NationStates Jolt Archive


I've lost all tolerance for religious people

Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 11:25
I'm sorry, but I've decided from now on my default position to anyone who professes a belief in a higher being is "fuck you, you fucking retard". We can't pussy foot around this issue anymore. It's kind of like if we just tolerated brain dead people, which is effectively what we're doing. We're allowing people who think that a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago talks to them through a collection of fairy tales and Jewish history.

Fuck me...

There just isn't any room in the 21st century to let these sort of people make day-to-day decisions, let alone run a country. I suggest to diaper them, round them up in hospitals and hook the up to feeding tubes with the rest of the enfeebled.

Now as many of you know, I was once a born again Christian. As devout as they come as a sure of my beliefs as I could be, but there came a point my childhood when I began to think, and any Christian will tell you that thinking is the undoing of religion, and concluded that this was a crock of shit.

There are no doubt many out there who feel truly offended because you believe in God and think this is a personal attack on you, but that is not the case. I am simply proposing that you be treated like mental defectives.
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 11:28
very good :D
Iniika
26-12-2007, 11:28
*shocked speechless*

*Awaits the angry masses* >.>;

*on the sidelines*

*out of harms way*

Any trigger in particular for this?
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 11:34
*shrug*
Since we (humanity) have huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe, I think it unfair to call anyone who considers it possible that a supreme being exists mentally deficient.
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 11:35
*shocked speechless*

*Awaits the angry masses* >.>;

*on the sidelines*

*out of harms way*

Any trigger in particular for this?
Where to begin really...
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 11:37
*shrug*
Since we (humanity) have huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe, I think it unfair to call anyone who considers it possible that a supreme being exists mentally deficient.Well, in Rotovia's context it's ok. Devout Christians are mentally deficient.
Btw, it is utterly stupid to fill gaps in knowledge with faith.
Longhaul
26-12-2007, 11:41
There just isn't any room in the 21st century to let these sort of people make day-to-day decisions, let alone run a country
I'm with you on that. It scares me senseless to think that all of our futures may in part depend on decisions made by someone who takes their inspiration from myth rather that utilising rational judgement.

I'm not about to call for their incarceration, though. Your pigeonholing of them all as "mental defectives", or being "enfeebled" is defensible in a lot of ways but I don't feel that you're giving the power of brainwashing enough credit. Many believers in <insert faith here> have had no opportunity to form their own worldview and have instead had unswerving belief inculcated in them whilst growing up. I hold them to be blameless in this matter.

Meh, plenty more could be said, but I'm off to turn what's left of yesterday's turkey into a curry before my wife gets out of bed and decides that Xmas dinner part II is a good idea. ;)
The Mindset
26-12-2007, 11:44
*shrug*
Since we (humanity) have huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe, I think it unfair to call anyone who considers it possible that a supreme being exists mentally deficient.

Why? Why insert a sky fairy when the lack of a sky fairy is much more probable?
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 11:44
Well, in Rotovia's context it's ok. Devout Christians are mentally deficient.
Btw, it is utterly stupid to fill gaps in knowledge with faith.

Depends. If it makes you feel better, why not?
I personally feel better filling gaps through saying "I do not know - lets find out" instead of "Goddidit", but hey. I have seen many Christians that seem happier with their life.
Eire Mor
26-12-2007, 11:47
There are no doubt many out there who feel truly offended because you believe in God and think this is a personal attack on you, but that is not the case. I am simply proposing that you be treated like mental defectives.

So, you're not personally attacking religious people by suggesting that all of them be tucked away out of sight of the rest of you "enlightened?" Sounds pretty personal to me. Would you be willing to name any of these "facilities" Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or Dachau, by chance? Just wondering.
Vandal-Unknown
26-12-2007, 11:49
Depends. If it makes you feel better, why not?
I personally feel better filling gaps through saying "I do not know - lets find out" instead of "Goddidit", but hey. I have seen many Christians that seem happier with their life.

Hey, that sounds pretty good,... I think "Goddidit" should be the default placeholder answer to any yet unanswered question.

Who washed the dishes? Goddidit!

Who invented the lightbulb? Errr... Thomas A. Edison?

Who gave cheese to the world? Goddidit!

Besides, the religiously devout faction already proposed the same thing for the atheist faction for a looooong time ago, I could say that this idea is nothing really new.
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 11:51
*shrug*
Since we (humanity) have huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe, I think it unfair to call anyone who considers it possible that a supreme being exists mentally deficient.

But, other than a theists desire for there a god to exist, what is there to base such beliefs upon?
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 11:53
Depends. If it makes you feel better, why not?
I personally feel better filling gaps through saying "I do not know - lets find out" instead of "Goddidit", but hey. I have seen many Christians that seem happier with their life.Feeling better is irrelevant. And dwelling in ignorance is not really a happy state.
Iniika
26-12-2007, 11:53
So, you're not personally attacking religious people by suggesting that all of them be tucked away out of sight of the rest of you "enlightened?" Sounds pretty personal to me. Would you be willing to name any of these "facilities" Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or Dachau, by chance? Just wondering.

Hmm... Nazi reference came pretty early in the game. Within the first ten posts.

Impressive.
Allanea
26-12-2007, 11:54
NS G is the best argument I've ever heard for baptising myself.
Dryks Legacy
26-12-2007, 11:54
*shrug*
Since we (humanity) have huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe, I think it unfair to call anyone who considers it possible that a supreme being exists mentally deficient.

Organised religion can hardly be classified as "considers it possible that a supreme being exists".
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 11:55
So, you're not personally attacking religious people by suggesting that all of them be tucked away out of sight of the rest of you "enlightened?" Sounds pretty personal to me. Would you be willing to name any of these "facilities" Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or Dachau, by chance? Just wondering.

Are you suggesting I have a need for a "Final Solution to the Christian Problem"?
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 11:58
So, you're not personally attacking religious people by suggesting that all of them be tucked away out of sight of the rest of you "enlightened?" Sounds pretty personal to me. Would you be willing to name any of these "facilities" Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or Dachau, by chance? Just wondering.a big hole in the ground will do.
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 11:58
Are you suggesting I have a need for a "Final Solution to the Christian Problem"?Well, education is expensive these days...
Aezakmi
26-12-2007, 11:58
Depends. If it makes you feel better, why not?
I personally feel better filling gaps through saying "I do not know - lets find out" instead of "Goddidit", but hey. I have seen many Christians that seem happier with their life.

When did it become against the law for religious people to say 'god did it... and I want to find out how and why!' Many respected scientists, particularly the founders of science such as Newton, Hippocrates, etc, thought along those lines. It's just arrogant (and very annoying) when atheists think that theirs is the only belief that allows one to take an interest in the way the universe works, and that any religious person is therefore a complete idiot who is content to wallow in their own ignorance.
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 11:59
Well, education is expensive these days...

I'm just wondering if I'm crossing the last moral line by pointing out the irony in sending neo-nazi rednecks to death-camps?
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 12:00
When did it become against the law for religious people to say 'god did it... and I want to find out how and why!'

I believe it was when the Catholic church became powerful. Why ?
Icelove The Carnal
26-12-2007, 12:02
any Christian will tell you that thinking is the undoing of religion



Looks like you have never known what a Christian is.
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 12:02
Feeling better is irrelevant. And dwelling in ignorance is not really a happy state.

Oh, I agree. But most people seem much happier living in a fantasyworld.
Should we truly make them miserable ?
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 12:03
When did it become against the law for religious people to say 'god did it... and I want to find out how and why!' Many respected scientists, particularly the founders of science such as Newton, Hippocrates, etc, thought along those lines. It's just arrogant (and very annoying) when atheists think that theirs is the only belief that allows one to take an interest in the way the universe works, and that any religious person is therefore a complete idiot who is content to wallow in their own ignorance.
Because if scientists started asked to be treated as credible whilst claiming to be investigating the mysterious works of the Easter bunny they'd by laughed at so loudly the collective sound would puncture a whole in the ozone layer so large it would kill us all.
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 12:04
Oh, I agree. But most people seem much happier living in a fantasyworld. Happiness is not a criterion for me. I am no US American.
Should we truly make them miserable ?They are already. And if reality is to hard for them, maybe they should quit this life.
Vory
26-12-2007, 12:04
Feeling better is irrelevant. And dwelling in ignorance is not really a happy state.

I beg to differ.....ignorance is bliss; just look at all the mentally retarded in the world-nothing but smiles and giggles with the mind of a 6 year old!
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:05
When did it become against the law for religious people to say 'god did it... and I want to find out how and why!' Many respected scientists, particularly the founders of science such as Newton, Hippocrates, etc, thought along those lines. It's just arrogant (and very annoying) when atheists think that theirs is the only belief that allows one to take an interest in the way the universe works, and that any religious person is therefore a complete idiot who is content to wallow in their own ignorance.

Religion and Science do not mix.

Even a person who would follow both paths, must inevitably choose one or the other.
Pretty soon, a fossil is discovered, and the Fundamentalist must realize its older than 6000 years. A evangelist eventually must concede that science continues to prove the bible innacurate.
A Jew must concede that there was no flood.

So forth and so on.

Eventually, theology is replaced by facts, as humans learn them.

I think what Rotovia is precisely getting at, is that religion has no place in politics.
This is absolutely true, and laws are made for the benefit of ALL it governs.
Laws must NEVER be passed that benefit a religion, at the exspense of thoswe who choose not to be a part of that religion.
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:06
Looks like you have never known what a Christian is.

False.

Adam and Eve ate what?

The apple.

The apple symbolizes what?

KNOWLEDGE.

Ergo, God punished man, and forever damned him and his offspring to Hell, for wanting to learn.
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 12:09
False.

Adam and Eve ate what?

The apple.

The fruit actually. Most likely a fig, but it is never named.
Aezakmi
26-12-2007, 12:10
I believe it was when the Catholic church became powerful. Why ?

Ah yes, the fearsome catholic church. I personally believe that whole phase had more to do with a powerful minority trying to maintain their grip upon power by keeping the bulk of the population ignorant and uneducated, rather than anything to do with religion itself. But that's a different debate. I'm asking why is it seemingly an automatic assumption that religious person = ignorant moron? Is it the result of a lot of bad experiences with religious people who actually are ignorant morons? I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who are also ignorant morons, should we bang them up in nursing homes too? If we started shoving groups of people into care homes just because another group thinks they are idiots, then I don't think there'd be anybody left over.
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 12:12
I'm asking why is it seemingly an automatic assumption that religious person = ignorant moron?

Because, as mentioned, dogma and wishing to find things out do not mix.
To name a few more scientists: Darwin and Galileo were devout Christians trying to find things out. They were not exactly hailed as heroes. The whole attitude seems to be "feel free to find out we are right,or shut up".
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:13
The fruit actually. Most likely a fig, but it is never named.

Eh, you have a point, but today its pretty accepted as an apple.
Either way, its symbolism is the same.
God punished them for learning.
Icelove The Carnal
26-12-2007, 12:14
False.

Adam and Eve ate what?

The apple.

The apple symbolizes what?

KNOWLEDGE.

Ergo, God punished man, and forever damned him and his offspring to Hell, for wanting to learn.

This is what is said by the ones who refuse to think about it properly.
Adam is known by theology as the one with more knowledge. His knowledge was perfect before he ate the fruit (which is never called apple). After eating the fruit, it became imperfect, bacause of the perversion coming from Sin.
The fruit is something far more complex. It's the chance to make yourself your own God, which is not knowledge, and not even freedom of will: Adam and Eva already had freedom of will, otherwise, they would never had been able at eating the fruit against God's desire. The fruit is the chance to blind your eyes by building something that does not exist and putting it in front of you - shame for nudity, to give you the biblical example.
The "forever damned" part doesn't work at all. I don't think there is any need to explain why. Read the Text and you will see by yourself.
NERVUN
26-12-2007, 12:17
Because, as mentioned, dogma and wishing to find things out do not mix.
No doubt why some 70+% of scientists profess some sort of faith. So... what must I conclude from that? That it is INDEED possible to be a man of faith and actually think or that we should just toss all knowledge not produced by the "faithful" Atheists? And what, exactly does that mean?

Fuck you Rotovia-? Sure, go for it. I feel sorry that you keep changing faiths and creeds faster than my 3 month old son changes diapers and STILL can't seem to get past the need to feel superior to whomever does not share your creed-of-the-month.
Iniika
26-12-2007, 12:17
Eh, you have a point, but today its pretty accepted as an apple.
Either way, its symbolism is the same.
God punished them for learning.

Actually, I think God punished them for disobedience.

But you can still have the point that he didn't want them learning in the first place ^.^
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 12:22
False.

Adam and Eve ate what?

The apple.

The apple symbolizes what?

KNOWLEDGE.

Ergo, God punished man, and forever damned him and his offspring to Hell, for wanting to learn.Since when does an apple symbolize knowledge?

Btw, the bible never mentions an apple, only the latin word for evil is very close to apple.
Aquilias
26-12-2007, 12:23
Does it comfort you to know that they probably can't stand you either?
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 12:23
No doubt why some 70+% of scientists profess some sort of faith. See, humans are full of errors...
Aezakmi
26-12-2007, 12:24
Religion and Science do not mix.

Even a person who would follow both paths, must inevitably choose one or the other.
Pretty soon, a fossil is discovered, and the Fundamentalist must realize its older than 6000 years. A evangelist eventually must concede that science continues to prove the bible innacurate.
A Jew must concede that there was no flood.

So forth and so on.

Eventually, theology is replaced by facts, as humans learn them.

I think what Rotovia is precisely getting at, is that religion has no place in politics.
This is absolutely true, and laws are made for the benefit of ALL it governs.
Laws must NEVER be passed that benefit a religion, at the exspense of thoswe who choose not to be a part of that religion.

It all depends how you look at things. Pretty much all 'bare facts' require a certain interpretation, and that interpretation all depends on what the person making the observations believes. A person who has already made up their minds that one scenario is true will only interpret evidence to fit that scenario, and scoff at any other interpretation as 'denying the facts' and 'going against logic and science' or, as the case may be, 'defying god's clear messages'. Again, this is a whole different debate, one that I don't want to drag everyone down into.

I agree wholeheartedly with your second point, religion and politics do not mix. The results are invariably disastrous. Religion should never dictate politics, and politics should never dictate religion.
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:25
This is what is said by the ones who refuse to think about it properly.
Adam is known by theology as the one with more knowledge. His knowledge was perfect before he ate the fruit (which is never called apple). After eating the fruit, it became imperfect, bacause of the perversion coming from Sin.
The fruit is something far more complex. It's the chance to make yourself your own God, which is not knowledge, and not even freedom of will: Adam and Eva already had freedom of will, otherwise, they would never had been able at eating the fruit against God's desire. The fruit is the chance to blind your eyes by building something that does not exist and putting it in front of you - shame for nudity, to give you the biblical example.
The "forever damned" part doesn't work at all. I don't think there is any need to explain why. Read the Text and you will see by yourself.

Ive read the text, and it quite thoroughly supports all Ive said.
Fruits, particularly apples have symbolized knowledge long, long before Newton had one hit him on the head.
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of nudeness, before eating the apple.
Their knowledge was certainly not perfect.
"Becoming your own God" is nonsense, and no such refference is ever made to the idea.
The fact is, they are punished in the story for obtaining knowledge that was forbidden to them. If they had truly been given "free will", then any Omniscient god would know what was to befall the tree.

Genesis, and indeed all of the OT are stories meant to inspire lessons.
The lesson of Genesis is "do not question", and "do not seek knowledge that is forbidden to you".
Pure and simple.
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:26
Since when does an apple symbolize knowledge?

Uhh..since forever?

Newton?
Apple computers?


Btw, the bible never mentions an apple, only the latin word for evil is very close to apple.

You are correct.
Too late, but correct.
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:27
Does it comfort you to know that they probably can't stand you either?

and gays, or Jews, or hindus, or Muslims, or poor people, or....
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:31
It all depends how you look at things. Pretty much all 'bare facts' require a certain interpretation, and that interpretation all depends on what the person making the observations believes.

No, one requires belief in something wich cannot be correlated. The other makes decision, based upon evidence.


A person who has already made up their minds that one scenario is true will only interpret evidence to fit that scenario, and scoff at any other interpretation as 'denying the facts' and 'going against logic and science' or, as the case may be, 'defying god's clear messages'. Again, this is a whole different debate, one that I don't wNT to drag everyone down into.

You wont be the first. Its what we do here.


I agree wholeheartedly with your second point, religion and politics do not mix. The results are invariably disastrous. Religion should never dictate politics, and politics should never dictate religion.

Indeed. I feel as strongly that laws should never be passed wich inhibit anyone right to practice any such religion, as long as the practice is not infringing upon anyone elses rights.
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 12:35
In the Book of Genesis, chapters two and three, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (and occasionally translated as the Tree of Conscience) was a tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden (2:9) from which God directly forbade Adam (and by extension Eve) to eat (2:17). When Eve, and then Adam, ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 12:36
No doubt why some 70+% of scientists profess some sort of faith. So... what must I conclude from that? That it is INDEED possible to be a man of faith and actually think or that we should just toss all knowledge not produced by the "faithful" Atheists? And what, exactly does that mean?

Fuck you Rotovia-? Sure, go for it. I feel sorry that you keep changing faiths and creeds faster than my 3 month old son changes diapers and STILL can't seem to get past the need to feel superior to whomever does not share your creed-of-the-month.

Blind obedience clearly is much better idea.
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 12:38
In the Book of Genesis, chapters two and three, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (and occasionally translated as the Tree of Conscience) was a tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden (2:9) from which God directly forbade Adam (and by extension Eve) to eat (2:17). When Eve, and then Adam, ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of KnowledgeAnd?
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 12:38
No doubt why some 70+% of scientists profess some sort of faith.

Does that include experts in French poetry and other scientists that do not explore Gods, but Mans work ?
Are they happy when they find something that contradicts their religious teachings ?
Chumblywumbly
26-12-2007, 12:46
We can't pussy foot around this issue anymore. It's kind of like if we just tolerated brain dead people, which is effectively what we're doing. We're allowing people who think that a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago talks to them through a collection of fairy tales and Jewish history.

Fuck me...

There just isn't any room in the 21st century to let these sort of people make day-to-day decisions, let alone run a country. I suggest to diaper them, round them up in hospitals and hook the up to feeding tubes with the rest of the enfeebled.
See, you're addressing two entirely separate points here.

Firstly, the tricky subject of religion and spirituality in general that, although I agree with you that there is no god or gods, is a matter of personal belief. I find it rather appalling that someone should be punished or treated in a certain way for holding belief X, whether belief X be a religious belief, the belief that the moon is made of cheese, or a belief that the Earth takes 365.25 days to travel round the sun.

Secondly, there's the problem of church and state becoming entwined, with religious people creating legislation according to their faith, and demanding that everybody, religious or otherwise, follow such legislation. There is a serious problem, and I agree that in our multicultural, mutifaith societies no-one should be demanding that people live their lives according to one set of peoples' belief systems.

But these are very different issues, and we shouldn't confuse them. By all means, we should have debate and theological discussion, and try as much as possible to separate church and state, but demanding that all religious people be treated as mentally ill is just as bad as demanding that all atheists live their lives according to religious law.

It's not religion and spirituality per se that's the problem here, it's religious organisation and religious legislation.
Icelove The Carnal
26-12-2007, 12:47
Ive read the text, and it quite thoroughly supports all Ive said.
Fruits, particularly apples have symbolized knowledge long, long before Newton had one hit him on the head.
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of nudeness, before eating the apple.
Their knowledge was certainly not perfect.
"Becoming your own God" is nonsense, and no such refference is ever made to the idea.
The fact is, they are punished in the story for obtaining knowledge that was forbidden to them. If they had truly been given "free will", then any Omniscient god would know what was to befall the tree.

Genesis, and indeed all of the OT are stories meant to inspire lessons.
The lesson of Genesis is "do not question", and "do not seek knowledge that is forbidden to you".
Pure and simple.

Occam would have a lot of things to say about this argumentation.
First you say that what I wrote is wrong, because the Bible doesn't say it by itself; then you say things that are not written in the Bible, but should be right, in open contradiction with what you said a few lines above. I think we need to choose a method of debate. Shall we only consider what the Bible says, or also what has been thought about this, during the centuries?

So,first objection: can you bring me someexample of apples or, better, fruits which are symbles of wisdom? I know a little bit about mythology and something less about iconography, and I cannot remember any example. Probably, this is my lack of knowledge.

Second: I can't remember to be written anywhere "Adam and Eve did not notice to be naked". If I'm right, there is written: "their eyes opened and they saw they were naked". It does not say "they discovered to be naked". There isalso to think that this Text was written by a man, although inspired, for whom nakedness was a bad thing.

Third: becoming your own God is no nonsense. You can do this. You can have a God in a Celestial Creature, in money, in women, in pleasure, in a band or in yourself. Have you ever heard of the "pondus amoris"? If not, tell me, so that I can explain you.

Fourth: the Omniscent knew what was to happen. I can't see why he shoudn't. Would you refuse to give birth to a child, because of the fear he'll call you idiot? He almost surely will call you idiot, or old idiot, or something else, as many children do; but I don't think this will frighten you so much to refuse to have a child. And why should a great Creature as God is supposed to be refuse to create the human race for fear to be offended? Surely God doesn't like to be offended, but this is not enough for such a Creature toavoid creating.

Fifth: can you please tell me where you found this significance for Genesis? BTW, Genesis also deals with something alse than creation.
United Beleriand
26-12-2007, 12:53
It's not religion and spirituality per se that's the problem here, it's religious organisation and religious legislation.No, it's the weltanschauung conveyed by the respective religion.
NERVUN
26-12-2007, 12:55
See, humans are full of errors...
Too bad you're human then, eh?
NERVUN
26-12-2007, 12:58
Blind obedience clearly is much better idea.
Show me how all people who are religious (QUITE the majority on the planet thank you) have 'blind obedience' and I'LL show you those men and women who followed the Rev. Dr. Martian Luther King Jr. to civil disobedience based upon faith for equality.
NERVUN
26-12-2007, 13:02
Does that include experts in French poetry and other scientists that do not explore Gods, but Mans work ?
Are they happy when they find something that contradicts their religious teachings ?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

I would assume that the 59% of biologists who do believe in God have very little issues with it.

But tell ya what, why not TG LG and ask him? He does hold a degree in physics and has, when asked, explained why someone like him who does have a background in a hard science has no issues between being a scientist and someone who professes a faith.
Chumblywumbly
26-12-2007, 13:08
No, it's the weltanschauung conveyed by the respective religion.
We all have differing world views; why should those who believe in a higher power or powers be denied theirs?

What pomposity makes you think you and/or Rotovia can demand that everyone follow your own, secular, world view? And how is that any better than a religious person demanding that you follow the tenants of his or her faith; their world view?
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 13:24
We all have differing world views; why should those who believe in a higher power or powers be denied theirs?

What pomposity makes you think you and/or Rotovia can demand that everyone follow your own, secular, world view? And how is that any better than a religious person demanding that you follow the tenants of his or her faith; their world view?
All we ask is that you act in a manner consistent with the cognitive abilities of our species.
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 13:25
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

I would assume that the 59% of biologists who do believe in God have very little issues with it.

But tell ya what, why not TG LG and ask him? He does hold a degree in physics and has, when asked, explained why someone like him who does have a background in a hard science has no issues between being a scientist and someone who professes a faith.

Fair enough :)

Conclusion: being religious does not make you an idiot.
Being religious and acting like an idiot does. And the being religious part is then optional ;)
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 13:27
So,first objection: can you bring me someexample of apples or, better, fruits which are symbles of wisdom? I know a little bit about mythology and something less about iconography, and I cannot remember any example. Probably, this is my lack of knowledge.

As I wrote a few minutes ago, the apple, or even fruit in general, symbolizes wisdom, and knowledge. (and rebirth, and all sorts of things). Google it if you doubt me.
Im right on this.


Second: I can't remember to be written anywhere "Adam and Eve did not notice to be naked". If I'm right, there is written: "their eyes opened and they saw they were naked". It does not say "they discovered to be naked". There isalso to think that this Text was written by a man, although inspired, for whom nakedness was a bad thing.

Well, I'll agree with you that it was written by people, who had big hangups about nudity and sex. I remember one such story about a man (Ham, I think) who was damned and cast out for seeing his father naked, after he had passed out drunk.

As for Adam and Eve, God asked them "Who toldest thou thou were naked?" They dutifully pointed the finger at the serpent.
This clearly implies that they didnt understand the term beforehand. Thus, imperfect knowledge.


Third: becoming your own God is no nonsense. You can do this. You can have a God in a Celestial Creature, in money, in women, in pleasure, in a band or in yourself. Have you ever heard of the "pondus amoris"? If not, tell me, so that I can explain you.

Im loosely familiar with the term, and what I think you where mentioning beforehand is the striving for immortality, or at least thats the Genesis reference. This is of course, silly, as it cant be done.


Fourth: the Omniscent knew what was to happen. I can't see why he shoudn't. Would you refuse to give birth to a child, because of the fear he'll call you idiot? He almost surely will call you idiot, or old idiot, or something else, as many children do; but I don't think this will frighten you so much to refuse to have a child. And why should a great Creature as God is supposed to be refuse to create the human race for fear to be offended? Surely God doesn't like to be offended, but this is not enough for such a Creature toavoid creating.

Let me put it to you this way:

If God knew what was to befall his creations, and went ahead and created the tree, with the forbidden fruit, in full knowledge of what was to happen, then he is as much to blame as Eve. He KNEW they would eat it. He KNEW that he would punish them for it.
This is entrapment, clearly.
The question immediately becomes, "why would he punish them, for something he knew they could not/ would not resist?"
Would he punish a rooster for crowing?
Would he curse the sun for shining?

They ate from the tree of knowledge. They learned. They were punished for it.


Fifth: can you please tell me where you found this significance for Genesis? BTW, Genesis also deals with something alse than creation.

Answered above.
NERVUN
26-12-2007, 13:28
Fair enough :)

Conclusion: being religious does not make you an idiot.
Being religious and acting like an idiot does. And the being religious part is then optional ;)
Sadly, yes. ;)
Chumblywumbly
26-12-2007, 13:30
All we ask is that you act in a manner consistent with the cognitive abilities of our species.
And I believe many religious people are.

They are using their cognitive abilities, including reason, and come to the conclusion that a god or gods exist. You and I may heartily disagree with their reasoning, but to respond with the Dawkins-esque "religion=braindead" is petty, unwarranted and naïve.

The problems arise when people wish to exert their faith onto others.
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 13:33
Show me how all people who are religious (QUITE the majority on the planet thank you) have 'blind obedience' and I'LL show you those men and women who followed the Rev. Dr. Martian Luther King Jr. to civil disobedience based upon faith for equality.

Please, you assumed that because I was once Christian and now am not that I change beliefs as frequently as your child changes diapers, in rather un-christianly language might I add. Now one might say I am not one to throw stones, but I am not a subscriber of Christian virtue.

I'm not sure who the Martian Luther King was, I presume an alien overlord, I haven't been keeping track with the latest wacky additions to your faith, but if he is any similarity to Martin Luther King I fear that his one of his greatest battles was against institutional racism from within southern white churches.
Intangelon
26-12-2007, 13:33
It seems to me that Rotovia is just expressing the atheist version of an old proverb: there's no zealot like a new convert.

Time and experience will, if my example is any guide, swing the pendulum in many extreme directions before it finds balance.
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 13:36
It seems to me that Rotovia is just expressing the atheist version of an old proverb: there's no zealot like a new convert.

Time and experience will, if my example is any guide, swing the pendulum in many extreme directions before it finds balance.

Would you shut up? This plan is too finely orchestrated for you to unhinge.
Dyelli Beybi
26-12-2007, 13:38
Suprisingly well put Intangelon.

I do rather enjoy reading the apparent attempts to prove that the Revered Martin Luther King was in fact an atheist.

I also find it somewhat amusing that such notable physicists as Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaître have been pigeonholed as 'mentally defficient'.
NERVUN
26-12-2007, 13:38
Please, you assumed that because I was once Christian and now am not that I change beliefs as frequently as your child changes diapers, in rather un-christianly language might I add. Now one might say I am not one to throw stone, but I am not a subscriber of Christian virtue.

I'm not sure who the Martian Luther King was, I presume an alien overlord, I haven't been keeping track with the latest wacky additions to your faith, but if he is any similarity to Martin Luther King I that his one of his greatest battles was against institutional racism from within southern white churches.
THAT'S your counter argument? A poke at a spelling mistake? I don't know whether to point and laugh at you or cry.
Ascendant
26-12-2007, 13:42
AMEN!!!


Religious people - Me
:eek: - :mp5:
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 13:42
THAT'S your counter argument? A poke at a spelling mistake? I don't know whether to point and laugh at you or cry.

Spelling errors make baby Jesus cry.

So does squid-ink pizza.
Marrakech II
26-12-2007, 13:47
The problems arise when people wish to exert their faith onto others.

Or their non-faith.
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 13:47
THAT'S your counter argument? A poke at a spelling mistake? I don't know whether to point and laugh at you or cry.

Since before 2004 I have reserved the the right to criticize spelling and grammatical errors whilst making more obscene ones myself. I'm Rotovia
Dyelli Beybi
26-12-2007, 13:47
THAT'S your counter argument? A poke at a spelling mistake? I don't know whether to point and laugh at you or cry.

Ah no. That is in fact a perfectly logical manner in which to argue this particular argument, because in reality is isn't an argument, it is an oportunity for Rotovia to throw the proverbial rattle. In fact I was somewhat suprised it had attacted so many posts...

I never fail to be amazed by the ability of the bigoted atheist folk on NS to find a thread and continue to argue without any apparent 'logic' or 'rational thought' while at the same time quoting these two virtues as if they were the bible which the inevitable Christian response bashes back at them. This of course has a similar calming effect to feeding a bull a large dose of crystal meth, prodding it with a cattle prod and then dancing around in front of it.

I honestly despair of these threads. 90% of the people on them seem to have less intellectual development than I expect from my cat. I shall unsubscribe immediately.
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 13:52
Ah no. That is in fact a perfectly logical manner in which to argue this particular argument, because in reality is isn't an argument, it is an oportunity for Rotovia to throw the proverbial rattle. In fact I was somewhat suprised it had attacted so many posts...

I never fail to be amazed by the ability of the bigoted atheist folk on NS to find a thread and continue to argue without any apparent 'logic' or 'rational thought' while at the same time quoting these two virtues as if they were the bible which the inevitable Christian response bashes back at them. This of course has a similar calming effect to feeding a bull a large dose of crystal meth, prodding it with a cattle prod and then dancing around in front of it.

I honestly despair of these threads. 90% of the people on them seem to have less intellectual development than I expect from my cat. I shall unsubscribe immediately.
Thank you for adding some well garnished horse shit to thread. As always you've said nothing, but walked away with bloated sense of self worth.
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 13:53
I also find it somewhat amusing that such notable physicists as Albert Einstein .

Though Einstein believed in Spinozas god and despised the Christian one ;)
Ascendant
26-12-2007, 13:54
Show me how all people who are religious (QUITE the majority on the planet thank you) have 'blind obedience' and I'LL show you those men and women who followed the Rev. Dr. Martian Luther King Jr. to civil disobedience based upon faith for equality.

man has only the rights he can defend, and civil rights are one of them. the people who followed the civil disobedience knew that, knew the risks, knew the outcomes, knew that what they were doing actually made a difference, and had a tangible goal and ideal. (voter cards, sitting where they damn well please, integrated schools; these are all tangible outcomes of the civil rights movement.) they were by no means blindly obedient, and neither are a good amount of religious people. you find me a religion with some TANGIBLE (something you can touch) proof, ideal, person, proverb, or something and i feel like most of us will shut up. if you religious ones do first. So, don't sully the good name of people like MLK, X, Mrs. Parks, and others in an attempt to bolster you're argument. Because civil rights and religious theories (gasp, i know) are by no means the same.

But word to Intangelon; that shit is right homie. some athiests take it too far and become worse than their religious counterparts. Don't get me wrong, In'sha'allah one day we will purge religion from the minds of humanity, but until then we all need to get along.

Y'all need to chill out, smoke a bowl, and just spread the love. and science.

and will someone PLEASE think of one word to describe "religious people?" that shit is too long to keep typing out.
Nova Castlemilk
26-12-2007, 13:55
I'm sorry, but I've decided from now on my default position to anyone who professes a belief in a higher being is "fuck you, you fucking retard". We can't pussy foot around this issue anymore. It's kind of like if we just tolerated brain dead people, which is effectively what we're doing. We're allowing people who think that a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago talks to them through a collection of fairy tales and Jewish history.

Fuck me...

There just isn't any room in the 21st century to let these sort of people make day-to-day decisions, let alone run a country. I suggest to diaper them, round them up in hospitals and hook the up to feeding tubes with the rest of the enfeebled.

Now as many of you know, I was once a born again Christian. As devout as they come as a sure of my beliefs as I could be, but there came a point my childhood when I began to think, and any Christian will tell you that thinking is the undoing of religion, and concluded that this was a crock of shit.

There are no doubt many out there who feel truly offended because you believe in God and think this is a personal attack on you, but that is not the case. I am simply proposing that you be treated like mental defectives.

Well said, there are many who agree with your position.
Similization
26-12-2007, 13:56
Or their non-faith.I agree. Who gives a shit whether or not some asshole's decisions are rational, when it's you he's making decisions for. Overthrow the government! Kill the police! Burn the flag for which it stands! Terrorise American lands!

Hang on, you're one of those WASPs, aren't you? I guess you meant to imply we evil atheists try to tell you how to live, then. Oh well, one should never quote GG Allin if it's not gonna provoke.
Ascendant
26-12-2007, 13:58
Oh, and Rotovia? thank you for giving all of us a bad name, asshole. no one gives a fuck about your hatred of religious people. but that being said, thank for an interesting forum topic finally...
Chumblywumbly
26-12-2007, 13:58
Or their non-faith.
Well-said.

Though Einstein believed in Spinozas god and despised the Christian one ;)
In before me.

That's got to be one of the most misquoted quotes of all time.

Oh, and Rotovia? thank for giving all of us a bad name..
No need to flame him.

Might want to check the Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573) of this forum.
Intangelon
26-12-2007, 14:04
Would you shut up? This plan is too finely orchestrated for you to unhinge.

Whoops! Sorry....

Suprisingly well put Intangelon.

I do rather enjoy reading the apparent attempts to prove that the Revered Martin Luther King was in fact an atheist.

I also find it somewhat amusing that such notable physicists as Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaître have been pigeonholed as 'mentally defficient'.

I'm not entirely sure, so I'll ask. "Surprisingly well put"? I don't want to come off as over-sensitive, but that sounds like it has a soupcon of insult in it. If it doesn't, then please ignore me, but if it does, I'd like to know why.
Croxford
26-12-2007, 14:10
Well.

You do need much more points to just shout "fuck you" at a community.

But Im sure you have your reasons, so good luck with life.
Ascendant
26-12-2007, 14:11
No need to flame him.

Might want to check the Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573) of this forum.

homie, you will know if I flame him.

and honestly, not being sarcastic (i swear on my mother's grave), i really wish i cared about forum rules. I know they have their place, but enough institutions have taken away my first amendment rights.
Intangelon
26-12-2007, 14:15
*snip*

But word to Intangelon; that shit is right homie. some athiests take it too far and become worse than their religious counterparts. Don't get me wrong, In'sha'allah one day we will purge religion from the minds of humanity, but until then we all need to get along.

Y'all need to chill out, smoke a bowl, and just spread the love. and science.

and will someone PLEASE think of one word to describe "religious people?" that shit is too long to keep typing out.

Thanks.

I gave up the ganj about 15 years ago. Now I can't even stand the smell of it. Knock yourself out, though, brother.

As for a single-word typing convenience for "religious people", I've heard "believers", "zealots", "(the) faithful", and a few others. Necessity being the mother of invention, however, what say we make up one of our own, Colbert style?

Faithers.
Fidels. (To counter the Islamic "infidels" -- nah, no REAL American would wanna say Castro's first name :rolleyes:)
Godders.
Goddies?
(the) Creedy.
Bookers (only covers those religions with books...and guys named Vinny who take bets...).
Supplicants? Postulants? (nah, too Catholic)
Precants (from the Latin precare, "to pray").

I got nothin'. Anyone else?
Rotovia-
26-12-2007, 14:15
Oh, and Rotovia? thank you for giving all of us a bad name, asshole. no one gives a fuck about your hatred of religious people. but that being said, thank for an interesting forum topic finally...

It's what I do
Ascendant
26-12-2007, 14:17
Faithers.
Fidels. (To counter the Islamic "infidels" -- nah, no REAL American would wanna say Castro's first name :rolleyes:)
Godders.
Goddies?
(the) Creedy.
Bookers (only covers those religions with books...and guys named Vinny who take bets...).
Supplicants? Postulants? (nah, too Catholic)
Precants (from the Latin precare, "to pray").

I got nothin'. Anyone else?

I like goddies. Supplicant just sounds dirty, like "that bitch is a supplicant" and nice use of latin. and guys who take bets are called "bookies"
BackwoodsSquatches
26-12-2007, 14:18
Theists?
Intangelon
26-12-2007, 14:19
Theists?

Good, but it doesn't cover pantheists or animists.
Hayteria
26-12-2007, 14:19
Depends. If it makes you feel better, why not?
I personally feel better filling gaps through saying "I do not know - lets find out" instead of "Goddidit", but hey. I have seen many Christians that seem happier with their life.
I suppose a good analogy for that is that if doing crystal meth makes you feel better, why not?

"If the only justification for religion is that it makes people happy, then you might as well all take drugs and make yourselves happy that way." - Richard Dawkins
Katganistan
26-12-2007, 14:20
I'm sorry, but I've decided from now on my default position to anyone who professes a belief in a higher being is "fuck you, you fucking retard". We can't pussy foot around this issue anymore. It's kind of like if we just tolerated brain dead people, which is effectively what we're doing. We're allowing people who think that a carpenter who lived two thousand years ago talks to them through a collection of fairy tales and Jewish history.

Fuck me...

There just isn't any room in the 21st century to let these sort of people make day-to-day decisions, let alone run a country. I suggest to diaper them, round them up in hospitals and hook the up to feeding tubes with the rest of the enfeebled.

Now as many of you know, I was once a born again Christian. As devout as they come as a sure of my beliefs as I could be, but there came a point my childhood when I began to think, and any Christian will tell you that thinking is the undoing of religion, and concluded that this was a crock of shit.

There are no doubt many out there who feel truly offended because you believe in God and think this is a personal attack on you, but that is not the case. I am simply proposing that you be treated like mental defectives.


Thank you for adding some well garnished horse shit to thread. As always you've said nothing, but walked away with bloated sense of self worth.

And warned for flamebait, flaming
Katganistan
26-12-2007, 14:30
Oh, and Rotovia? thank you for giving all of us a bad name, asshole. no one gives a fuck about your hatred of religious people. but that being said, thank for an interesting forum topic finally...

Knock off the flaming.

homie, you will know if I flame him.

and honestly, not being sarcastic (i swear on my mother's grave), i really wish i cared about forum rules. I know they have their place, but enough institutions have taken away my first amendment rights.

You don't have first amendment rights on a private site. Please follow the rules or be ready to accept the consequences.


Now, if the rest of you want to continue to discuss atheism vs. religiousity, go ahead -- without the flame and flamebait and in a new thread,