheltered from criticism. You didn't have to be an unpleasant bigot to be a deist in the 18th century. You just had to be educated. But they've entirely gone too far this time. They crossed the line when they intervened in the private life of the Schiavo's. They also have no business clogging up our court rooms attempting to remove science and impose their superstitious nonsense in the public classroom. Many people are finally fed up with this and are much on their guard towards the religious who are no longer contempt with the constitution which gives every person the freedom not only of religion but from religion.

I am also a follower of Christ. Although for me, it is not a "religion" as the original question states, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Knowing Him through prayer, reading the Bible, through Nature, and trust in His guidance in my life. I grew up in a Christian family, but had to come to a point in my life where I realized that I had to make a choice whether it was just because of my parent's belief, or if it was truly my own. Whether I would own it or disown my so called "faith". It took a few years of real struggle, some rebellion and a lot of questions for me to finally own it and know Christ for myself. (sorry for the looong answer! please bear with me!) ;)

Additional Spam:
And...it is often a daily struggle to truly trust and believe. I am always challenged by circumstances, and by others. But for those challenges I am thankful. It brings me to a deeper understanding and trust.

I haven't met too many militant atheists in my lifetime. Mostly on the internets, actually.

Even when I was HARDCORE FOR CHRIST!™ I never really felt persecuted, outside of random retards on the internet.

Yes some athiests are egotistical. Egoism is a trait one can adapt no matter their philosophy. The unique issue with the Religious is the way they look at life. They pray for things to happen, thinking it might effect the outcome. They perform acts of kindness or hatred within their context of doctrine. This kind of behavior leads to a distorted perception of reality. How about instead of praying to a God we realize that we can only depend on each other? Praying for poor kids in Africa and people you consider 'sinners' doesn't really do anything... at all. Contribute money to food programs and volunteer at prison rehabilitation centers if it's such an important personal value. The religious get to think they're doing all sorts of good just by praying when in fact they're doing nothing. Praying for your relative to survive an operation and then getting angry or happy feelings about "God's decision" is placing all sorts of extra, unneeded confusion into the reality of the situation. If your mother dies is it healthy to have an intense hatred toward an invisible, seemingly-heartless God who you think controls your life?

I am not religious.

I am a spiritualist. In the end, I can be defined as a pantheist.

I don't believe that sin is something outside of us instead that it is something humane and something we must learn to overcome. I believe that everything is part of one collective conciousness (Read, God) and that what we do to others we only do to ourselves. I don't feel bad for doing something nice and getting fucked over. It hurts, yes. But should I feel bad for being a nice person? No.

My beliefs have helped me quite a bit through life.

However, I'm not as "zen" as I would like to be. I still do get angry, but it is part of being human, I guess.

Despite living in a ridiculously Catholic dominated area and coming from a Catholic high school, religion isn't important to me. I don't pray, I don't go to mass (except for at school, because I got in major trouble last time I ditched mass during school), I don't read the Bible, and I'm not sure if I quite believe in the Jesus or God.

I think I identify more with agnosticism (I think that is the term) where you believe in a higher power, but it isn't necessarily God or a certain defined person. Catholicism is a little too rigid for me and, after being surrounded by many of its followers, very narrow minded. People at my school are especially quick to condemn, and it gets tiring after a while.

I respect other people's rights to their own beliefs, but when some people try to push their beliefs on others, I don't like that at all.

I just don't think about it right now. It's not important to me, and maybe when I'm older, I'll find some religious fulfillment, but right now....meh.

"Theism" might be the word you're looking for. Agnosticism is more the belief that the existence of a god or higher power is inherently unknowable.

I can't help but clarify here.

When the Hebrews constructed the golden calf, they didn't believe it was a seperate god - despite common belief today, people by that point were far past crudely worshipping idols as if they were capable of doing anything, but that they were avatars that drew gods toward themselves. The Hebrews were building an avatar of YHVH. This makes sense, because it would be absolutely nuts to worship another god right after you witness the power of the god before that. The calf symbolism isn't too strange, either - El Shaddai (lit. "God of the Mountain") was the deity of Abraham and his descendents, whom - the Hebrews were told - was the same God as YHVH.

They weren't guilty of worshipping other gods, but of making idols. Idolatry is a big deal in Torah precepts, and is considered sinful even if these graven images are meant to reflect YHVH.

So yeah.

Didn't Moses make people worship an idol of a snake later?

Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people. The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

Maybe it's me, but it doesn't sound like anyone was worshiping the snake there. =/

Yeah, the snake isn't being worshiped. If you read the preceding segment (Numbers 21:4), you'll see it's just Yahweh being his usual douchey Old-Testament self.

"COMPLAINTS, EH? FUCK YOU! VENOMOUS SNAKES!"

Umm . . . I thought it was the science nuts trying to remove God from the Pledge of Allegience, and "Intelligent Design" is the hopelessly PC way of skating the line between atheism and religion.
I do agree that whoever was trying to get rid of evolution and Darwinism is an idiot. That's censorship. Everyone should have a full plate to choose from when it comes time to make a decision. Nothing should be removed because someone else thinks it's not good for you.