Religious Belief Perpetuating AIDS

A recent article written by a medical student who visited Haiti is quite telling of the fact that religious beliefs endanger our world and make it dangerous, superstitious, and ignorant. In this case, though, religious ideas are perpetuating AIDS and STDs.

[http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091112/OPINION/911120301/Haiti-can-teach-lessons-about-life-and-people]

Here are some highlights of the article:

One particular day in the STD clinic proved particularly eye opening. When asked if they had more than one partner, women would usually reply “no.” But then when asked about their husband, many calmly replied that he had many partners.

If asked about their husband’s condom usage, the answer was often “never.” After we explained the risks inherent in this behavior, one response from a woman was “God will protect me, I am a Christian.” Another said, “My husband is a Christian and says the Bible says not to use condoms.” Or better yet, I also heard, “If I get sick, it is God’s will.”

Several physicians were claiming that with missionaries came more patients claiming that prayer would heal any malady they might face, and thus HIV prevention and/or treatment mattered little.

it is paramount that missionaries and others understand both the culture they are entering and the role that medicine and logical, evidence-based thinking plays in helping the world’s poor.

When patients believe irrational things (e.g. prayer instead of medicine will heal them), they pay for it with their health, their lives.

While religion has given people hope when all else is gone, it also appears to have a darker side in some circumstances, allowing people to believe in unfounded superstition rather than evidence-based medicine.

[Refutation] The Bible is True: S.C. Kwon

An author poses various arguments (http://god.com/index.php?site=lectures/bit/bit1&lg=en) and I refute them:

The arguments are italicized and blocked. My responses are not.

“Those who accept the theory of evolution tell us that the earth came into being by chance, and that it is by chance that the whole of the natural world continues to take its course.”

This argument, right off the bat, shows that the author does not understand evolution. First, evolution has nothing to do with how the earth came to be. Second, evolution is not “chance.” Evolution is natural selection; it is the process of change over time in which life persists when it is favored by the environment or is better suited to live. Sure, there are random mutations, but evolution is not a random process like the author insists.

“The Bible, on the other hand, tells us that God created the heavens and the earth, and it also says that He created man. Who has the correct answer, the evolutionists or the creationists? Man or God? ”

We have the Bible, a book, claiming something versus scientists with hard evidence on a factual claim. Evolution is fact. Creationism is false.

“There is no need for blind faith, however, when the Bible shows us the facts very clearly.”

The Bible shows us “facts?” Where can we verify these facts outside the Bible? Will this article do anything to prove that the Bible is fact?

“The Communists say that heaven is just another theory that has been created to exploit the people and capture their hearts. They describe religion as the opium of the masses.”

This is an inappropriate appeal to emotion in my opinion. Communists as a whole are not making such a claim and should not be representative of the claim makers. The reader of this article is most likely not communist friendly, so he/she may discredit the claim. This also seems like an attempt to shift the burden of proof: non-believers do not have to prove that God does not exist; believers must provide evidence to back up their claim.

“We are now living within an ultramodern scientific culture, but heaven and hell are beyond science and technology.”

This is a common theistic argument, but it fails. If the Bible or any other person or book makes a claim about reality (If Heaven is real it is a part of reality though we can't see it) it ought to be tested by science. An claim about reality ought to be subjected to scientific examination. Saying that something is beyond us does not give it any creedence. I can say that invisible pink unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, and trolls exist, but they are beyond us. Does this make it true? No. I must give solid evidence for these claims.

“Where is the meaning in a life that is nothing but toil and sorrow from start to finish? If we take an honest look at the lives that we lead in this world, we can’t help but wonder where it is all leading and what it all means.”

We need not believe in God for life to have meaning. We can establish meaning in things that we can empirically observe like friends, family, spouses, children, helping others, and our favorite hobbies. Toil and sorrow is a part of the human experience. There need not be any “leading” to another life.

“Man himself is able to travel to the moon and explore other planets, but has science solved the problems of man’s life itself? No matter how advanced our modern scientific world may be, it hasn’t yet been able to bring a dead person back to life.”

Science is not required to solve the problems of “man's life itself” and does not not by definition propose to do so. Science is the study of our natural and physical world. Science, of course, has not brought a dead person back to life. The author is seemingly attacking science as lacking and asserting that religion can do so much more for us.

“Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we heading?
I once read in the introduction to a book on philosophy, that even though the history of philosophy goes back thousands of years, it still hasn’t been able to come up with an answer. Philosophy still hasn’t been able to present man with a satisfactory answer.”

Where did we come from? Earlier forms of life and our mothers.
Why are we here? We're here because our mothers gave birth.
Where are we heading? We're heading to a future and closer to death.
There are the answers.
The author is now attacking philosophy as “lacking.”

“Man lives his whole life in constant fear of death. If this problem is not solved, there can be no meaning to man’s existence, no meaning whatsoever. “I could die tomorrow, so what is the point in my life today?”

How does not “solving” the problem of death a barrier to achieving meaning in life? Is there an answer? I think that the rational answer is to accept it and move on. If, though, we can die tomorrow, there is certainly a point to life. Since atheists know this is the only life we know we have (and even religious individuals should admit this), we give it so much more attention. Is this the case for religious individuals who long for death and talk about how great the next world is?
The author then continues to talk about how bad the world is and asserts that religion makes life better and offers another life. Why are we to believe these claims, anyway?..and what does that do to help this life?

The entire “What can be gained from reading the Bible” section does nothing to establish the truth of biblical claims. It only offers another world, but how are we to know that this other world exists? Because the Bible says so?...well, so many other books make the same sorts of claims, but they contradict each other.

“The birth of a child of god” section talks about a born again Christian and an appeal to emotion. The author seemingly wants us to feel sorry for the person and read the Bible.

The Bible is not just one book but a compilation of 66 books recorded over a period of about 1,500 years by people of all walks of life, from fisherman to king. It is not, however, a random record of events drawn from the memories of those who put pen to paper.
For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21) The Bible was written by God through the Holy Spirit who inspired various prophets with the words for the books they penned. This is why the concepts and events recorded in the Bible may at times transcend man’s sphere of knowledge, thoughts, and imagination.”

This argument is a very clear display of circular reasoning. The author says that the Bible was written by God through the Holy Spirit who inspired people...and the evidence for this is the Bible itself. So, by this reasoning, every book claiming to be written by God is written by God. Does Gandalf exist? Well, the Lord of the Rings books say he does, thus Gandalf is real according to this reasoning. Surely not everything written is true. Using the books to claim that the books are true is faulty reasoning.

“To put it simply, this means that God’s terrible wrath is revealed against those who claim that He does not exist. Many people who consider themselves intelligent, educated members of society do not believe in God. This is because they think they are cleverer than God. With excessive confidence in themselves, they ask, “Where is God?” They deny God completely and do not believe in Him. Denying the existence of God so easily is not very wise. Such people have no idea what a great sin it is not to believe in God.”

So, let's threaten non-believers with the wrath of God...this is an appeal to consequences. It is a wide misrepresentation and a false claim to say that people who don't believe in God think they are cleverer than him. That doesn't make any sense; why would a non-believer say that they are more clever than an imaginary being? Anyway, non-believers do not believe in God mostly because they have no evidence of the claim and all arguments from theists have failed. We don't deny God, we don't believe in him. This is a misrepresentation of disbelief and an assertion that God exists no matter even if you don't believe in him. There's another appeal to consequences in the last two sentences. The author has done nothing here to prove that God exists or provided good reasons to believe because threats.

“suppose God actually does exist. Do you think it would not matter if you scorned Him, denied Him, and refused to put your faith in Him? Would it be all right to deny the God who created this world? Would it be a matter of no consequence if you cursed God and declared that He is dead?”

This argument is ridiculous and does nothing to prove that God exists. I'll shift the argument back on the author and say something like, “Do you know how bad it is to deny Zeus/Thor/Posideon/Allah/Mohammad/The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would it be a matter of no consequence to say that they don't exist?” This is also a sort of Pascalian Wager saying that you should believe because if you don't and God exists, you're in for trouble. (More fear tactics, too)

“What is the difference between man and animals? First of all, animals do not have any form of religion. I do not think anyone will disagree on that point. Only man has religions and a concept of God. Why is that? There is something inside of man which is not to be found inside of animals. It is what is referred to as the spirit. All religions concern themselves, in their own way, with the activities of the spirit. This is why religion only exists in the world of man.”

This argument is a non-sequiter. It says that we have a “spirit” simply because man has religion and animals do not. How does the fact that animals aren't religious have anything to do with us having a spirit? Man invented religion because he could not understand the universe and created stories, myths, and explanations to explain what couldn't be explained.

“...then he regrets what he has done. Such thoughts are the activity of the conscience, which is the activity of the spirit. This occurs within man but not within animals.
Let me ask you another question. Do you think that you do not have a conscience? Have you ever felt guilty about anything? Your conscience--that part of you which is not found in animals--is the activity of the spirit.”

“Higher” animals, actually, do have a good sense of right and wrong and generally don't tolerate stealing, bullying, and bad behavior. “Conscience” has nothing to do with the work of a deity; it is the product of human experience, socialization, and our brain activity. Again, this proves nothing about a “spirit.”

The author proceeds to quote the Bible saying that God created man. Again, this is circular reasoning and does nothing to establish the claim that God did create man.

“God is spirit, and therefore He is invisible to our physical eyes”

This is an evasive claim. May I say that unicorns are spiritual and invisible to our eyes. Does this do anything to establish the existence of unicorns?

“How can man find God? The gospel that the Bible presents is the good news that God Himself has come into our human world in order to find man. Therein lies the difference. Man cannot find God; it is God who came to find man.” […] “The Bible tells us not only that God exists, but that this same God also created the world in which we are living.”

More circular reasoning...

“If it turns out, however, that the theory of evolution is incorrect and our world and everything in it was actually created, it would follow that there must also be a creator.”

Even if evolution were somehow disproven this does not follow that there would be a creator. This would only mean that evolution were disproven. This argument is weak, though, who cares if evolution were possibly incorrect? It's not. Evolution shows that life was not intelligently designed and that we don't need God to explain life. The author then quotes the Bible more and uses more circular reasoning.

Let’s take an artist as an example. When an artist paints a picture, it is very rare that the people who will later look at that picture will actually have seen the artist at work. […] God, too, is an artist; He is the artist and Lord of the creation, who made everything in the heavens and on the earth. God is invisible to our physical eyes and His divine nature and power are also invisible, but His workmanship is revealed in everything in the universe – His creation.”

So, simply because we can't see God means that God created everything? This is another non-sequiter argument that does nothing to prove that God made everything. I may say that Chuck E. Cheese created everything and since we can't see him, he still did it. The author actually weakens his own claim here. It's the other way around, though: we don't see evolution taking place, but we can look at the human genome, the fossil record, and species varying on different islands to show that evolution is true.

The next section is tons of preaching and this basic argument:

Just like humans, God created laws of nature and therefore God exists.

“Hail falls from the skies. Frost forms on the ground. How do all these things happen? They all happen according to natural laws as God’s word runs swiftly. So when we say that God created this world through His word, it means that He created this world through laws.”

This does nothing to prove that God exists. These things actually occur though natural processes that do not need a God to happen. Everything in our universe works with the assumption that God doesn't exist. Why should we add an unneeded complication?

“What are all the scientific products of our modern world? What is science? Science cannot arise from things that have simply come into existence by chance. It stems from within the word of God, and God is the fundamental scientist. All of the laws of nature are within the word of God”

Science does not work on the assumption that God exists. “The God hypothesis” has failed. If God were real, science would be able to detect God. The claims that Christianity makes should be detectable...we should see the evidence where it claims to be. Science doesn't stem from the word of God...it stems from the scientific method, humans, and empirical evidence.

“People analyze and explain things scientifically, yet they still say that these things came about by chance and just happen to exist. Does that make sense?”

Scientists don't say that things came about by chance. Things, do though, just “happen” to exist. Do they not happen to exist?

“It is not just our hands that have been designed with a purpose. It is the same for every part of our bodies... our hands and feet have been designed for different purposes according to the work that they must carry out.”

The fact that our hands and feet serve purposes has nothing to do with a “design.” Our hands and feet are a product of evolution. Complexity also does not imply a designer. I tackled this in a previous post (http://greenatheist.blogspot.com/2009/11/complexity-and-unknown.html)

A Summary of Arguments

In response to:

"Religion and the Bible can offer many good things and gives people so much hope"

Feel free to comment, agree with, or refute any of my arguments.

-------

I'm sure the Bible, theologians, etc have many good things to say about human life, but all of this is riddled with discussion that there is a supreme being who created the universe. There is nothing suggesting that the universe was intelligently designed and there is nothing suggesting a supreme being. If we see no evidence suggesting that these claims are true, we should not believe in there.

Theologians and philosophers have been trying to argue for God's existence for the past 2000 years. All of the arguments have failed; the claims put forth by theists regarding the existence of God are insufficient and false. We can talk about human life, morality, hope, love, etc without God. We're even better off doing so. Why should we bother to believe in God and follow a specific doctrine if ideas if the ideas are false and God does not exist? We're only lying to ourselves and being intellectually dishonest.

Sure, not all religious people behave poorly or are ignorant, but many "lay-people" and ID-proponents/young earth creationists are. My aunt, for example, thinks that I am possessed by the devil and am going to Hell. I've met people who "don't believe" in medicine, and people who think that if religion went away that everyone would murder each other.

If we like the Bible, fine, we can glean information from it, but this does not require us to believe in God or that any of the events actually happened. I can, for example, watch Star Wars and enjoy the idea of "the force" and not believe that it actually exists. I can also read Sufi literature and not believe in any of their supernatural claims.

I suppose we can both agree that many people are simply intellectually lazy. Many religious people don't even read the Bible or know much about their religion. Most have not researched the arguments against God's existence. Most have not even analyzed the arguments for God's existence. A great percentage of religious people don't believe in evolution by natural selection....

I think a huge problem is lack of education and I firmly believe that religion is a barrier to this. Many religious people are content with religion and don't pursue answers through philosophy, science, or elsewhere. In order to be a Christian you have to believe that Heaven sat and watched for about 70,000 years while humans died of birth defects, malnutrition, teeth growing in, etc and God finally decided to intervene in the Middle East to a group of barbaric people who could not read and write and were goat herders...not in China or Egypt where people were very literate and much more intelligent (no offense to Middle-Easterners, of course).

I can't find any truth to the metaphysical claims of religion...the more and more I study, listen to claims of theists, and even talk to theologians, I find nothing. I even spoke with the theologian who attended the Moreau Lectures and the best response he could give for the existence of God was that since God is a metaphysical claim, so there is no evidence. Of any person, theologians and apologists should be able to give arguments for the existence of God since that is what they primarily study and devote most of their time to.

Christianity, though, makes very specific claims about the universe including but not limited to virgin births, resurrection, miracles, power of prayer, etc. There is no evidence for any of these claims and no miracles have happened in the past few centuries while we now have the power and technology to document. The miracles of the Bible have no evidence and do not persist.

If the claims of religion are false, does not Christianity fall flat on its face?

Hundreds of other religions make very specific claims about the universe, make their own prophets and gods, have their own holy books, and you and many others certainly dismiss all of them except for one. Why easily dismiss so many other gods and religions and say that the claims of Christianity are true?

Gay Marriage in DC

The Catholic Archdiocese in Washington D.C. is threatening to stop its social service programs and helping people in need if Washington D.C. passes a bill regarding same-sex marriage.

"The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care."

- Washington Post 11/12/09

What in the world is going on here? This is 2009 and the Catholic Church is clearly discriminating against homosexuals. This situation is very public and explicit. How and why would a moral person align themself with an organization that is blatently anti-human rights and anti-human?

They are willing to stop giving money to people in need because a state wants to pass a marraige bill.

Awesome Christian values!

To Homosexual Catholics

Are you are willing to give up your own personal rights because of what the Catholic Church has to say? What if, tomorrow, the pope gives a speech about homosexuals and says that all homosexuals can not attend masses, receive sacraments, and must give 25% of their income to the church while others must give 10%?

If gay marriage were passed tomorrow in whatever way, would you protest it, forfeit your own rights, and say that a marriage between two women or two men is "immoral, disordered, and damaging to children" like the pope has said on several occassions?

People keep telling me that the Catholic church is not against homosexuals, but it is obvious that they are the biggest homophobic organization on earth. Sure, not all priests/parishoners/etc are not anti-gay, but so many of them are.

People are constantly using religious arguments to fight against gay rights, are saying homosexulaity is "unnatural," and saying that God's law is the real law.

The pope, had these things to say about homosexuality and gay marriage:

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."

"they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent."

Would you ever belong to any club, organization, or work at a job where a leader had these things to say? If the CEO of any company or leader of any club would say any of these things, the media would immediately flock upon the buisness/club and there would be protests, boycotts, and calls for resignation. People, especially homosexuals and human rights advocates, would probably quit supporting and working for this organization/buisness.

It is so obvious that the Catholicism and many other religions are the #1 barrier to gay marriages, gay rights, and the normalization of homosexuality in the world.

Imagine no religion...

The Catholic Church is NOT A Force Of Good (1)

Church teaching on sex condemns millions to death

Each year, 600,000 women die needlessly during pregnancy and childbirth and thousands more die from botched illegal abortions. Each year, 5.8 million people become HIV positive and 2.5 million die from Aids. Today, more than 28% of African children have lost one or both parents to Aids. Yet the Church has consistently lobbied to block international policy decisions that would make condom education and use a major tool in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and in the battle against Aids. At a recent world conference on women and population development, it

successfully led the effort to block the inclusion of safe, legal abortion on the list of basic reproductive rights for women. It has used its voice to limit access to family planning, safe abortion – even in countries where abortion is legal – and emergency contraception, even

for women who have been raped in an act of war. The Church has had no hesitation in quoting specious scientific evidence to back its case. In Kenya a church pamphlet stated that HIV can pass through condoms and in 2003, the Vatican claimed that "serious scientific studies" backed this view. No scientists supported the claim. It was a lie.

Catholic teaching on sex forces people to be hypocrites

The Church's condemnation of homosexuality, divorce

and even safe sex effectively debars huge numbers of

good Catholics from the sacraments or forces them to

become two-faced hypocrites. While there was a rapid

increase in Catholic divorce rates, divorced Catholics

who remarry are barred from the sacraments. In Italy

where about 85% identify themselves as Catholic, a

recent study showed that 70% approve of premarital

sex, birth control and divorce, and the country has one

of the world's lowest fertility rates – a resounding

thumbs down to the church's teaching on

contraception. In Britain, a 2008 study found that most

practising Catholics were ignoring the Church's

teachings on contraception and sex. Even many

priests disagree with church teaching. In England, a

2003 survey of Roman Catholic priests found most did

not support the Church's ban on artificial contraception

and 40% thought the church's attitude to divorce and

remarriage should be liberalised. 61% did not believe

that sex with a married woman should debar priests

from practising.

The Church's teaching on homosexuality is cruel and outdated

The Church condemns homosexuality as a "disorder",

despite the fact that all the evidence suggests that

people are born homosexual and can't change the way

they are. Effectively the Church offers two solutions for

gays: a) stay at home and pretend to be a monk; b)

marry a heterosexual and try not to make them too

miserable. Both of these "solutions" have led to terrible

individual suffering. Though the church claims not to

be anti-homosexuals, it perpetuates bigotry behind

which homophobes and gay bashers can hide.

The Church denigrates women

By outlawing contraception and abortion, he denied

women their right to control their own bodies. Papal

pronouncements – that rape victims in Bosnia must be

denied abortion, or that contraception was “intrinsically

evil” – reinforced that sense. The ban on contraception

did more to subvert the standing of the Church among

women than almost anything else. Catholic women

who used birth control were effectively forced to act out

their disrespect for the Churchʼs moral teachings every

time they did so. In Africa, otherwise excellent Catholic

mission hospitals were prohibited from offering birth

control services to poor mothers, leaving them to bring

children into the world to die of malnutrition. Even

worse was the denial of contraception to women

infected with HIV (which has been disproportionately

prevalent in sub-Saharn Africa since the 1990s). After

Vatican II many Catholics looked for a greater role for

women in the running of the Church. But the church

has refused to discuss the possibility of ordaining

women as priests despite a desperate shortage of new

priests and the fact that that there were twice as many

nuns as monks. Indeed, Pope John Paul made the ban

on women priests a matter of papal infallibility, which it

had not been before, effectively preventing any of his

successors from changing church policy on the issue.

Yet recent surveys show that in Ireland, Italy, Spain

and the US, most Catholics favour the ordination of

women.

The Church has been hypocritical about paedophile priests

In the past decade there has been an avalanche of

revelations about sexual and other abuse carried out

by Catholic priests and members of religious orders in

countries around the world. By February 2004, 4,400

priests in America alone had been "credibly accused"

of attacking 11,000 minors over a 50-year period.

Bishops who knew about abuse allegations failed to

report them to police and reassigned accused priests

after first sending them to psychiatric counselling. This

year's publication of the Ryan Commission's report on

'endemic' child abuse in schools run by Roman

Catholic religious orders in Ireland, shows the problem

was widespread. The Commission found that, over

many decades, Irish Governments had colluded in a

conspiracy of silence with the church as no action was

taken even though abuse was known to be endemic.

More than 800 individuals were identified as physical

or sexual abusers – an extraordinary number

compared with the handful of prosecutions that have

taken place. The Vatican's response too has been

tardy and inadequate. In 2002 it blamed the crisis on

"pan-sexuality and sexual licentiousness" in society

and made clear that the church would maintain "secret

canonical norms" to avoid a "culture of suspicion" – a

cover-up in other words. The curia also blamed gay

priests, thus making the false equation between

homosexuality and paedophilia. The attitudes that

made such abuse possible persist. In 2003 a survey

found that one in 10 Catholic priests in England and

Wales felt that paedophilia should not debar priests

from active ministry.

(briefs from http://www.intelligencesquared.com/briefings/iq2-briefing-the-catholic-church.pdf)

Wall Of Shame: Family Members

After posting a simple link to my blog on my cousin Jered's Facebook profile, I have received quite a backlash from my aunt who says she is a Christian.

I'm not friends with her on Facebook, thus she has posted about me on my cousin's wall.

Here is what my loving aunt has said about me and to me:

"God is a metaphysical claim"

Theists typically use the argument, "There is no evidence for God because God is a metaphysical claim."

This argument fails because, of course, it does not give any reason as to why anyone should believe in God.

You freely don't believe in unicorns, ogres, trolls, etc because, of course, there is no evidence. You don't say, "OH, well, I still believe."

Christianity, though, makes very specific claims about the universe such as, "God created the universe," "God created humans," "Jesus was born of a virgin," and "If you pray, God will answer your prayers."

We see no evidence that God created the universe. Any claim saying that a being created the universe is simply an appeal to ignorance and adds further complications (Who created the being, was the being sitting around forever doing nothing, if the being is perfect why would it have to create something, etc.). We don't know if the universe was even created and nothing suggests that it was. An overwhelming amount of evidence shows that the universe was not designed and we see many examples of unintelligent design.

Evolution shows us that everything evolved from a lower form - there was no special creation for humans. The claim that humans were specially created creatures is demonstrably false.

We know that people are not born of virgins. Throughout history, though, individuals such as Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan claimed to be born of a virgin. We don't accept these claims. Jesus' existence is even dubious. The gospels were written well after Jesus' existence and do nothing to prove that he existed.

We see that prayer does not work. We have had scientific experiments funded by religious institutions that showed us prayer does not work. If prayer does work our universe would be drastically different and we'd live a life of chaos. More on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

My "faith" isn't the same as yours.

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar

Theists often claim the following:

- All claims are faith claims

- Faith in religion is the same as faith in all aspects of life

Dictionary.com:

faith - confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

Theists typically try to say that their faith in God is no different than me having faith in a relationship, science, or something else not regarding religion.

Faith in God is not based on evidence. It is, in fact, contrary to evidence. Science shows no evidence that God exists. Non-theists show that if God were to exist we'd see evidence for his existence. Evolution shows us that we don't need to invoke God to explain our ancestry. God didn't create humans in a special light...they evolved from "lower forms."

Your belief in God is not based on any real evidence. If there were real evidence, you'd be able to show it and everyone would believe. Scientists would have found the evidence and Christians would, without a doubt, share the evidence with the community. Atheists would not exist and the situation would not be a faith situation anymore.

My "faith" is not contrary to evidence. I can have "faith" that a friend will meet with me, for example, at 7:00PM. I can say that this friend is reliable, trustworthy, and honest. We made plans before to arrange this meeting. My friend exists.... If if this friend were not trustworthy and honest, I simply trust that he will show, but I can make a reasoned claim to probability or simply say, "Well, my friend isn't trustworthy, from past experience, he probably won't show."

My "faith" is simply based on a proposition of hoping that my friend will meet me.

Your faith is a proposition that both God exists and his promises are true.

From Iron Chariots Wiki:

Faith is trust

• Faith is not trust. Trust is generally justified. Appeals to faith would be unneeded if the faith were justified initially.
• This is equivocation. Comparing my belief that "my family will not murder me during the night" with believing in "unjustified, unevidenced religious claims" is simply equating the two words when they do not properly equate. Attempting to justify religious faith by appealing to a more justifiable claim, which is itself justified by evidence and reason, and ignoring the justification in order to assume no justification is needed, is not a cogent argument.

Faith in a religious sense is much different than faith in all other areas of life.

Slavery

In tonight's Perspectives on Scripture discussion someone said that slavery back then was "different" than it was in recent history.

I don't care who makes claims, but I'm calling people out on silly claims. I'm going to question and challenge that which is ridiculous, unjust, immoral, nonsensical, or incorrect.

This claim is often used as an apologetic to defend the Bible. Whether or not this claim is used to defend faith, slavery is immoral. Slavery is owning another human being. End of story. There is no excuse, at all, for this. The Bible, though, has been used several times to justify slavery and was a big pro-argument in times of the American Civil War.

Surely moral standards change over time, but this does not excuse slavery or an eternal all-loving being condoning slavery.

The problem, though, is that a supposed all-loving God/ The Bible gives rules, very specific rules for slavery in both the NT and OT:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So much for your all-loving God.