The Pope is called "a liar" by atheist for his Sept. 11 statement condemning terrorism

[TruthSeeker60]

Can’t you see the language you are using? You purport to “point out” to us poor ignorant Christians what certain carefully selected out-of-context passages of our Bible “really” mean, even though we all believe something totally different. It would be as ludicrous for a Catholic to presume to “point out” to Moslems what certain passages of the Koran “really” mean according to the Christian although such is rejected by Moslems.

One does not have to believe the claims of its religion to form a reasonable interpretation of that religion’s holy book.

It should be noted that many atheists are former Christians who lost their Christian religion after studying it more. I am in that camp. This is probably partly why non-believers tend to score higher in tests about religion than believers do.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

No one here denies that God sanctioned the death of people in the Old Testament. What is objected to by non-Christians, is God having the right to do that. “Murder” is the unlawful/unjust killing of a human being. For something to be “unlawful”, there must be a standard it violates. Critics always go on to claim that “God violates his own standard”. That’s nonsensical because God’s nature IS the standard.

So would you agree with the statement, “killing babies (or rape, slavery, torture, or any other action imaginable) is OK when god does, orders, or condones it?”

It seems you would agree with that statement given that you said that “God’s nature IS the standard.”

However the question on this thread was about terrorism. For that to be discussed, one needs to first define terrorism. I think you have avoided doing that because it is difficult to do that in such a way that the 911 attacks are considered terrorist attacks while actions condoned by Yahweh in the OT cannot.

 

[Petergee]

One does not have to believe the claims of its religion to form a reasonable interpretation of that religion’s holy book.

Of course every man believes that his own interpretation of any book is reasonable, because it seems reasonable to him. But it is most unreasonable to demand that Christians accept your interpretation of the Bible.

It should be noted that many atheists are former Christians who lost their Christian religion after studying it more. I am in that camp.

I’d say that’s a very small camp. Any evidence for your claim that “many” atheists belong to it? In my experience it’s far more common for atheists to know and care little or nothing about Christianity. A significant number may be former nominal Christians but it’s rare to meet an atheist whose grasp of Christianity is beyond that of the average ten-year-old Christian.

This is probably partly why non-believers tend to score higher in tests about religion than believers do.

Cite?

It’s true that a significant number of people, AFTER deciding to become militant atheists (usually a long time after they became atheists), THEN decide to study up intensely on very tendentious interpretations of a few carefully selected real or imagined historical crimes of Christians and on very tendentious interpretations of a few carefully selected out of context quotations from the Bible and other statements by Christian leaders. But even these seem profoundly ignorant of what Christainity as a whole means, or even what belief in God means.

About the most profound reasoning done by most atheists I have met as to why they became atheists, went along the lines:

I want to fornicate with my girlfriend.
Religions say that fornication is immoral.
Therefore God does not “exist” (sic).