NationStates Jolt Archive


Why do so many people on NS hate religion? - Page 2

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4
Ashmoria
30-03-2008, 15:34
Incidentally, everybody needs to watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) video. It should be required watching before a poster's allowed to contribute to a religion topic. :p

wow thats nicely done.
CannibalChrist
30-03-2008, 15:35
I'm open to faith.

No truths to save, or condemn me.

Your experiment fails, your evidence is debunked.

you will eventually come to know the true faith... your name is written in the book of the lamb, i checked
CannibalChrist
30-03-2008, 15:39
You have no logic. If deception is all around you, how do I know you aren't deceived?
mainly by my power to cure the sick and raise the dead and such... i mean really raise them, not that zombie crap...just about anyone can animate a corpse if they put their mind to it
Hydesland
30-03-2008, 15:46
mainly by my power to cure the sick and raise the dead and such... i mean really raise them, not that zombie crap...just about anyone can animate a corpse if they put their mind to it

lol wut
Bitchkitten
30-03-2008, 16:50
There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?Why? Because of the caliber of religious people I've met living in the Bible Belt. Because of a lifetime of having religion stuffed down my throat. Because of the prejudice they've tended to show against non-believers. I'm far more tolerant of them than they are of me.
Dyakovo
30-03-2008, 16:59
seeing as so many of you use science as your reason to abandon religion entirely, what do you think of this?

"scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists. "

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

how dya like dem apples

That it is a bunch of bs.
Dyakovo
30-03-2008, 17:08
Incidentally, everybody needs to watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) video. It should be required watching before a poster's allowed to contribute to a religion topic. :p

LMAO
Hayteria
30-03-2008, 17:10
I wouldn't claim to speak for the rest of the board, but the influence of religion affects those of us who are not religious, so for someone to say that if you don't like religion you don't have to take part in it is rather simplistic. Religion's arguably meaningless moral taboos (such as against sunday shopping or homosexuality) are sometimes pushed through law onto those who don't conform to their religion. Religion's influence is also interfering with ESCR, delaying potential cures for several diseases (including one I have, type 1 diabetes) and damaging the health of millions of people when unlike with drugs these people didn't CHOOSE to have their health damged.
Free Soviets
30-03-2008, 17:29
Incidentally, everybody needs to watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) video. It should be required watching before a poster's allowed to contribute to a religion topic. :p

interestingly, dennett actually does wear a hat like that. or at least that's how i'm going to remember the time i met him from now on.
Free Soviets
30-03-2008, 17:38
That it is a bunch of bs.

a nice takedown of the bs-itude of it was done by michael shermer in scientific american years back. shermer used unwin's exact same set of 'evidence' and assigned alternate probabilities to it. he came out with a probability of gods existing at 2%.
Anti-Social Darwinism
30-03-2008, 18:23
I wouldn't claim to speak for the rest of the board, but the influence of religion affects those of us who are not religious, so for someone to say that if you don't like religion you don't have to take part in it is rather simplistic. Religion's arguably meaningless moral taboos (such as against sunday shopping or homosexuality) are sometimes pushed through law onto those who don't conform to their religion. Religion's influence is also interfering with ESCR, delaying potential cures for several diseases (including one I have, type 1 diabetes) and damaging the health of millions of people when unlike with drugs these people didn't CHOOSE to have their health damged.

And don't forget the little war we're involved in right now. The one that started with religious fundamentalists crashing planes into buildings and other religious fundamentalists pretending that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Ashmoria
30-03-2008, 18:48
a nice takedown of the bs-itude of it was done by michael shermer in scientific american years back. shermer used unwin's exact same set of 'evidence' and assigned alternate probabilities to it. he came out with a probability of gods existing at 2%.

id guess that that percentage is for any supernatural all powerful being that cant be tested for not the god of the bible.
Intangelon
30-03-2008, 19:03
mainly by my power to cure the sick and raise the dead and such... i mean really raise them, not that zombie crap...just about anyone can animate a corpse if they put their mind to it

So, hold on a bit here. You're posting in red because that's what the actual words of Jesus are colored in some Bibles. You are speaking from the first person as if you are claiming to BE Jesus. Isn't that blasphemy? And Cannibal? You are a pip, sir.

And don't forget the little war we're involved in right now. The one that started with religious fundamentalists crashing planes into buildings and other religious fundamentalists pretending that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

9/11, another "faith-based initiative"...just from a different faith.
Free Soviets
30-03-2008, 19:07
id guess that that percentage is for any supernatural all powerful being that cant be tested for not the god of the bible.

actually, unwin uses at least a benevolent and interventionist god, based on his assigned probabilities.
Queltafie
30-03-2008, 19:13
'Cause religion killed my dad.

You win.
Ashmoria
30-03-2008, 20:19
actually, unwin uses at least a benevolent and interventionist god, based on his assigned probabilities.

unwin started with a 50/50 probability which is absurd.

what percentage did unwin end with?
Free Soviets
30-03-2008, 20:26
unwin started with a 50/50 probability which is absurd.

what percentage did unwin end with?

67%, with an added 'faith' fudge to boost the number up to 95%. he's sort of a joke.

oh, and the 50/50 thing actually makes some amount of sense as a starting point. it represents the maximum amount of uncertainty we can have on the subject.
Ashmoria
30-03-2008, 20:30
67%, with an added 'faith' fudge to boost the number up to 95%. he's sort of a joke.

i dont know that if we all agreed that there IS a supreme being that the chances of it being the god of the bible would reach 2%
Sel Appa
30-03-2008, 20:33
Because religion is for retarded and lazy people who won't take a minute to think things out and accept some BS stories written a long time ago as literal truth. They think we're so complex, it's proof of God, but quite contrary, we're so complex, it can't be a God. Why would a God bother doing so much work? Also, we are the luck 1 in 10 quintillion planets that got life that worked out well.
HSH Prince Eric
30-03-2008, 20:44
Because this is one of the things that the abstract art crowd uses to feel superior to other people. They think that not believing in god makes them so damn intelligent. It's the reason I don't call myself an atheist often, because I despise so many of the people who use it like the racial identity types do.

I don't believe in god or religion since basic scientific knowledge refutes all of them without question. I consider it to be ancient science fiction, but I certainly don't look down on people who do believe in religion itself, just the actions of a lot of the followers. It's hard to be human and religious, without being a hypocrite.
Intangelon
30-03-2008, 21:04
Because this is one the things that the abstract art crowd uses to feel superior to other people. They think that not believing in god makes them so damn intelligent. It's the reason I don't call myself an atheist often, because I despise so many of the people who use it like the racial identity types do.

I don't believe in god or religion since basic scientific knowledge refutes all of them without question. I consider it to be ancient science fiction, but I certainly don't look down on people who do believe in religion itself, just the actions of a lot of the followers. It's hard to be human and religious, without being a hypocrite.

A very good point. Assholes exist on any side of any argument. Well said.
Free Soviets
30-03-2008, 21:13
Incidentally, everybody needs to watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) video. It should be required watching before a poster's allowed to contribute to a religion topic. :p

higher-def version available at
http://www.mininova.org/tor/1278276

good for catching clever little details, like hume smacking paley.
Free Soviets
30-03-2008, 21:43
I don't believe in god or religion since basic scientific knowledge refutes all of them without question. I consider it to be ancient science fiction, but I certainly don't look down on people who do believe in religion itself

even though you think "basic scientific knowledge refute all of them"? do you hold this same position when it comes to people denying, for example, that the stars are really really big things very very far away?
HSH Prince Eric
30-03-2008, 21:57
Of course. Why do you ask?
Andaras
30-03-2008, 22:05
Because this is one of the things that the abstract art crowd uses to feel superior to other people. They think that not believing in god makes them so damn intelligent. It's the reason I don't call myself an atheist often, because I despise so many of the people who use it like the racial identity types do.

I don't believe in god or religion since basic scientific knowledge refutes all of them without question. I consider it to be ancient science fiction, but I certainly don't look down on people who do believe in religion itself, just the actions of a lot of the followers. It's hard to be human and religious, without being a hypocrite.

'Abstract art', nice anti-modernism there.
Agenda07
30-03-2008, 22:07
higher-def version available at
http://www.mininova.org/tor/1278276

good for catching clever little details, like hume smacking paley.

Nice, I missed that one first time: I was too busy giggling at 'taking Wilbur by force'. :p
Winterveil
30-03-2008, 22:12
There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?
There are several reasons. One is because too many people can't or won't make a distinction between 'religion' and 'Christian fundamentalism'. Nine times out of ten, if questioned in more detail, an anti-religious campaigner will demonstrate that the particular belief they find laughable or hateful is the belief in a single, male creator God, who lives in Heaven, and who sent His son Jesus Christ to Earth, and that Jesus was crucified and rose again, and... all that.

Which, of course, leaves every religious person who doesn't share those beliefs sitting there thinking, "yes, but what does that have to do with me?" (Not to mention those many millions of Christians who see their belief as their own business and in general wouldn't dream of trying to impose it on anyone else - much less lobby for laws to be based on it or wars to be started in the name of it.)

Bear in mind as well that 'fundamentalism' itself doesn't mean 'intolerant religious militancy', although it's often used to that effect. Intolerant religious militancy - Christian or otherwise - is at best unpleasant, and at its worst can give rise to acts of abhorrent evil (even if we judge 'evil' according to secular moral standards). It's fair, therefore, to criticise it and to campaign against it. But many anti-religious campaigners are themselves intolerant and judgemental: the difference is that in their minds it's okay to be so because, well, they're the intelligent ones.

And then of course there's the tired old saw about how "Religion Causes All Wars". Which, if you think about it for even a few moments, is nonsense. Religion has been the excuse for many, many wars and conflicts. But in most cases, this is an abuse of religion to serve a political or personal end. The real causes of war are - and always have been - greed and fear. We fight either because someone has something we want; or because we're afraid that we have something someone else wants. Religion just provides a handy (in that it has no objective basis and therefore can't be logically challenged) rationalisation for indulging these far more basic motivations.

I'm not an atheist, as you've probably guessed. Nor am I Christian - fundamentalist or otherwise. I have (and I want this clear) the utmost respect for atheists in general, and I quite understand why they come to the conclusion that they do. I have respect for any intelligent person who comes to adopt a belief in a religion. The few atheists who test my patience are those who assume that intelligence and religion can't possibly go together, and that religious people can therefore be fairly treated like idiots.
Dyakovo
30-03-2008, 22:15
There are several reasons. One is because too many people can't or won't make a distinction between 'religion' and 'Christian fundamentalism'. Nine times out of ten, if questioned in more detail, an anti-religious campaigner will demonstrate that the particular belief they find laughable or hateful is the belief in a single, male creator God, who lives in Heaven, and who sent His son Jesus Christ to Earth, and that Jesus was crucified and rose again, and... all that.

Which, of course, leaves every religious person who doesn't share those beliefs sitting there thinking, "yes, but what does that have to do with me?" (Not to mention those many millions of Christians who see their belief as their own business and in general wouldn't dream of trying to impose it on anyone else - much less lobby for laws to be based on it or wars to be started in the name of it.)

Bear in mind as well that 'fundamentalism' itself doesn't mean 'intolerant religious militancy', although it's often used to that effect. Intolerant religious militancy - Christian or otherwise - is at best unpleasant, and at its worst can give rise to acts of abhorrent evil (even if we judge 'evil' according to secular moral standards). It's fair, therefore, to criticise it and to campaign against it. But many anti-religious campaigners are themselves intolerant and judgemental: the difference is that in their minds it's okay to be so because, well, they're the intelligent ones.

And then of course there's the tired old saw about how "Religion Causes All Wars". Which, if you think about it for even a few moments, is nonsense. Religion has been the excuse for many, many wars and conflicts. But in most cases, this is an abuse of religion to serve a political or personal end. The real causes of war are - and always have been - greed and fear. We fight either because someone has something we want; or because we're afraid that we have something someone else wants. Religion just provides a handy (in that it has no objective basis and therefore can't be logically challenged) rationalisation for indulging these far more basic motivations.

I'm not an atheist, as you've probably guessed. Nor am I Christian - fundamentalist or otherwise. I have (and I want this clear) the utmost respect for atheists in general, and I quite understand why they come to the conclusion that they do. I have respect for any intelligent person who comes to adopt a belief in a religion. The few atheists who test my patience are those who assume that intelligence and religion can't possibly go together, and that religious people can therefore be fairly treated like idiots.

Well stated Winter...
Acrela
30-03-2008, 22:22
My only problem with religious people comes when they look at me and say, "You're an atheist? Haha, there goes any chance of you ever making it anywhere in the world." Followed, of course, by rude laughter and anti-atheist jokes.

And yes, people have actually said that before, and it makes me want to rip their arrogant little eyes out...
HSH Prince Eric
30-03-2008, 22:32
'Abstract art', nice anti-modernism there.

You know the people I am talking about Andaras.

The kind of people of people that think there is something profound about any terrible piece of art because it makes them feel intelligent. Go to coffee shops and talk about how stupid everyone else is.
HSH Prince Eric
30-03-2008, 22:33
My only problem with religious people comes when they look at me and say, "You're an atheist? Haha, there goes any chance of you ever making it anywhere in the world." Followed, of course, by rude laughter and anti-atheist jokes.

And yes, people have actually said that before, and it makes me want to rip their arrogant little eyes out...

What are some anti-atheist jokes? I can't even recall one off the top of my head.
Acrela
30-03-2008, 22:41
What are some anti-atheist jokes? I can't even recall one off the top of my head.

Nor can I, to be honest. Mostly because they were very crude and unimaginative. I was surprised they actually had any to hurl at me, but I remember one was poking fun at how atheists can think the universe just "appeared" andthat God must surely send them all to Hell orsomething.
Hibernobrittania
31-03-2008, 02:00
Why? Because of the caliber of religious people I've met living in the Bible Belt. Because of a lifetime of having religion stuffed down my throat. Because of the prejudice they've tended to show against non-believers. I'm far more tolerant of them than they are of me.


You say you're tolerant of "them", yet you've completely generalised in your comment, grouping all religious people into the one group, again this comes from a bad experience. But generalising.... if i'm not mistaken, isn't that a form of intolerance itself? :D

not all religious types are the bible bashers you know
Honsria
31-03-2008, 02:10
I think most of the problem is that most of the people who don't like religion are very vocal about their hatred of religion.
Bitchkitten
31-03-2008, 02:11
You say you're tolerant of "them", yet you've completely generalised in your comment, grouping all religious people into the one group, again this comes from a bad experience. But generalising.... if i'm not mistaken, isn't that a form of intolerance itself? :D

not all religious types are the bible bashers you knowYou have a point. My tolerance is a bit strained. Compare it to someone who's suspicious of white people because they run into so many racists.

I do have some Christian friends, but only very open minded ones. Most of the others in this part of the world strain my tolerance.
NERVUN
31-03-2008, 02:30
Errr... the point was that the response is the same in and out of NS (yes, I know I invoked the mythical concept of 'outside of NS', but this IS a debate about the metaphysical, and I believe there could be life outside of General), to whit - even in 'real life' (where NSG pleasantries mightn't hold sway), the 'you hate christianity' response is not uncommon to questions about New Testament style faith.
No, the orginal point was not the you hate Christanity, but that someone on NSG would tell you to go to hell. Could you find me any regular posters who say that? You're attempting to lump in all the Christians you meet out there* and their responces as justification to what you say and do in here. This of course really does highlight what I previously posted.


*Though I do question everyone saying that this is the standard responce of Christains. Some 70+% of Americans consider themselves Christian so I actually wonder if you really do go through the day with 7 out of 10 people you meet telling you you're going to hell.

I'm not actually seeing the connection.
Really? Let me clear it up for you then. Currently we have a number of threads about religion going on (What else is new?) and in them we have the usual group attacking religion and then trying to cover by saying all they are doing is asking a question. You know, what's wrong with asking a question? You're just afraid to answer it, any time I aks a question I'm accused of hating religion, and so on. The issue comes from the question, they are not asking questions, they are attempting to state whatever the opinion that they have is as a form of question, they are obviously not interested in any actual answers to said question. To use the Christian women thread, the question is why would any woman want to be Christian after a lot of cherry picked verses from the Bible about women being silent and submitting, and so on. Do you really think that theists on the board are that stupid that we cannot see what that 'question' actually is? When actual Christian women attempt to explain, Dyakovo and KoL tell them that they are wrong or so on.

I rarely actually see actual questions about faith or lack of it, I see attacks posed as questions in an effort to seem 'fair' and 'openminded, really I am' but the end result would be just as hostle as if I constantly asked you 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'. You know and I know that such a question is hostile, I've already made up my mind, and I am just using the question to attack you.
NERVUN
31-03-2008, 02:31
There are several reasons. One is because too many people can't or won't make a distinction between 'religion' and 'Christian fundamentalism'. Nine times out of ten, if questioned in more detail, an anti-religious campaigner will demonstrate that the particular belief they find laughable or hateful is the belief in a single, male creator God, who lives in Heaven, and who sent His son Jesus Christ to Earth, and that Jesus was crucified and rose again, and... all that.

Which, of course, leaves every religious person who doesn't share those beliefs sitting there thinking, "yes, but what does that have to do with me?" (Not to mention those many millions of Christians who see their belief as their own business and in general wouldn't dream of trying to impose it on anyone else - much less lobby for laws to be based on it or wars to be started in the name of it.)

Bear in mind as well that 'fundamentalism' itself doesn't mean 'intolerant religious militancy', although it's often used to that effect. Intolerant religious militancy - Christian or otherwise - is at best unpleasant, and at its worst can give rise to acts of abhorrent evil (even if we judge 'evil' according to secular moral standards). It's fair, therefore, to criticise it and to campaign against it. But many anti-religious campaigners are themselves intolerant and judgemental: the difference is that in their minds it's okay to be so because, well, they're the intelligent ones.

And then of course there's the tired old saw about how "Religion Causes All Wars". Which, if you think about it for even a few moments, is nonsense. Religion has been the excuse for many, many wars and conflicts. But in most cases, this is an abuse of religion to serve a political or personal end. The real causes of war are - and always have been - greed and fear. We fight either because someone has something we want; or because we're afraid that we have something someone else wants. Religion just provides a handy (in that it has no objective basis and therefore can't be logically challenged) rationalisation for indulging these far more basic motivations.

I'm not an atheist, as you've probably guessed. Nor am I Christian - fundamentalist or otherwise. I have (and I want this clear) the utmost respect for atheists in general, and I quite understand why they come to the conclusion that they do. I have respect for any intelligent person who comes to adopt a belief in a religion. The few atheists who test my patience are those who assume that intelligence and religion can't possibly go together, and that religious people can therefore be fairly treated like idiots.
QF massive truth.
Bann-ed
31-03-2008, 03:01
Is not intolerance for religion. It´s more or less a hunger for trying to understand why Christians believe so blindly. That´s all.

I'm just a bit curious as to why you singled out Christians.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
31-03-2008, 03:03
I'm just a bit curious as to why you singled out Christians.

Because of the thread topic. And because Christians are the ones I can understand better.
Bann-ed
31-03-2008, 03:07
Because of the thread topic. And because Christians are the ones I can understand better.

I'll take that as sufficient explanation.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
31-03-2008, 03:09
I'll take that as sufficient explanation.

Good.
Andaras
31-03-2008, 03:13
I'd say fundamentalism is just a reaction to the full-blown contradiction that religion in capitalist society presents to it's followers, many developing parts of the world have a self-sustaining culture and social structure to support the religion, although say in America this is non-existant. America has no all-defining culture to which religion might fit.
New Limacon
31-03-2008, 03:14
And don't forget the little war we're involved in right now. The one that started with religious fundamentalists crashing planes into buildings and other religious fundamentalists pretending that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Interesting. You have used exactly the same line of reasoning as the Bush Administration in going to war.
"Crazy Muslims were behind 9/11! Therefore, we must attack the country with crazy Muslims!"
vs.
"The country with crazy Christians attacked Iraq! Therefore, the crazy Christians were behind it!"

Actually I was wrong, your logic is the reverse of the Bush Administration's. But it's the same type.
Bann-ed
31-03-2008, 03:47
An overwhelming number of them grew up in Soviet Russia, where religion hates you. The rest grew up as white people and just hate everything that has slightly varying shades.
Anti-Social Darwinism
31-03-2008, 06:03
Interesting. You have used exactly the same line of reasoning as the Bush Administration in going to war.
"Crazy Muslims were behind 9/11! Therefore, we must attack the country with crazy Muslims!"
vs.
"The country with crazy Christians attacked Iraq! Therefore, the crazy Christians were behind it!"

Actually I was wrong, your logic is the reverse of the Bush Administration's. But it's the same type.

All I was attempting to do was to state that this idiotic war was the result of various flavors of religious extremism - those Muslims who think that any disagreement with them is an act of war and those Christians (regretably in power now, but not for long, I hope) who react without thought
Grave_n_idle
31-03-2008, 08:13
you will eventually come to know the true faith... your name is written in the book of the lamb, i checked

How very Calvinistic of you.

I notice you resort to preaching when your 'evidence' is shot down. I'll take verification of facts over reams of rhetoric, I'm afraid.
Grave_n_idle
31-03-2008, 08:34
No, the orginal point was not the you hate Christanity, but that someone on NSG would tell you to go to hell. Could you find me any regular posters who say that?


Nope.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566634&postcount=214
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566848&postcount=217
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566896&postcount=220
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566902&postcount=221
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13567458&postcount=240

Point. Counterpoint. Point. COunterpoint. Point.

The point was that 'you'll go to hell' is a fairly standard thing about talking to christians that people object to. You keep trying to make it just about NS, not me.

I don't hate religion, even christianity - although I do fiercely oppose some of the influences that religion has imposed on my everyday world. But I do object to being fed 'hell' as a reason or response.


You're attempting to lump in all the Christians you meet out there* and their responces as justification to what you say and do in here. This of course really does highlight what I previously posted.

*Though I do question everyone saying that this is the standard responce of Christains. Some 70+% of Americans consider themselves Christian so I actually wonder if you really do go through the day with 7 out of 10 people you meet telling you you're going to hell.


Yes. Welcome to Georgia.


Really? Let me clear it up for you then. Currently we have a number of threads about religion going on (What else is new?) and in them we have the usual group attacking religion and then trying to cover by saying all they are doing is asking a question. You know, what's wrong with asking a question? You're just afraid to answer it, any time I aks a question I'm accused of hating religion, and so on. The issue comes from the question, they are not asking questions, they are attempting to state whatever the opinion that they have is as a form of question, they are obviously not interested in any actual answers to said question. To use the Christian women thread, the question is why would any woman want to be Christian after a lot of cherry picked verses from the Bible about women being silent and submitting, and so on. Do you really think that theists on the board are that stupid that we cannot see what that 'question' actually is? When actual Christian women attempt to explain, Dyakovo and KoL tell them that they are wrong or so on.

I rarely actually see actual questions about faith or lack of it, I see attacks posed as questions in an effort to seem 'fair' and 'openminded, really I am' but the end result would be just as hostle as if I constantly asked you 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'. You know and I know that such a question is hostile, I've already made up my mind, and I am just using the question to attack you.

I haven't read most of the religious threads operating at the moment, I guess. But your parallel just isn't parallel.

Christianity is pretty fucked up if you really live your life according to the whole Bible. Fortunately, most Christians don't. I'd personally say that the best Christians write off most of the Bible as an artifact of another age, and try to live lives based off the cream of the wisdoms collected in Jesus' name.

If you are going to push the WHOLE Bible as equal, equally relevent, and the correct pattern for good living, well, you have to expect to be asked questions about whether you really have to release slaves in jubilee years, whether homosexuality is really as bad as eating shellfish, whether snails melt, and whether being forced to marry your victims is a fitting punishment for a rapist.

It doesn't even come close to your 'wife beating'.
NERVUN
31-03-2008, 11:53
Nope.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566634&postcount=214
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566848&postcount=217
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566896&postcount=220
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13566902&postcount=221
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13567458&postcount=240

Point. Counterpoint. Point. COunterpoint. Point.
Point: Why do so many people on NS hate religion?

Point, and game.

Yes. Welcome to Georgia.
Wow, you mean out of every 10 people, 7 of them just walk up to you and tell you that you're going to hell? Tell me, do you have a take a number machine strapped on to the front of you when you go out to any public place? How do you get anything done during the day with so many people coming up to you to say so. :rolleyes:

I haven't read most of the religious threads operating at the moment, I guess. But your parallel just isn't parallel.

If you are going to push the WHOLE Bible as equal, equally relevent, and the correct pattern for good living, well, you have to expect to be asked questions about whether you really have to release slaves in jubilee years, whether homosexuality is really as bad as eating shellfish, whether snails melt, and whether being forced to marry your victims is a fitting punishment for a rapist.

It doesn't even come close to your 'wife beating'.
Way to miss the point, I expect better of someone who constantly comes down on those he debates against for missing his. This is NSG, you don't get more than one shots here saying things like that. Very rarely do you find any poster willing to stick arround with that kind of message that either doesn't get banned for flaming or turns out to be a puppet. So, again, you ask these hostile questions to people whom you should know from your very large post count don't even follow a literal view and THEN start to act innocent when we protest that your meaning is one of attack and not 'questioning'.

Still beating your wife, Grave_n_idle? I'm ONLY asking you a question you understand? I mean, I know that in real life people like you DO beat their wives so...
Amor Pulchritudo
31-03-2008, 12:03
There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?

1. You're not "very religious but you believe in God". If you consider yourself Christian, that's one thing that annoys me about (some) religious people. If you don't believe that Jesus was God's son etc, you're not Christian.

2. You seem to be accusing everone on NSG of being intolerant and hateful. That's only true of about... 60% of NSGers.

3. You should be made to feel stupid because you don't capitalise.
Rasta-dom
31-03-2008, 12:04
I try to be open minded. I myself am Jewish, and I sometimes do get offended by some of the posters on these forums, not because of the resistance to religion (it makes no difference to me how you do or do not worship), but to the outright hostility to those who do show their faith. It is perfectly possible to express your (lack of) religious views without completely downing on anyone who happens to hold them, calling them "stupid, ignorant, bible-thumping morons". You say that you are the one with an open mind, but when you do not allow for a free and open exchange of ideas with those who do have faith, you hold the closed mind yourself.
Intangelon
01-04-2008, 05:35
What are some anti-atheist jokes? I can't even recall one off the top of my head.

A scientist, flush with the thrill of discovery, ascends a mound and yells up to the sky, "I, an atheist, with science, have discovered how to make a man out of dirt! We have discovered ways to manipulate molecular and atomic structured to spark actual LIFE from the DUST, just like YOU supposedly did in the Bible!"

Thunder rumbles, and a great voice is heard, saying "Neat trick. Why don't you show me how?"

The scientist, stunned at hearing God's voice, but still high on pride, accepts the challenge. He bends over to scoop up some dirt, saying "All right! FIRST, you collect some 50 to 100 kilograms of dirt--" BOOM!

Lightning and thunder flash and explode across the sky, and God spoke, saying, "HEY -- you make your OWN dirt!"

Heard that one in a church. One of the only times I ever enjoyed a sermon.
Willaville
01-04-2008, 09:12
Don't you feel rather silly using the phrase 'millitant' atheism?

To be a Millitant Muslim you have to cut someone's head off on video or blow yourself up in a public place.
To be a Millitant Christian you have to make bomb-threats to Abortion Clinics or murder homosexuals.
To be a Millitant Hindu you have to form a mob and go out killing Muslims.

To be a Millitant Atheist it seems you just have to say "religion is daft and lacks evidence". It's an absurd double standard.

Nah. You just have to cut religions down in an Internet forum.
Willaville
01-04-2008, 09:32
I wouldn't claim to speak for the rest of the board, but the influence of religion affects those of us who are not religious, so for someone to say that if you don't like religion you don't have to take part in it is rather simplistic.
Would you say the same about science?
Cabra West
01-04-2008, 11:24
Would you say the same about science?

Feel free to reject it... but then don't go buying a car, or using electric heating, or drink clean water, or go shopping in a supermarket, or brush your teeth, or wear any form of chemically dyed clothes, or actually use a computer, for that matter.

See, contrary to religion, science doesn't try to make laws. It simply provides commodities and insight.
Andaras
01-04-2008, 11:25
I have never seen so much Christian whinebaggery as in this thread, please go and cry about atheist persecution elsewhere.
The Hedgehog People
01-04-2008, 13:38
Is not intolerance for religion. It´s more or less a hunger for trying to understand why Christians believe so blindly. That´s all.

People need to believe in something. Not all of it is blind faith. I've had some experiences that couldn't happen if God didn't exist. If you've got a question or two maybe asking them would be a good idea. Saying you're a Christian online is usually an indicator that you're happy to answer questions else you're more likely to keep quiet!

its opinions you can voice in the anonymity of online forums that you wouldnt feel comfortable saying to people's faces (in the same way)

Mmmm that's the double curse and blessing of the internet. Maybe you could also ask yourself why you feel that way while you're voicing those opinions.

It's a scapegoat.

True. The Crusades didn't help the Church's image. Neither do street-preachers! (urgh!)

'Cause religion killed my dad.

Interesting one. Do you want to share how?
The Hedgehog People
01-04-2008, 13:42
I have never seen so much Christian whinebaggery as in this thread, please go and cry about atheist persecution elsewhere.

You lot started the scrap mate! I know a Christian posted this thread, but honestly! If you don't want us to answer you then take yourself elsewhere!
Risottia
01-04-2008, 13:42
I'll tolerate beliefs which have a basis in reality, not so for religion.

I tolerate beliefs - even if I don't believe, myself. I don't tolerate bigotry, holier-than-thou attitude, or claims of "higher" morality based on beliefs.
Risottia
01-04-2008, 13:48
People need to believe in something. Not all of it is blind faith. I've had some experiences that couldn't happen if God didn't exist.

1.No, I don't need to believe. Maybe I'm Vulcanian.

2.Belief = blind faith. Which of course doesn't mean that who has a belief acts blindly. He merely believes without need for a proof. If a proof is needed, it isn't belief anymore.

3.Eh. Wanna talk about collective subconscious? Maybe a better wording would have been: "I've had some experiences that I cannot explain without assuming that God exists." That is better, I think.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
01-04-2008, 13:56
People need to believe in something. Not all of it is blind faith. I've had some experiences that couldn't happen if God didn't exist. If you've got a question or two maybe asking them would be a good idea. Saying you're a Christian online is usually an indicator that you're happy to answer questions else you're more likely to keep quiet!

Then, by all means, share.;)
Cameroi
01-04-2008, 13:57
1.No, I don't need to believe. Maybe I'm Vulcanian.

2.Belief = blind faith. Which of course doesn't mean that who has a belief acts blindly. He merely believes without need for a proof. If a proof is needed, it isn't belief anymore.

3.Eh. Wanna talk about collective subconscious? Maybe a better wording would have been: "I've had some experiences that I cannot explain without assuming that God exists." That is better, I think.

exactly. i don't "hate" any belief. i'm annoyed though, by fanatics who just assume anyone who doesn't kiss THEIR ass, must therefore have to "hate" any and every kind of thing that could be called a belief.

especially when they call fallowers of beliefs not their own, nonbelievers. not to mention the minor little detail that most of those who condem anyone who dosn't claim allegience to their own beliefs, have actually very little if any, honest understanding of their own beleifs they claim to be fallowing.

=^^=
.../\...
Nipeng
01-04-2008, 13:58
Then, by all means, share.;)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546775
Grave_n_idle
01-04-2008, 14:02
Point: Why do so many people on NS hate religion?

Point, and game.


Point and game? Only if you're playing a very different game.

My point was that the non-christians amongst us are bombarded with interference (if not more) on a pretty much continuous basis. I can't buy a bottle of wine to go with my Sunday dinner, because of religious interference in the mundane - your sabbath is not my sabbath, why can't I work on your sabbath? Why can't I purchase on your sabbath? Sunday trading laws (relaxed, some, though they are recently) are a purely religious artifact.

MY point (which you seem to have missed) is that those of us who don't buy into the christian agenda are still victims of it... both inside AND outside of NS.

And posting the thread title back to me doesn't help - I know I (for one) have been influenced in what I've posted, and how I've posted it, by specific things that have happened to me outside of NS. The day I saw someone tip the waitress at my local restaurant with a fucking Chick tract, I posted in a very different complexion to my normal posts. It's not even a stretch, at all, to assume that many of those who rail against christianity ON nationstates, are doing so for reasons almost entirely disassociated from the forum itself.


Wow, you mean out of every 10 people, 7 of them just walk up to you and tell you that you're going to hell? Tell me, do you have a take a number machine strapped on to the front of you when you go out to any public place? How do you get anything done during the day with so many people coming up to you to say so. :rolleyes:


I don't see the problem here. Maybe it's because I dress in black, maybe it's because I look 'foreign'. It's not unreasonable to assume that in these backwoods hick towns, they actually target me specifically (I have encountered rumours in a new workplace about how I am a 'satanist', and a friend waiting for me in a restaurant 30 miles from where I live related to me an amusing conversation people were having about me while I was in the parking lot, about how I am a 'vampire'.

When I worked in the video store, I got invited to a half dozen churches a night. I don't know how they knew I wasn't with a church. I got pretty sick of being offered the salvation of my soul, to be honest.

I've even been approached just walking around in Wal-Mart with my kids, to offer me the 'Good News'.

Perhaos you live in an area where christian evangelism isn't almost militant. Lucky you. Or perhaps - since you could be considered 'on their side' you don't get the constant bullshit that some others have to put up with.


Way to miss the point, I expect better of someone who constantly comes down on those he debates against for missing his. This is NSG, you don't get more than one shots here saying things like that. Very rarely do you find any poster willing to stick arround with that kind of message that either doesn't get banned for flaming or turns out to be a puppet. So, again, you ask these hostile questions to people whom you should know from your very large post count don't even follow a literal view and THEN start to act innocent when we protest that your meaning is one of attack and not 'questioning'.

Still beating your wife, Grave_n_idle? I'm ONLY asking you a question you understand? I mean, I know that in real life people like you DO beat their wives so...

I still don't know what you are talking about. I've personally amde a point of asking about a number of the issues I addressed. Sometimes, I just want to see how christians 'deal with' the concepts of Joshua's war strategy, or the issues of slavery, incest and rape.... sometimes I just have a thought about something I've read or heard, and I want to put it up for debate.

Like the 'marriage as a punishment for rape' thing... it' ridiculous and barbaric - how does this community view the inerrant scripture when it spouts stupid shit? I've encountered people in my everyday life who actually uphold that kind of crap... churches that shame wives back to abusive husbands because 'they made their bed, now lie in it', etc.

Christianity - if viewed as a complete truth, based on an inerrant text, needs to be ripped a new asshole. If you take that as hostile, well, I view the whole damn institution, most of what it claims it stands for, and (most definitely) it's scriptures to be even more hostile, to me, on an unending continuous basis.

Christianity can get all precious about hostile questions when it stops being an evil empire.
Grave_n_idle
01-04-2008, 14:03
People need to believe in something.

You might. Not I.
Omnibragaria
01-04-2008, 14:05
I tolerate beliefs - even if I don't believe, myself. I don't tolerate bigotry, holier-than-thou attitude, or claims of "higher" morality based on beliefs.

That is the best course of action. I really don't discuss my own spiritual beliefs because frankly they don't really match up perfectly with any established religion.

As for bigotry, there is just as much of it from the atheist camp as from the religious. Neither side can prove they are right and both have large numbers of people who show hatred and intolerance for the other. That goes for a lot of people who post here too, on both the acsinine "i'm better than you because I'm religious" side and the pseudo-intellectual elitst attitude of many atheists.
Nipeng
01-04-2008, 14:32
It's not even a stretch, at all, to assume that many of those who rail against christianity ON nationstates, are doing so for reasons almost entirely disassociated from the forum itself.

1. Not all, by far, posters to this forum come from your country, let alone Georgia. Please don't base your views on the whole Christianity on your local experiences, they are hardly representative.
2. Also, there are precious few Christians (I guess again most of them live in your fine country) who believe that the Bible is inerrant literal word of God and must be wholly followed.
3. People are (justly) attacked by the majority of posters as bigots for equating the muslims with wife beating terrorists, but equating christians with moronic bible thumpers provokes much less response and mostly from the believers. Such double standard annoys me.
Risottia
01-04-2008, 14:39
especially when they call fallowers of beliefs not their own, nonbelievers.

A proposal.

Believers should call:

1.those who share their own beliefs, HOMOBELIEVERS. (homo-, greek root for "same")
2.those who don't share their beliefs, HETEROBELIEVERS. (hetero-, greek root for "other")
3.those who don't believe at all, OUBELIEVERS (ou, objective negation in greek - see outopìa, oukronìa)

It would be great to see fundie christians calling each other "homobeliever"...
Risottia
01-04-2008, 14:42
That is the best course of action. (...) As for bigotry, there is just as much of it from the atheist camp as from the religious.
Thanks. This is why I've used "belief" instead of "religion".
Anti-Social Darwinism
01-04-2008, 16:33
I'm at a loss (still) as to why

1. People continue to equate God with religion - they're not the same, folks.
2. People continue to equate Christianity with religion - again, they're not the same.

Religion is a phenomenon wherein a group actually gets together (physically or in spirit) for the express purpose of worshipping something - be it deity, money, statues, a government, a person, a principle. Once they get together they establish rules and rituals governing this worship (Wall Street has rituals, so do wine enthusiasts and gourmets). Some people differentiate between social clubs, business and religions, but I think they are substantially the same, the difference being that in a true religion (as opposed to "the one true religion" - a stupid concept if there ever was one) the followers can and do become fanatic enough to kill you if you don't agree with them (therefore socialism, capitalism and other socio/economic/political isms can qualify as religions). Frequently, people get so carried away that they eliminate the reason for the religion and worship the religion itself.

I won't argue as to whether the reasons behind religion are good or bad, but, if you judge religions by their results (by their fruits shall you know them), they are all, uniformly, worthy of hatred.
Hibernobrittania
01-04-2008, 16:55
Feel free to reject it... but then don't go buying a car, or using electric heating, or drink clean water, or go shopping in a supermarket, or brush your teeth, or wear any form of chemically dyed clothes, or actually use a computer, for that matter.

See, contrary to religion, science doesn't try to make laws. It simply provides commodities and insight.



And since when do you have to abandon all forms of religion to do any of those things??

not everything has to be such extremes.

science and religion are not polar opposites, i don't argue anything with science, it's not like im a creationist or something(as i'm not retarded) but this doesnt mean i dont believe in god.
Hibernobrittania
01-04-2008, 17:07
1. You're not "very religious but you believe in God". If you consider yourself Christian, that's one thing that annoys me about (some) religious people. If you don't believe that Jesus was God's son etc, you're not Christian.

2. You seem to be accusing everone on NSG of being intolerant and hateful. That's only true of about... 60% of NSGers.

3. You should be made to feel stupid because you don't capitalise.



On your first point, yes I do believe in Jesus and i'm a somewhat spiritual person, so much that i've questioned my faith and am currently considering converting, but i haven't given up on my faith altogether, so i don't see your point?

I wasnt accusing everyone, there's just a very vocal group of anti religious types (yourself included i'm assuming)

And that last point.... well that was just plain childish ;) can't stand to see a decent argument made in religion's defence, not everything has to be so extreme you know
Laerod
01-04-2008, 18:15
A proposal.

Believers should call:

1.those who share their own beliefs, HOMOBELIEVERS. (homo-, greek root for "same")
2.those who don't share their beliefs, HETEROBELIEVERS. (hetero-, greek root for "other")
3.those who don't believe at all, OUBELIEVERS (ou, objective negation in greek - see outopìa, oukronìa)

It would be great to see fundie christians calling each other "homobeliever"...I'm pretty sure it's eutopia, meaning "good place."
Dyakovo
01-04-2008, 18:35
Some people need to believe in something.

Fixed
Nanatsu no Tsuki
01-04-2008, 18:56
People need to believe in something.

I do believe in something. That this thread is useless.:D
Maledomina
01-04-2008, 18:57
As Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science, is blind" Religion does not require fantiscism, it requires faith, however there are always those who are unable to perceive their faith as being different or wrong. These are the kinds of people who are prone to fanatiscism and extreme actions for their beliefs such as war :mp5: or homicide :sniper: ,these are the ones that cannot percieve faiths beyond their own and believe (usually) that thats all needed to justify their actions.Also its not that you believe at some point some times ts just know!
Nanatsu no Tsuki
01-04-2008, 19:03
As Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science, is blind" Religion does not require fantiscism, it requires faith, however there are always those who are unable to perceive their faith as being different or wrong. These are the kinds of people who are prone to fanatiscism and extreme actions for their beliefs such as war :mp5: or homicide :sniper: ,these are the ones that cannot percieve faiths beyond their own and believe (usually) that thats all neede to justify their actions.

Although a nice post, try using more words and less emoticons. That way you'll be taken more seriously.;)
Maledomina
01-04-2008, 19:05
I only used 2 and only for emphasis.
Maledomina
01-04-2008, 19:08
Although a nice post, try using more words and less emoticons. That way you'll be taken more seriously.;)

I only used 2 and only for empasizing my point.
Maledomina
01-04-2008, 19:09
Sorry for the redundence.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
01-04-2008, 19:10
Sorry for the redundence.

No offense taken.;)
Dyakovo
01-04-2008, 19:11
I do believe in something. That this thread is useless.:D

Well, duh. It's based on the OP assuming that because someone questions or criticizes a (i.e. his) religion that we hate religion.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
01-04-2008, 19:13
Well, duh. It's based on the OP assuming that because someone questions or criticizes a (i.e. his) religion that we hate religion.

Yeah, that's what I call generalizing.:D
Dyakovo
01-04-2008, 19:15
Yeah, that's what I call NSGeneralizing.:D

Fixed ;)
Nanatsu no Tsuki
01-04-2008, 19:17
Fixed ;)

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f308/Iheartpopsicles/owned-cat-1.jpg
Dyakovo
01-04-2008, 19:21
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f308/Iheartpopsicles/owned-cat-1.jpg
To which I respond...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/161101.jpg
Mott Haven
01-04-2008, 19:49
I have thought about this a bit, and I think the REAL question is not "why do people hate religion" it is "why does religion hate people?".

The two largest religions in the world, and by number of followers, most of the religious, tell me that regardless of any good qualities I have, whether I am psychopathic or a paragon of self sacrifice, I will be sent to Hell and be punished with horrors for all eternity if I don't do exactly what they say.

And they tell me, it's for my own good, because they really don't want to see me sent to Hell.

Considering that they also claim God created hell, made up the rules about who goes and who doesn't, and would be the one actually sending me there, doesn't this sound like a gangster? "I really don't want to shoot you, so just do exactly as I say, it's for your own good."

Nice soul you got there. Wouldn't want to see it end up anywhere, HOT, no do we?

And of course you'll excuse the fact that my inner cynic starts jumping up and down in his cage when he realizes that the very people who are orchestrating this "saving" (for my own good!) are the very people who benefit most from it, financially.

So, you want to have a religion I won't hate? Drop the threats. It's OK to keep some rewards on the table, but threat is just uncalled for.

Maybe a sort of "all good people go to heaven, but followers of our sect will get an extra pick off the dessert tray".
Anagonia
01-04-2008, 19:50
The true reason is as followes:

Everyone needs something to complain/rant/hate. So they choose something and go with it. Basic outline, and its rather amusing to see two people go at it and get into senseless gibberish over something like that.

But seriously, Humanity, in itself, always needs something to complain about. Sometimes its justified (I.E. Fundementalists), and sometimes its just plain OZMGIN33DSPAMZORZ.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
01-04-2008, 20:26
To which I respond...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/161101.jpg

ROFLMAO!!
At least no one can hate LOL Cats.:D
Grave_n_idle
01-04-2008, 20:40
1. Not all, by far, posters to this forum come from your country, let alone Georgia. Please don't base your views on the whole Christianity on your local experiences, they are hardly representative.


I'm not sure what your point is. Even I don't come from this country - it's just where I live. But - also - I haven't absed my opinions of Christianity as a whole on anything... I haven't discussed it, really - only the aspects of 'christianity' that impinge on my daily existence, set the laws where I live, and DO uphold the scripture as inerrant and/or relevent to MY existecne. (Note: to my way of thinking, THOSE people aren't 'christians' at all).


2. Also, there are precious few Christians (I guess again most of them live in your fine country) who believe that the Bible is inerrant literal word of God and must be wholly followed.


I've met 'inerrancy' types both sides of the Atlantic, although, I agree, the area where I am now seems to be greater than the average. That said - it's not JUST the 'bible belt' - I have encountered the same thing in people I know from Wisconsin, for example.


3. People are (justly) attacked by the majority of posters as bigots for equating the muslims with wife beating terrorists, but equating christians with moronic bible thumpers provokes much less response and mostly from the believers. Such double standard annoys me.

Okay. No idea how it relates, but yay you!
Ultraviolent Radiation
01-04-2008, 22:07
There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?

Because it's harmful.
Nipeng
01-04-2008, 23:35
I'm not sure what your point is. Even I don't come from this country - it's just where I live.
Oh, my apologies. I didn't know that. But anyway - I thought your low opinion on Christianity stems from your daily experiences with the christian fundamentalists. That would explain this quote:

Christianity - if viewed as a complete truth, based on an inerrant text, needs to be ripped a new asshole. If you take that as hostile, well, I view the whole damn institution, most of what it claims it stands for, and (most definitely) it's scriptures to be even more hostile, to me, on an unending continuous basis.

Christianity can get all precious about hostile questions when it stops being an evil empire.

Now I'm confused: are you talking of Christianity as a whole, or just of the fundamentalist part? I'm inclined to agree with the latter interpretation, but then it's hardly relevant to the OP who asked generally about the attitude towards religion, not towards their extreme groups. Who, I hope most of us agree, are an all too easy target of righteous wrath.
Aqua Anu
01-04-2008, 23:40
Because they are all too busy to crack open a book and actually do some research on these religions and believe whatever the media tells them.
Dyakovo
01-04-2008, 23:43
Because they are all too busy to crack open a book and actually do some research on these religions and believe whatever the media tells them.

:confused:
Amor Pulchritudo
02-04-2008, 00:43
And that last point.... well that was just plain childish ;) can't stand to see a decent argument made in religion's defence, not everything has to be so extreme you know

The issue was that it wasn't a particularly decent argument.
Hibernobrittania
02-04-2008, 01:41
The issue was that it wasn't a particularly decent argument.


actually the issue was that i didn't "capitalise"
very relevant
Grave_n_idle
02-04-2008, 03:03
Oh, my apologies. I didn't know that. But anyway - I thought your low opinion on Christianity stems from your daily experiences with the christian fundamentalists. That would explain this quote:

Now I'm confused: are you talking of Christianity as a whole, or just of the fundamentalist part? I'm inclined to agree with the latter interpretation, but then it's hardly relevant to the OP who asked generally about the attitude towards religion, not towards their extreme groups. Who, I hope most of us agree, are an all too easy target of righteous wrath.

Religion, as a personal pursuit, is a good thing. What one does in the privacy of one's own home, one's own head, to further the spread of good - is a positive thing. But once religion becomes institutional, it becomes utopian - making a 'perfect world' for some, perhaps, whilst making others suffer for a model they wouldn't choose.

The fundamentalist extremes of any religion tend to be an explicit evil - agreed - but the span of control implicit in organised religion is a lesser evil on it's own.

The funny thing is - I'm inclined to think it's necessary. I think people are, as a species, scum, and that the idea of a big dusty hand reaching through time and threatening to give some great cosmic mindfuck spank that'll leave you smarting for all eternity... is one of the few ways we can stop people being fundamentally shitty to each other. But that doesn't stop me railing against the invasions of religion into every aspect of my existence. It's a matter of finding a balance - each 'force' tempers the other... and that's good.
Amor Pulchritudo
02-04-2008, 04:52
actually the issue was that i didn't "capitalise"
very relevant

No, the issue was that I thought your post was so biased and ridiculous, the only thing I'd bother complaing about was your lack of punctuation.
Nipeng
02-04-2008, 09:29
Religion, as a personal pursuit, is a good thing. What one does in the privacy of one's own home, one's own head, to further the spread of good - is a positive thing. But once religion becomes institutional, it becomes utopian - making a 'perfect world' for some, perhaps, whilst making others suffer for a model they wouldn't choose.

The fundamentalist extremes of any religion tend to be an explicit evil - agreed - but the span of control implicit in organised religion is a lesser evil on it's own.

You know what? I agree. I agree also with the implication that the more control a particular denomination has over its followers, the more evil it tends to be. Also, the more power a religion has, the bigger its potential for both good and evil is, and the latter is remembered rather than the former. People seldom remember that with great power comes great responsibility and the religious leaders are no exception.

The funny thing is - I'm inclined to think it's necessary. I think people are, as a species, scum, and that the idea of a big dusty hand reaching through time and threatening to give some great cosmic mindfuck spank that'll leave you smarting for all eternity... is one of the few ways we can stop people being fundamentally shitty to each other.

I hope the humanity is close to growing up enough to get rid of that crutch... and enjoying their relationship with God (or lack thereof) without the carrot-and-stick element.

Well, I wish we all could more often disagree like that.
Pure Metal
02-04-2008, 09:39
Because they are all too busy to crack open a book and actually do some research on these religions and believe whatever the media tells them.

that's fairly similar to a reason i don't like organised religion. people seeking life's answers in one book, or being told what to do (at church), just doesn't sit well with me. not free thinking or analytical enough for me. it took years of difficult and arduous personal thought, research and deliberation for me to come up with the moral, philisophical and ethical views i hold today. just getting those views because one book, or your pastor/whatever tells you to isn't enough, even if many of the central tenets of many organised religions i may agree with.


personal spirituality is none of my business, however.
Risottia
02-04-2008, 09:39
I'm pretty sure it's eutopia, meaning "good place."

Outopìa is a totally different thing. Utopy as ye English-speakers would call it.

(5 years of greek pay off sometimes ;) )
Intangelon
02-04-2008, 11:06
Outopìa is a totally different thing. Utopy as ye English-speakers would call it.

(5 years of greek pay off sometimes ;) )

Efharistó!
Grave_n_idle
02-04-2008, 14:33
You know what? I agree. I agree also with the implication that the more control a particular denomination has over its followers, the more evil it tends to be. Also, the more power a religion has, the bigger its potential for both good and evil is, and the latter is remembered rather than the former. People seldom remember that with great power comes great responsibility and the religious leaders are no exception.


For the most part I agree. My only real hesitation would be in allowing that a 'big movement' might be 'good'... but then, I guess, we are talking about the potential for good... so I accept it. The potential is there, just limited by the nature of the beast... and unfortunately, I think the beast nature means we (collectively) tend towards the evil church, rather than the good.


I hope the humanity is close to growing up enough to get rid of that crutch... and enjoying their relationship with God (or lack thereof) without the carrot-and-stick element.

Well, I wish we all could more often disagree like that.

I share your hope - but think it's a remote dream at the moment. Perhaps ironically, I think the nearest we've been was Marx, and we know how that turned out, in practise.
Straughn
03-04-2008, 07:45
No, the issue was that I thought your post was so biased and ridiculous, the only thing I'd bother complaing about was your lack of punctuation.This sounds familiar in some way. :)
Straughn
03-04-2008, 07:51
Soviestan aren't you religious?
I would normally say to check the sig, but ...
Straughn
03-04-2008, 07:53
Oh, where to begin. Probably because organized religion is the single biggest deterrent to spiritual growth, intellectual growth, emotional growth and progress known to man. Maybe because the current state of affairs in the Middle East is a direct outgrowth of organized religion. Possibly because the practitioners of organized religion worship everything but God. Other than that, I can't really say.

:fluffle:
Straughn
03-04-2008, 07:55
Because Generalites are somewhat more intelligent than average.

Yay! Somewhat!
*dances weasel dance*
Straughn
03-04-2008, 08:02
Religion will not disappear but evolve.
Meaning, of course, "the" "Word" were never "true".
United Beleriand
03-04-2008, 08:07
Atheism has traits associated with religion. Militant Atheists share a lot with religious radicals.However, atheists are rooted in reality and religious radicals in ideological horseshit.
Shayamalan
03-04-2008, 10:02
However, atheists are rooted in reality and religious radicals in ideological horseshit.

Though a statement like that, in itself, only proves the point. Often, religious radicals will act on blanket beliefs and claims that they feel apply to the world, and pretty much anything, ever. In this case, that would be their worldview of a universe governed by the god(s) they believe in (we must remember, radicalism does not only apply to Jews, Christians, and Muslims). Strong-willed and convinced atheists, such as UB here, are so firmly grounded in the belief that there is no god that they do not seem willing to explore any worldview in which a god exists, and immediately discredit anything a theist says because they find that it is based on the theist worldview. Religious radicals, in many cases, do the same, except vice versa (will not even touch any atheist worldview). This, of course, in both theist and atheist terms, is blind faith going too far. A measure of faith is of course healthy in any religion, or even any personal faith in a higher power; I will admit that complete and total scientifically-based proof in a deity's existence OR NON-EXISTENCE is impossible. I don't think humankind has the means to answer that question. But, when that faith gets carried away, that's when things go bad. I, myself, am a practicing, believing Roman Catholic, but my faith is far from blind. I have my own personal experiences that have, in my own life, proven God's existence to me within the Church. Though I do agree that sometimes the seemingly outrageous claims of religious militants give religion a bad name, and can sometimes bring about statements such as the one quoted above.
Dyakovo
03-04-2008, 13:56
Yay! Somewhat!
*http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/LAHdance1.gif*

fixed :D
Peepelonia
03-04-2008, 14:03
However, atheists are rooted in reality and religious radicals in ideological horseshit.

Heh reality as they see it.
Big Jim P
03-04-2008, 18:20
Yay! Somewhat!
*dances weasel dance*

I was feeling generous. I apologize. the weakness will not re-occur.:D

Really though, with few exceptions, even the religious generalites are not that bad.
Myrmidonisia
03-04-2008, 18:28
However, atheists are rooted in reality and religious radicals in ideological horseshit.
It's a shame that most people that post against religion have such a limited view of what ecumenical organizations can do for the rest of the community. Is anyone going to condemn "Habitat for Humanity" because it was founded and is run as a Christian organization?
Mott Haven
03-04-2008, 18:46
It's a shame that most people that post against religion have such a limited view of what ecumenical organizations can do for the rest of the community. Is anyone going to condemn "Habitat for Humanity" because it was founded and is run as a Christian organization?

No, but I think it's irrelevant. Habitat for Humanity could do just as well as a secular organization. This is a sort of metaphysical "bundling"- religious organizations package their dogmas along with genuine good deeds as a sort of "proof" that they are inseperable but it just isn't true. People do astonishingly good things for each other without the guidance of religious leaders, every day. Here is an organization showing that ethics do not need dogma, and hence the one does not justify the other:

http://www.nysec.org/

Would you condemn them because they don't embrace any religion at all?

Anyone can do good. I will neatly skirt the perimeters of Godwin's law by pointing out that Stalin built museums and monuments.
Deus Malum
03-04-2008, 18:56
No, but I think it's irrelevant. Habitat for Humanity could do just as well as a secular organization. This is a sort of metaphysical "bundling"- religious organizations package their dogmas along with genuine good deeds as a sort of "proof" that they are inseperable but it just isn't true. People do astonishingly good things for each other without the guidance of religious leaders, every day. Here is an organization showing that ethics do not need dogma, and hence the one does not justify the other:

http://www.nysec.org/

Would you condemn them because they don't embrace any religion at all?

Anyone can do good. I will neatly skirt the perimeters of Godwin's law by pointing out that Stalin built museums and monuments.

Godwin's Law is about Hitler and Nazi Germany, so a Stalin reference wouldn't have counted either way.
United Beleriand
03-04-2008, 19:03
Though a statement like that, in itself, only proves the point. Often, religious radicals will act on blanket beliefs and claims that they feel apply to the world, and pretty much anything, ever. In this case, that would be their worldview of a universe governed by the god(s) they believe in (we must remember, radicalism does not only apply to Jews, Christians, and Muslims). Strong-willed and convinced atheists, such as UB here, are so firmly grounded in the belief that there is no god that they do not seem willing to explore any worldview in which a god exists, and immediately discredit anything a theist says because they find that it is based on the theist worldview. Religious radicals, in many cases, do the same, except vice versa (will not even touch any atheist worldview). This, of course, in both theist and atheist terms, is blind faith going too far. A measure of faith is of course healthy in any religion, or even any personal faith in a higher power; I will admit that complete and total scientifically-based proof in a deity's existence OR NON-EXISTENCE is impossible. I don't think humankind has the means to answer that question. But, when that faith gets carried away, that's when things go bad. I, myself, am a practicing, believing Roman Catholic, but my faith is far from blind. I have my own personal experiences that have, in my own life, proven God's existence to me within the Church. Though I do agree that sometimes the seemingly outrageous claims of religious militants give religion a bad name, and can sometimes bring about statements such as the one quoted above.

What a rubbish. All faith is blind. (Religious) faith is a fundamentally flawed concept.
And there is no proof for god's existence. Anyone who claims thus is a liar and a retard. If there were proof then it would not be faith but knowledge.
Either you know siomething or you don't. There is no such middle ground as faith suggests.
Gift-of-god
03-04-2008, 19:10
No, but I think it's irrelevant. Habitat for Humanity could do just as well as a secular organization....
Anyone can do good. I will neatly skirt the perimeters of Godwin's law by pointing out that Stalin built museums and monuments.

By pointing out that charitable Christian organisations could be run by secular people, you do not negate that religious charitable organistaions do exist, and that these charities are run for religious reasons. In other words, I don't see how pointing that out renders anything irrelevant.
Grave_n_idle
03-04-2008, 19:13
What a rubbish. All faith is blind. (Religious) faith is a fundamentally flawed concept.
And there is no proof for god's existence. Anyone who claims thus is a liar and a retard. If there were proof then it would not be faith but knowledge.
Either you know siomething or you don't. There is no such middle ground as faith suggests.

Dude, even your fellow atheists think your 'arguments' are horseshit.

Of course there is 'proof' for god's existence. For several gods, in fact. The only question is whether it is empirical evidence... objective evidence. And - to some people, that isn't an important question.

The idea that all faith is blind is cute, but false. If you accept the 'evidence' as being satisfactory, then your faith is grounded, and far from blind. The only time faith is 'blind' is when the evidence isn't even sought.
United Beleriand
03-04-2008, 19:14
Of course there is 'proof' for god's existence.Then demonstrate it.
Grave_n_idle
03-04-2008, 19:19
Then demonstrate it.

Genesis 1:1.

Case closed. Come back when you've done even the most basic groundwork.
United Beleriand
03-04-2008, 20:03
Genesis 1:1.

Case closed. Come back when you've done even the most basic groundwork.Genesis 1:1 is a text, not a proof.
And now demonstrate god's existence for me.
Grave_n_idle
03-04-2008, 22:03
Genesis 1:1 is a text, not a proof.
And now demonstrate god's existence for me.

In as much as anything can be a 'proof' (I'm sure you must be aware of how unscientific the whole concept really is), a text can be a 'proof'. Seriously, this is second-grade stuff.

Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean it's not evidence.


God's existence is even easier to 'prove' - consider the lilies of the field.
Death Queen Island
03-04-2008, 22:46
tell me how do your lillies compare to aids, cigarette's, blind appendix(i have no idea what its called in english), genetics, fagget penguins!!(sorry animal homosexuality), testicular torsion, the human brain and its pink circuitry, and that women and mens intellect can be equaled, talking parrots, midgets, human evil, asian people, america, the fact that prayer never helps anyone in a war torn country or a famine all this and much much more, like glasses for instance and bureaucracy all of these prove that god cannot exist, especially bureaucracy, tax exempt status give me a break! its all bureaucratic mumbo jumbo that has no place of mention in the confusing bible
Kistea
03-04-2008, 22:53
This thread obviously hits a nerve with many. Just to let you know, I do not qualify as "stupid" or "mindless" or any other other epithets hurled at believers on this thread--except that I believe. Qualified for Mensa, for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, for teaching at the university level, and for writing and editing books, I first pursued a physics career, hoping to find the answer to the cosmic "Why?" only to discover that at best science can answer "How?"

As far as evidence for God goes, if you do not want to see evidence for Him, you will refuse to see no matter what I or anyone else says.

If, however, you are open to evidence and will follow wherever it leads, ask yourself where you get your ideas of "good" and "evil," or how to explain why the astronomically complex city inside each one of your body's cells exhibits the same kind of design and structure as the galaxy surrounding Sol. If you are really daring, go see Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled, with an open mind when it comes out later this month.

If you are intelligent and raised in the Western world, do not be surprised to find yourself an atheist or a skeptic. That is the current milieu. I just ask that you don't blindly accept the current intellectual dogma. In this deconstructionist post-modern time, the true dissidents are the thinkers who have the courage to acknowledge Truth when they see it.

Thank you for your indulgence.
Andaras
03-04-2008, 23:52
Heh reality as they see it.

I am sorry, but do you religious people have some kinda 'sixth sense' we do not? So you know some magical invisible 'God' exists and you all have special knowledge?

Atheists simply accept reality and our current knowledge of it, we believe what up to this point has been scientifically proven.
Gift-of-god
04-04-2008, 00:03
I am sorry, but do you religious people have some kinda 'sixth sense' we do not? So you know some magical invisible 'God' exists and you all have special knowledge?

Atheists simply accept reality and our current knowledge of it, we believe what up to this point has been scientifically proven.

I was under the impression that science does not prove things (http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm). Does this mean you don't believe anything at all?
Andaras
04-04-2008, 00:11
I was under the impression that science does not prove things (http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm). Does this mean you don't believe anything at all?
Well, either way, 'belief' is the wrong word, we accept the reasonable evidence provided.

Also, please actually make a point and stop using semantics and nitpickery.
Iniika
04-04-2008, 00:27
I don't so much hate religion as I am exasperated by it and it's prevalence in my day to day life. If people want to practice religion, I'm not bothered by it, but please, keep it to yourself. I don't need your God sold to me, I don't need to hear how I'm going to be punished for not believing what you believe and I especially dislike it when religion is used as a free pass to break or bend rules and laws.

Contrary to many accusations, I don't by any means -need- a god, a divine manifestation, a higher being or a club dictated by any of the above to be a happy, well rounded and accomplished human being. Neither do I need a god, divine manifestation or higher being to deduce right from wrong. I think I've done a pretty good job of that on my own.

I also think that belief and spirituality are different concepts, even though at times they overlap, and that one does not have to be a believer to have spirituality, whether that is a connection with the beauty and power of nature, or simply an inner sense of purpose one has found within oneself. This does not take a belief in a god, divine manifestation or higher being to accomplish.

I am perfectly aware that not every believer and a scripture waving, hate spewing bigot determined to shout out everyone's faults and the million different ways they are going to burn for them. However, I would -vastly- appreciate it if those of you who are believers would turn the volume down a little on your beliefs, or at the very least, stop complaining so much when they are stepped on because they are so extensively scattered on the floor that it's impossible not to.
Hibernobrittania
04-04-2008, 00:32
No, the issue was that I thought your post was so biased and ridiculous, the only thing I'd bother complaing about was your lack of punctuation.


and what is so biased and ridiculous about not throwing thousands of years of spirituality out the window? I don't have a problem with you being an aethiest, but what gives you the right to tell me im being ridiculous for having faith? its not like im some fundamentalist.
Dyakovo
04-04-2008, 00:46
and what is so biased and ridiculous about not throwing thousands of years of spirituality out the window? I don't have a problem with you being an aethiest, but what gives you the right to tell me im being ridiculous for having faith? its not like im some fundamentalist.

To some, the whole concept of faith is ridiculous, thusly the concept is applied to those who have faith.
Soheran
04-04-2008, 01:34
I don't have a problem with you being an aethiest, but what gives you the right to tell me im being ridiculous for having faith?

How is saying that someone is being ridiculous a matter of "right"?

If someone is actually being ridiculous, is there something wrong with saying so?
Dyakovo
04-04-2008, 01:46
How is saying that someone is being ridiculous a matter of "right"?

If someone is actually being ridiculous, is there something wrong with saying so?

If the person is a fundie christian, then yes, its another example of the persecution of christians in America.
:rolleyes:
Nipeng
04-04-2008, 10:48
If someone is actually being ridiculous, is there something wrong with saying so?
Absolutely not! After all, seeing in a mall a fat lady wearing a thong, every sensible human being makes a point of telling her how ridiculous she is.
Big Jim P
04-04-2008, 10:58
Absolutely not! After all, seeing in a mall a fat lady wearing a thong, every sensible human being makes a point of telling her how ridiculous she is.

At least those not struck blind.
Bright Capitalism
04-04-2008, 13:04
Absolutely not! After all, seeing in a mall a fat lady wearing a thong, every sensible human being makes a point of telling her how ridiculous she is.

I'm sure there is probably a dedicated website for this kind of pervers... er, special interest.

Anyway, talking of perversion, I once did see something like this.

I was at a sex trade show in London and there were loads of people dressed in the most ridicul... er, special interest way.

One that caught my eye (and nearly sent me blind) was a fat lady in a neck-to-toe dress made out of big gold loops. And nothing else. Nothing.

Still makes me shudder today!
Peepelonia
04-04-2008, 13:32
To some, the whole concept of faith is ridiculous, thusly the concept is applied to those who have faith.

Some would also say that there are many ridiculas things about the world we live in, it seems quite normal to me to include some ridiculas-ness in your life.
Bottle
04-04-2008, 13:51
Some would also say that there are many ridiculas things about the world we live in, it seems quite normal to me to include some ridiculas-ness in your life.
Which absolutely isn't a problem, so long as you accept and admit that it's ridiculousness. It only becomes a problem when you decide to insist that your chosen ridiculousness is actually non-ridiculous, and that nobody should be allowed to say otherwise.
Nipeng
04-04-2008, 14:00
Which absolutely isn't a problem, so long as you accept and admit that it's ridiculousness. It only becomes a problem when you decide to insist that your chosen ridiculousness is actually non-ridiculous, and that nobody should be allowed to say otherwise.
If the world with God is ridiculous*, the world without Him is sad. I know in which one I'd rather live.
*FOR ME It is not since I have faith.
Gift-of-god
04-04-2008, 15:58
Well, either way, 'belief' is the wrong word, we accept the reasonable evidence provided.

Also, please actually make a point and stop using semantics and nitpickery.

Sorry. I just thought that if you are going to go to so much effort to have a scientific worldview, you should know something about basic science.
New Genoa
04-04-2008, 16:06
If the world with God is ridiculous*, the world without Him is sad. I know in which one I'd rather live.
*FOR ME It is not since I have faith.

Well, actually, it's the concept of God that's ridiculous not the world with or without him.
Eientei
04-04-2008, 16:08
Science without religion is sterile and dead, and religion without science is plain stupid. Throwing out either faith or reason from your life seems to me like poking out one of your eyes and then claiming you can see more clearly.
New Genoa
04-04-2008, 16:09
Science without religion is sterile and dead, and religion without science is plain stupid. Throwing out either faith or reason from your life seems to me like poking out one of your eyes and then claiming you can see more clearly.

There's where you go wrong.
Bottle
04-04-2008, 16:13
Science without religion is sterile and dead...
I lol'ed.
Knights of Liberty
04-04-2008, 16:15
Science without religion is sterile and dead

Why?
Gift-of-god
04-04-2008, 16:18
Science without religion is sterile and dead, and religion without science is plain stupid. Throwing out either faith or reason from your life seems to me like poking out one of your eyes and then claiming you can see more clearly.

Science without imagination is sterile and dead, and religion without rationality is plain dogmatic.
Dyakovo
04-04-2008, 16:24
Some would also say that there are many ridiculas things about the world we live in, it seems quite normal to me to include some ridiculas-ness in your life.
What Bottle said \/
Which absolutely isn't a problem, so long as you accept and admit that it's ridiculousness. It only becomes a problem when you decide to insist that your chosen ridiculousness is actually non-ridiculous, and that nobody should be allowed to say otherwise.
Eientei
04-04-2008, 16:52
Science without imagination is sterile and dead, and religion without rationality is plain dogmatic.

You said it better than I did.

I'd like to explain it better, but I have to go. Maybe I'll make a thread about it later.
Kura-Pelland
05-04-2008, 01:25
I like that. Rationality is paramount, but can we say that rationality and religion are mutually exclusive? Probably not, but the latter without the former is all too common, and I daresay any atheist leanings around here are a byproduct of that and the fact that a place like this is always going to lean slightly geeky.
United Beleriand
05-04-2008, 02:14
In as much as anything can be a 'proof' (I'm sure you must be aware of how unscientific the whole concept really is), a text can be a 'proof'. Seriously, this is second-grade stuff.

Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean it's not evidence.


God's existence is even easier to 'prove' - consider the lilies of the field.The lilies?? How the fuck are lilies proof, or at least evidence, for the existence of a god??
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-04-2008, 02:17
The lilies?? How the fuck are lilies proof, or at least evidence, for the existence of a god??

I think that seeing flowers growing in the field (lilies), to this person is proof of the existence of a god.
But your point is valid. Lilies explain nothing.
Straughn
05-04-2008, 04:03
Maybe I'll make a thread about it later.

Ooh, let's do.
http://students.fim.uni-passau.de/~hansenk/bilder/futurama/bender2.jpg
Straughn
05-04-2008, 04:05
fixed :D
Ooh! Many, many thankyous!
!!!
*mega-BOW*
Andaras
05-04-2008, 06:33
Science without religion is sterile and dead, and religion without science is plain stupid. Throwing out either faith or reason from your life seems to me like poking out one of your eyes and then claiming you can see more clearly.
Since when does faith have any place in society, the only results faith has ever had is death, intolerance and cesspools and servility and incredulity. The only goal of religion is an attempt to generalize everything and stupefy people into ignorance.
CannibalChrist
05-04-2008, 08:40
The lilies?? How the fuck are lilies proof, or at least evidence, for the existence of a god?? they have quotes from the torah encoded in their dna... well okay it requires using groups of 12 base pairs and a complex cypher on the nineth and 14th chromosome, and please ignore the vedic poetry encrypted onto the 9th because there was a mutation which drops every 7th word and makes the whole thing unnecessarily confusing
Grave_n_idle
05-04-2008, 19:23
I think that seeing flowers growing in the field (lilies), to this person is proof of the existence of a god.
But your point is valid. Lilies explain nothing.

Lilies don't have to 'explain' anything. To those who look at a lily, and see something too beautiful to be explained by chance (to them), the lily is perfect evidence of the creator - and of the need for there to be one.

There is no question about whether there is evidence for god - everything is evidence for god. The question is - how good is that evidence? Most specifically, how good is it for you?
Straughn
05-04-2008, 23:07
they have quotes from the torah encoded in their dna... well okay it requires using groups of 12 base pairs and a complex cypher on the nineth and 14th chromosome, and please ignore the vedic poetry encrypted onto the 9th because there was a mutation which drops every 7th word and makes the whole thing unnecessarily confusing

Wasn't this a Star Trek episode, with Klingons or something?
Agenda07
05-04-2008, 23:20
Science without religion is sterile and dead, and religion without science is plain stupid. Throwing out either faith or reason from your life seems to me like poking out one of your eyes and then claiming you can see more clearly.

I've heard this claim a lot, but I've never seen it backed up.

Suppose the Chancellors of Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford Universities happened to be trolling the forum and they read your post. They're convinced, and you're going to speak to a gathering of some of the top scientists on the planet. All of these world-class Mathematicians, Physicists, Biologists, Chemists etc. are rather peeved at having been dragged away from their work (not to mention insulted at the suggestion that their work is 'sterile' and 'dead'), but they've all been told about your views and want to know what you've got to tell them that will give a new burst of energy to their (allegedly) flagging, secular research.

What religious statement are you going to make which will improve the quality of their work by even a tiny ammount?
Agenda07
05-04-2008, 23:24
If, however, you are open to evidence and will follow wherever it leads, ask yourself where you get your ideas of "good" and "evil,"

From my cultural upbringing, reason and basic instincts hard-wired into the brain. Where did you get yours?

or how to explain why the astronomically complex city inside each one of your body's cells exhibits the same kind of design and structure as the galaxy surrounding Sol.

Given that neither the cell nor the galaxy exhibit design I fail to see why this requires explanation, unless one is commited to a theistic deity a priori in which case one might need to justify said deity's apparent uninvolvement in the origins of life and the Universe.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-04-2008, 23:40
Lilies don't have to 'explain' anything. To those who look at a lily, and see something too beautiful to be explained by chance (to them), the lily is perfect evidence of the creator - and of the need for there to be one.

There is no question about whether there is evidence for god - everything is evidence for god. The question is - how good is that evidence? Most specifically, how good is it for you?

Here we go again...:rolleyes: Neither lilies nor your argument are proof of the existence of a god. Nothing is. The only thing that sustains believers is just that, belief. That´s how it is.
Agenda07
05-04-2008, 23:45
Here we go again...:rolleyes: Neither lilies nor your argument are proof of the existence of a god. Nothing is. The only thing that sustains believers is just that, belief. That´s how it is.

If I understand the point Grave's making, he's saying that the idea of what constitutes 'proof' in this context is necessarily subjective. Different people require different standards of proof and evidence, so while the existence of beauty might be enough for some people, others (including me) won't believe unless we're presented with something more substantial.
Grave_n_idle
05-04-2008, 23:47
Here we go again...:rolleyes: Neither lilies nor your argument are proof of the existence of a god. Nothing is. The only thing that sustains believers is just that, belief. That´s how it is.

Not at all.

Belief is what let's someone KNOW that the evidence is reliable.

The evidence is there.. in every baby, every flower... the holy scripture. If you don't VALUE the evidence (like - you demand objectivity, or scientific methodolgy, for example) then you won't accept it - but that doesn't stop it being evidence.

Of course - it's also evidence for anything else. Every baby is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, every flower is evidence of Odin, the holy scripture proves the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns.

But still - it is evidence.
Upstream
05-04-2008, 23:49
Because belief in a god of any sort is illogical. Period.

Thank "god" most of us here at NS are educated enough to realize this.
Grave_n_idle
05-04-2008, 23:49
If I understand the point Grave's making, he's saying that the idea of what constitutes 'proof' in this context is necessarily subjective. Different people require different standards of proof and evidence, so while the existence of beauty might be enough for some people, others (including me) won't believe unless we're presented with something more substantial.

I think Nanatsu is under the impression I'm a 'believer' of some kind, perhaps?

I'm not saying I consider the evidence enough to reach any conclusion, much less to conclude 'god'... but it is still evidence.
Grave_n_idle
05-04-2008, 23:50
Because belief in a god of any sort is illogical. Period.

Thank "god" most of us here at NS are educated enough to realize this.

There are different ways of reckoning 'logical'. If one reckons it in terms of 'has allowed the human species to survive beyond the hit-me-in-the-head-with-rocks stage', then religion is entirely logical.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
05-04-2008, 23:55
I think Nanatsu is under the impression I'm a 'believer' of some kind, perhaps?

I'm not saying I consider the evidence enough to reach any conclusion, much less to conclude 'god'... but it is still evidence.

Why would I be under that impression, Grave_n_idle? I don´t know you, I
don´t know if you believe or not. Do you believe in something?

I also understand that to some the very existence of beauty is proof enough that a god exists. But like Agenda posted, to me, that is not enough. I need more proof. But kudos to those who find lilies evidence enough.;)
Grave_n_idle
06-04-2008, 00:01
Why would I be under that impression, Grave_n_idle? I don´t know you, I
don´t know if you believe or not. Do you believe in something?


You just seemed to be reading the argument as though it were mine. I'm just making the argument, I didn't claim I believed it.

The problem is, Bereliand (or however it was spelled) seems to think there is NO evidence for the existence is god. That's just plain not true... what there is, is no evidence that HE accepts. (Nor I, in truth - but it's not the same as there being NO evidence).


I also understand that to some the very existence of beauty is proof enough that a god exists. But like Agenda posted, to me, that is not enough. I need more proof. But kudos to those who find lilies evidence enough.;)

It's a matter of interpretation. To those who need something objective, there's no GOOD evidence. But - no GOOD evidence isn't equal to NO evidence (as any historian can tell you... a witness testimony IS an evidence, even if it turns out to be not much good).
Obscurans
06-04-2008, 02:52
There are different ways of reckoning 'logical'. If one reckons it in terms of 'has allowed the human species to survive beyond the hit-me-in-the-head-with-rocks stage', then religion is entirely logical.

Exactly. Religion as a method of generating societal cohesion and reducing fear of the unknown has been rather instrumental in getting us up past the Iron Age. Then they started proving the earth was round...

Well, Grave's point that religion is evolutionarily required is pretty evidenced, and Upstream's that no religion has objective proof usable in a logical argument also stands.

And I'll echo the "religion is having too much of an effect on my life even though I'm more than happy to just go to hell - I am still getting pounded by their holy writ transcribed into the actual lawbooks".
Free Soviets
06-04-2008, 03:01
The problem is, Bereliand (or however it was spelled) seems to think there is NO evidence for the existence is god. That's just plain not true... what there is, is no evidence that HE accepts. (Nor I, in truth - but it's not the same as there being NO evidence).

the fact that some people are willing to accept something as evidence does not demonstrate that it actually is evidence, or that it is evidence for what they claim it is.
Wyrdgar
06-04-2008, 03:49
Assuming there is no god and penalizing "religon" for isn't entirely fair; it does tend to provide a generally accepted moral code and structure. Science won't fill a gap it doesn't already encompass. (forgive me, I'm new to this)
Oakondra
06-04-2008, 03:49
A lot of Atheists are just as blindly devoted to their own cult as some Christians are, which makes them hypocrites, and pretty much invalid in all argument.
Hibernobrittania
06-04-2008, 03:55
Because belief in a god of any sort is illogical. Period.

Thank "god" most of us here at NS are educated enough to realize this.


well you're the reason i made this thread, people like you that is.

that was pure ignorance
New Genoa
06-04-2008, 04:20
well you're the reason i made this thread, people like you that is.

that was pure ignorance

ignorance of what?
Rieth
06-04-2008, 09:59
I do have a question. You all say it's stupid to believe this, or it's dumb to believe that, but well, those that aren't christians, or aren't religious in some way usually, not always, but usually believe in evolution... This is my question and the reason I ask it : You find it stupid to believe that a God would create us, but think it makes wonderful sense that we come from rock soup (yes, when ice and rock heat, it turns to water and rock = rock soup). And if that isn't strange enough to me, they follow this "view" or "religion" long after Darwin himself said he was wrong. (and this was not induced by peer-presure, he really said he was mistaken.) He based his theory of evolution off of various birds while on a ship, and what he discovered at that time was micro-evolution, (basicly all dogs are related to the same animal, but it's a dog like animal, just as all birds are related, but from a bird, just different variations.) Now if Darwin himself said he was wrong, and the text books teaching evolution have been changing almost yearly since first included in a classroom, why should that be believed? It seems to me you'd have to have just as much blind faith, if not more to believe in something that it's very creator disowned.

*Please forgive me for any spelling errors, it's 5am and I have to get up in 4 hours.
SeathorniaII
06-04-2008, 11:38
I do have a question. You all say it's stupid to believe this, or it's dumb to believe that, but well, those that aren't christians, or aren't religious in some way usually, not always, but usually believe in evolution... This is my question and the reason I ask it : You find it stupid to believe that a God would create us, but think it makes wonderful sense that we come from rock soup (yes, when ice and rock heat, it turns to water and rock = rock soup). And if that isn't strange enough to me, they follow this "view" or "religion" long after Darwin himself said he was wrong. (and this was not induced by peer-presure, he really said he was mistaken.) He based his theory of evolution off of various birds while on a ship, and what he discovered at that time was micro-evolution, (basicly all dogs are related to the same animal, but it's a dog like animal, just as all birds are related, but from a bird, just different variations.) Now if Darwin himself said he was wrong, and the text books teaching evolution have been changing almost yearly since first included in a classroom, why should that be believed? It seems to me you'd have to have just as much blind faith, if not more to believe in something that it's very creator disowned.

*Please forgive me for any spelling errors, it's 5am and I have to get up in 4 hours.

If micro-evolution is real, then so is macro-evolution. Macro-evolution just takes a lot longer. However, it is observable if the animal or plant in question breeds extremely fast (see fruit flies).

Darwin isn't the only authority on the matter. For example - there was a monk who proved evolution through plants, a number of scientists discovered DNA and its sequences and finally, we'd all be starving if evolution weren't real.

That's right, we'd be dead.
United Beleriand
06-04-2008, 11:40
A lot of Atheists are just as blindly devoted to their own cult as some Christians are, which makes them hypocrites, and pretty much invalid in all argument.Devotion is not the problem. The problem is what people are devoted to. While atheists are devoted to reality and rationality, religious people are devoted to unsubstantiated and illogical horseshit.
United Beleriand
06-04-2008, 11:42
If micro-evolution is real, then so is macro-evolution. Macro-evolution just takes a lot longer. However, it is observable if the animal or plant in question breeds extremely fast (see fruit flies).There is no such things as micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There is only evolution. The mechanisms are the same on every level.
SeathorniaII
06-04-2008, 11:46
There is no such things as micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There is only evolution. The mechanisms are the same on every level.

Yes, but if people make the distinction, then it's important to explain it in terms they'll understand.

If only more teachers used this principle, I wouldn't be having such a hard time in Uni (there's quite a few teachers who assume that students have knowledge they couldn't possibly all have).
United Beleriand
06-04-2008, 11:49
The problem is, Bereliand (or however it was spelled) seems to think there is NO evidence for the existence is god. That's just plain not true... what there is, is no evidence that HE accepts. (Nor I, in truth - but it's not the same as there being NO evidence).There is no evidence for the existence of god. That has nothing to do with what I accept or not. Evidence would be facts that allow to deduct the existence of god unequivocally. But there are no such facts. And lack of explanations for certain phenomena is no evidence for god either.
United Beleriand
06-04-2008, 11:50
Yes, but if people make the distinction, then it's important to explain it in terms they'll understand.Religious people make that distinction, because they don't understand evolution in the first place. Educated people don't make that distinction.
Wyrdgar
06-04-2008, 11:53
Devotion is not the problem. The problem is what people are devoted to. While atheists are devoted to reality and rationality, religious people are devoted to unsubstantiated and illogical horseshit.

What part of reality can you substantiate in non-comparative terms?
United Beleriand
06-04-2008, 12:01
What part of reality can you substantiate in non-comparative terms?what?
Wyrdgar
06-04-2008, 12:14
What you seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, is that your belief in reality has a more solid basis than religon does. If reality exists, then define it.
United Beleriand
06-04-2008, 12:23
What you seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, is that your belief in reality has a more solid basis than religon does. If reality exists, then define it.Reality is the existence of the universe as it is and what is contained in it. The only base for religion are the uninformed ideas and schemes of a handful of folks out of ancient times. Religion does not even search for reality.
Wyrdgar
06-04-2008, 12:33
Reality is the existence of the universe as it is and what is contained in it. The only base for religion are the uninformed ideas and schemes of a handful of folks out of ancient times. Religion does not even search for reality.

Aside from using the some of the parts of the realty to define the whole(I would probably add mathematical priciples to your description) the simple answer is that we must assume reality exists. 2 plus 2 in a base ten system is equal to 4. In order to work in the world we live in, we have to postulate an awful lot in order to prove what little we can.
SeathorniaII
06-04-2008, 12:49
Religious people make that distinction, because they don't understand evolution in the first place. Educated people don't make that distinction.

How do you propose to educate anyone if you treat them like it's something they should already know?

That's just stupid. It's the reason why half of my courses are so damn tough - because the teachers assume the students should already be familiar with every single concept of their course. They shouldn't. You have to actually teach people for them to understand it.
Agenda07
06-04-2008, 13:10
A lot of Atheists are just as blindly devoted to their own cult

'Cult' has quite a specific definition, and probably the most important factor in making something cult is the presence of a charismatic leader. I can't see how Atheism can be classed as a cult.

as some Christians are,

So you think Christianity is a cult? Interesting. Not a view I'd try to defend, except with regard to a few particular groups (Jehovah's Witnesses for example).

which makes them hypocrites, and pretty much invalid in all argument.

Motives have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of an argument.

I hereby certify this post to be 100% Content Free.
Death Queen Island
06-04-2008, 13:40
the abrahamic god cannot be justified and other religions seem way out of this world for me to possibly blindly believe without an inch of me twitching in defiance, animals are doing quite fine without religion so what about us, im sure we could do better without religion, the dark ages is a perfect example, for almost 1000 years there was no scientific progress because of the churches iron grip on Europe

and although im fascinated by mythology and old stories i dont like cults, because they promote the same thing that abrahamic religions do, first they decide that there is a problem, then they make you believe that you are in trouble because of that problem, then they make you admit to the problem , and when you're lost and confused they tell you that they can help you with "you're problem"

i can tolerate Taoism, Shinto, Confucianism and Jainism but thats because most of those philosophies teach about life here on earth, about ethics and work moral, no fairy tales and silly gods who wield the power of the universe in their hands, yet are so concerned with a tiny planet in the middle of the cosmos

beliefs, shame and pride are the grætest threat to man and his mind, in my opinion of course.
Agenda07
06-04-2008, 13:46
I do have a question. You all say it's stupid to believe this, or it's dumb to believe that, but well, those that aren't christians, or aren't religious in some way usually, not always, but usually believe in evolution...

'Believe' isn't a good word to use in this context, as it implies equivalency with religious beliefs. I no more believe in Evolution than I believe in Gravity. 'Accept' would be a better choice.

This is my question and the reason I ask it : You find it stupid to believe that a God would create us, but think it makes wonderful sense that we come from rock soup (yes, when ice and rock heat, it turns to water and rock = rock soup).

If you're sincere in wanting an answer to your question then I'd suggest reading some books which aren't written by Creationists: their strawman descriptions of 'what Evolutionists believe' are almost invariably dishonest and inaccurate.

There are many different proposals as to how life came about: we know it's possible for amino acids to form from inorganic substances (read up on 'The Urey-Miller Experiment': we now know that the conditions they tested for were wrong, but the principle that they established (that life can come from non-life) still stands). Wikipedia has quite a good article on the Origin of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life) which sketches out some of the ideas which are being discussed.

And if that isn't strange enough to me, they follow this "view" or "religion"

Evolution is science, not religion. Scientists don't gather in lecture theatres every Thursday to pray to Darwin, before sacrificing the least fit member of the congregation on the altar of natural selection...

long after Darwin himself said he was wrong. (and this was not induced by peer-presure, he really said he was mistaken.)

Whoever told you that Darwin recanted is a liar: even Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp) have disowned this claim:

The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was 'false and without any kind of foundation',4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had 'no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view'....It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

Even if it was true, so what? Evolution is based on evidence, not the authority of a long dead scientist. Even if it was discovered tomorrow that Darwin never existed and that he was invented by Huxley as a literary device, it wouldn't change even an iota of the theory of Evolution.

He based his theory of evolution off of various birds while on a ship, and what he discovered at that time was micro-evolution, (basicly all dogs are related to the same animal, but it's a dog like animal, just as all birds are related, but from a bird, just different variations.)

There's no difference between 'Microevolution' and 'Macroevolution', it's just a matter of scale.

Now if Darwin himself said he was wrong,

Again, even if this was true (which it isn't...) what relevance does it have to the EVIDENCE supporting evolution?

and the text books teaching evolution have been changing almost yearly since first included in a classroom,

1. Textbooks don't really need to be revised that often, it's largely a ploy by textbook manufacturers to sell more (if they stick with the same ones for too long students will just buy them second-hand from other students, and libraries will stick with the ones they've got.

2. How does making progress in science and discovering even more evidence which supports evolution count against it?

why should that be believed? It seems to me you'd have to have just as much blind faith, if not more to believe in something that it's very creator disowned.

Religion does blind faith. Science does scepticism.

Evolution could be falsified by a single observation (there are many possibilities: mammals in the pre-Cambrian, grass pollen in the Triassic, genetic codes which don't fit in with the existing nested hierarchies etc.) and yet, despite this potential vulnerability it has never been falsified. That's why Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories of all time and Creationism is still a bronze age myth.
Agenda07
06-04-2008, 13:58
I do have a question. You all say it's stupid to believe this, or it's dumb to believe that, but well, those that aren't christians, or aren't religious in some way usually, not always, but usually believe in evolution...

'Believe' isn't a good word to use in this context, as it implies equivalency with religious beliefs. I no more believe in Evolution than I believe in Gravity. 'Accept' would be a better choice.

This is my question and the reason I ask it : You find it stupid to believe that a God would create us, but think it makes wonderful sense that we come from rock soup (yes, when ice and rock heat, it turns to water and rock = rock soup).

If you're sincere in wanting an answer to your question then I'd suggest reading some books which aren't written by Creationists: their strawman descriptions of 'what Evolutionists believe' are almost invariably dishonest and inaccurate.

There are many different proposals as to how life came about: we know it's possible for amino acids to form from inorganic substances (read up on 'The Urey-Miller Experiment': we now know that the conditions they tested for were wrong, but the principle that they established (that life can come from non-life) still stands). Wikipedia has quite a good article on the Origin of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life) which sketches out some of the ideas which are being discussed.

And if that isn't strange enough to me, they follow this "view" or "religion"

Evolution is science, not religion. Scientists don't gather in lecture theatres every Thursday to pray to Darwin, before sacrificing the least fit member of the congregation on the altar of natural selection...

long after Darwin himself said he was wrong. (and this was not induced by peer-presure, he really said he was mistaken.)

Whoever told you that Darwin recanted is a liar: even Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp) have disowned this claim:

The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was 'false and without any kind of foundation',4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had 'no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view'....It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

Even if it was true, so what? Evolution is based on evidence, not the authority of a long dead scientist. Even if it was discovered tomorrow that Darwin never existed and that he was invented by Huxley as a literary device, it wouldn't change even an iota of the theory of Evolution.

He based his theory of evolution off of various birds while on a ship, and what he discovered at that time was micro-evolution, (basicly all dogs are related to the same animal, but it's a dog like animal, just as all birds are related, but from a bird, just different variations.)

There's no difference between 'Microevolution' and 'Macroevolution', it's just a matter of scale.

Now if Darwin himself said he was wrong,

Again, even if this was true (which it isn't...) what relevance does it have to the EVIDENCE supporting evolution?

and the text books teaching evolution have been changing almost yearly since first included in a classroom,

1. Textbooks don't really need to be revised that often, it's largely a ploy by textbook manufacturers to sell more (if they stick with the same ones for too long students will just buy them second-hand from other students, and libraries will stick with the ones they've got.

2. How does making progress in science and discovering even more evidence which supports evolution count against it?

why should that be believed? It seems to me you'd have to have just as much blind faith, if not more to believe in something that it's very creator disowned.

Religion does blind faith. Science does scepticism.

Evolution could be falsified by a single observation (there are many possibilities: mammals in the pre-Cambrian, grass pollen in the Triassic, genetic codes which don't fit in with the existing nested hierarchies etc.) and yet, despite this potential vulnerability it has never been falsified. That's why Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories of all time and Creationism is still a bronze age myth.
Inyou
06-04-2008, 21:08
There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?

I was thinking of the same thing... and once again I'm so damn glad 99% of the people don't know my religion, as in, I could name it, and they wouldn't even know what it is, or even that it IS a religion.

I can't stand the fact that people seem so eager to say stuff about a whole religion/culture/group of people as if everyone in that group is exactly the same. It's rather narrowminded, and could hardly ever be right. Most of the time it's rather hypocritical, too ._.
Grave_n_idle
06-04-2008, 21:55
the fact that some people are willing to accept something as evidence does not demonstrate that it actually is evidence, or that it is evidence for what they claim it is.

Of course it is evidence. It might not be conclusive - hell, it might even be entirely misleading - but it's still evidence.

Hoofbeats are 'evidence' for horses... even when it turns out to be zebras.
Grave_n_idle
06-04-2008, 22:01
There is no evidence for the existence of god. That has nothing to do with what I accept or not. Evidence would be facts that allow to deduct the existence of god unequivocally. But there are no such facts. And lack of explanations for certain phenomena is no evidence for god either.

The fact that you are unable to grasp the concept of evidence is not my problem to deal with.

A broken lock is evidence that might allow us to deduce a burglary, but it is not unequivocal on the issue, especially not in isolation. There is nothing that says 'evidence' is unequivocal.

Your definition is wishful thinking, not reality.

Even a lily in a field is evidence for God. And for a whole host of other things. That doesn't necessarily make any of them true.
Grave_n_idle
06-04-2008, 22:03
Reality is the existence of the universe as it is and what is contained in it. The only base for religion are the uninformed ideas and schemes of a handful of folks out of ancient times. Religion does not even search for reality.

Can you show that you can verify the "universe as it is, and what is contained in it"?

No - you have no idea what 'reality' entails.

You're a blind man, grasping the elephant's trunk, and describing a snake.
Free Soviets
06-04-2008, 22:20
Of course it is evidence. It might not be conclusive - hell, it might even be entirely misleading - but it's still evidence.

Hoofbeats are 'evidence' for horses... even when it turns out to be zebras.

but a dream of hoofbeats is not

nor is the existence of flowers
Hadopelia
06-04-2008, 22:42
Rolling squid;13564318']because if you know anything about it, religion is worthy of hate. The harm done by religion far outweighs any good done, and that's assuming that their is no god. According to the bible, Jehovah stacks up unfavourably to Hitler.

Actually, if you look closely enough, you'll find that the big problem with religion (the one naming hitler as a martyr of sorts) is where they try to continue themselves (spread and multiply). All five of the major religions have this in one way or another, and the ones that cause all the problems (Abramist religions, mainly Christianity) are very overt in this. All the other religions I can think of don't have this idea, and don't cause any problems. therefore, religion, in and of itself, is not the problem, but living to impose one's ideas upon another is.
Dyakovo
06-04-2008, 22:43
<snip> religion, in and of itself, is not the problem, but living to impose one's ideas upon another is.

QFT
Belkaros
06-04-2008, 22:57
I usually respect the majority of NSers' opinions unless religion is involved, at which point 97.321% of you go from interesting, opinionated and elequent to drivel spouting dumbasses incapable of putting forth a single reasonable arguement for your hatred. Your (I'm talking to you if this is infuriating you) repeat tired and abused arguements about how there is pedarism in the Catholic Church, how Islamic holy wars are inspired by religion and how it was used to justify the crusaides. So what? Does this give you a right to be disrespectful and mean to people of different beliefs? I have seen dozens of intelligent theological discussions crashed by some jerkoff with "LULZ RELIGIONZ IS FOR TEH FAGGOTZ". I have heard baseless, insulting acusations from people across NSG about how the VAST majority of the human race is a bunch of ignorant, violent, blind idolaters and frankly I am sick of it. Religion, like it or not, is proboably more responsible for human success than any other factor. What other force has inspired such creativity, bonded so many and given hope to such great numbers? (rhetorical, PLEASE don't give stupid moot examples like internet or airplane) It is really old, and I think people should just accept that religion A. exists B. is celebrated and held dear by billions of people so that we can just move on.
Jayate
06-04-2008, 23:16
It's the opiate of the masses...
;)

The Opiate of the Masses is Jingoism, not religion. But then again, I disagree with Karl Marx a LOT.
Grave_n_idle
06-04-2008, 23:20
but a dream of hoofbeats is not

nor is the existence of flowers

Actually - both are.

The dream might not be an evidence acceptable to your neighbour, but it might be more than enough to convince you.

You seem to be making the same, basic, mistake that UB continues to make - assuming that 'evidence' means, somehow, something that is incontrovertible.

Clearly, that's not even remotely the case, as even a casual consideration of legal procedings will illuminate. 'Evidence' is nothing special - it's just the data you process to arrive at a conclusion - or to fail to do so. It doesn't have to be infallible... it doesn't have to even be good. Hell, it doesn't even have to be right, or even real. It's still evidence.
Grave_n_idle
06-04-2008, 23:21
The Opiate of the Masses is Jingoism, not religion. But then again, I disagree with Karl Marx a LOT.

No - religion is the opiate of the masses... most people just fail to understand what that means.
Jayate
06-04-2008, 23:26
No - religion is the opiate of the masses... most people just fail to understand what that means.

I take it that it means that people believe it brings them joy (and it does for a while), but it ultimately ends up hurting them.
Bann-ed
06-04-2008, 23:31
I take it that it means that people believe it brings them joy (and it does for a while), but it ultimately ends up hurting them.

Which is why marijuana should be outlawed.
Hibernobrittania
06-04-2008, 23:42
I was thinking of the same thing... and once again I'm so damn glad 99% of the people don't know my religion, as in, I could name it, and they wouldn't even know what it is, or even that it IS a religion.

I can't stand the fact that people seem so eager to say stuff about a whole religion/culture/group of people as if everyone in that group is exactly the same. It's rather narrowminded, and could hardly ever be right. Most of the time it's rather hypocritical, too ._.


well what religion is it?
Free Soviets
06-04-2008, 23:45
Actually - both are.

The dream might not be an evidence acceptable to your neighbour, but it might be more than enough to convince you.

You seem to be making the same, basic, mistake that UB continues to make - assuming that 'evidence' means, somehow, something that is incontrovertible.

Clearly, that's not even remotely the case, as even a casual consideration of legal procedings will illuminate. 'Evidence' is nothing special - it's just the data you process to arrive at a conclusion - or to fail to do so. It doesn't have to be infallible... it doesn't have to even be good. Hell, it doesn't even have to be right, or even real. It's still evidence.

the convincingness of something to someone is irrelevant. evidence is tied to some legitimate standard of justification for belief formation. so hearing hoofbeats (combined with other knowledge we have) can lead one to justly believe that horses are coming; it would serve as evidence for this belief even though the belief is false. but me seeing a daisy does not allow me to claim any justification at all for believing that there are horses around. it does not constitute evidence for this belief, even if it is utterly convincing to me. it is just not legitimately connected to my belief about horses.
Inyou
07-04-2008, 00:30
well what religion is it?

Ah, I was afraid of that question >.>' You see, I'd rather not tell because
a) I don't know enough of it to have a proper discussion about it (actually, them...I combine two), but enough to know I'll gladly be part of it (like most Christians don't know everything that's in the bible, but know the basic principles and agree with that), and
b) people tend to make a big fuzz about that XP Happened too often. And uhm... You know how people here are about religion sometimes ._.'
Deranged Robots
07-04-2008, 00:43
There seems to be a complete hatred and intolerance of religion here on the forums, i was just wondering why that is exactly?

Personally i'm not very religious, but i do believe in God, i have no problems if you don't, but it seems almost as if i should be made feel stupid just for this belief?

so good people of NS, why?

When religion tolerates me - I will tolerate religion.
Inyou
07-04-2008, 00:45
When religion tolerates me - I will tolerate religion.

There's always SOME religion that will tolerate you.
Cascade States
07-04-2008, 01:07
basically most people are reasonable HUMAN beings,
Not so on the internet!
In real life if you mouth off to someone the same way you might online,
there's a fear that your life and good looks ( if you have those ) are going
be be rearranged when you start screaming your ignorant pathetic hate
against religion.

Everyone knows that there NO chance of real repercussions for any filthy
ill mannered trash they spew onto the net.

Most have never lived in a place where your religion could be all that keeps
you alive, or conversely get you killed.

HAY COMMIES, Don't forget that your "glorious workers Paradise" was nothing
more than lies and terror spread by men who held GOD LIKE POWER over
everyone they could point guns at...
And if communists are soooo enlightened, why was it that your
" Peerless Leader"s sought to kill and crush people for their beliefs.
Then freed the heads of the Orthodox church when they needed them
to keep the people's support as the German's were inches from running over
Moscow like dog on the autobon?
Because everyone needs something to believe in that's bigger than they are,
be it an ambiguous figure who created everything,
A country that you work for slavishly spending your life defending,
or a man who pays your checks each week.
Religion is necessary to the human mind, whether you worship a tree,
a man, ideals of enlightenment. Or anything else.
Everyone at some point has to come to the conclusion that there IS
something bigger than all of us. That we did come from something,
and we ARE going Somewhere.
I don't care a whole lot what the Unwashed and ignorant masses think
of mine or any other religion. Because I figure that most people do
believe in something "Better" or Bigger than them, and that's what
religion is.
There are few true atheists, there are many possers, simply looking
to beat down the beliefs of others because they cannot come to
grips with the fact that what we do Does affect what happens to us
in the end, and that Humans are NOT the only intelligence in this world
and what lies beyond.
Andaras
07-04-2008, 01:11
Religion is nothing but the philosophical extension of the economic interests of the capitalist ruling class, just as libertarianism, liberalism and conservatism etc are it's political extensions.
Amor Pulchritudo
07-04-2008, 01:14
and what is so biased and ridiculous about not throwing thousands of years of spirituality out the window? I don't have a problem with you being an aethiest, but what gives you the right to tell me im being ridiculous for having faith? its not like im some fundamentalist.

You don't even KNOW what I believe in.

I didn't tell you you were being ridiculous for having faith.

However, I think the way you're handling this discussion is ridiculous.

You clearly have some sort of complex about this.
Mad hatters in jeans
07-04-2008, 01:18
basically most people are reasonable HUMAN beings,
Not so on the internet!
In real life if you mouth off to someone the same way you might online,
there's a fear that your life and good looks ( if you have those ) are going
be be rearranged when you start screaming your ignorant pathetic hate
against religion.

Everyone knows that there NO chance of real repercussions for any filthy
ill mannered trash they spew onto the net.

Most have never lived in a place where your religion could be all that keeps
you alive, or conversely get you killed.

HAY COMMIES, Don't forget that your "glorious workers Paradise" was nothing
more than lies and terror spread by men who held GOD LIKE POWER over
everyone they could point guns at...
And if communists are soooo enlightened, why was it that your
" Peerless Leader"s sought to kill and crush people for their beliefs.
Then freed the heads of the Orthodox church when they needed them
to keep the people's support as the German's were inches from running over
Moscow like dog on the autobon?
Because everyone needs something to believe in that's bigger than they are,
be it an ambiguous figure who created everything,
A country that you work for slavishly spending your life defending,
or a man who pays your checks each week.
Religion is necessary to the human mind, whether you worship a tree,
a man, ideals of enlightenment. Or anything else.
Everyone at some point has to come to the conclusion that there IS
something bigger than all of us. That we did come from something,
and we ARE going Somewhere.
I don't care a whole lot what the Unwashed and ignorant masses think
of mine or any other religion. Because I figure that most people do
believe in something "Better" or Bigger than them, and that's what
religion is.
There are few true atheists, there are many possers, simply looking
to beat down the beliefs of others because they cannot come to
grips with the fact that what we do Does affect what happens to us
in the end, and that Humans are NOT the only intelligence in this world
and what lies beyond.

So what religion are you a part of then?
What is your definition of religion?
Why is religion important then? What does it do that people themselves cannot do?
You might want to re-phrase some of your rant about communism, and/or specify whether you want to discuss communism or religious belief.
Free Soviets
07-04-2008, 01:38
...

that's quite the load of crazy you got there. do you get a bulk order discount on it?
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 02:32
Just because you have a bad experience of faith doesnt mean you have to give up on it altogether. Religion is not based completely on lies and bad teaching as you(most of you) all seem to think. Myself, i was born a catholic, however i questioned my faith and the blind belief, but this didnt mean i had to give up on religion altogether, rather i just looked for a belief that better suited me and i found fulfilling.

so why do you all give up on faith completely? you can have balance
because its essentially ridiculous. Faith forces you to believe in something that you may or may not believe in. It forces you to do things you would not do and it is the sole biggest killer in the history of humanity. Even Buddhism has caused untold numbers of deaths (ie.: china) because its followers don't fight back and its probably the one that has caused the fewest deaths.
Hibernobrittania
07-04-2008, 02:33
Ah, I was afraid of that question >.>' You see, I'd rather not tell because
a) I don't know enough of it to have a proper discussion about it (actually, them...I combine two), but enough to know I'll gladly be part of it (like most Christians don't know everything that's in the bible, but know the basic principles and agree with that), and
b) people tend to make a big fuzz about that XP Happened too often. And uhm... You know how people here are about religion sometimes ._.'

ah cmon, all i wanna know is the name, im not gonna debate you about the theology or what not :D
Nanatsu no Tsuki
07-04-2008, 02:42
This is why! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMdpfjSyW_8)
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 03:15
basically most people are reasonable HUMAN beings,
Not so on the internet!
In real life if you mouth off to someone the same way you might online,
there's a fear that your life and good looks ( if you have those ) are going
be be rearranged when you start screaming your ignorant pathetic hate
against religion.

Everyone knows that there NO chance of real repercussions for any filthy
ill mannered trash they spew onto the net.

Most have never lived in a place where your religion could be all that keeps
you alive, or conversely get you killed.

HAY COMMIES, Don't forget that your "glorious workers Paradise" was nothing
more than lies and terror spread by men who held GOD LIKE POWER over
everyone they could point guns at...
And if communists are soooo enlightened, why was it that your
" Peerless Leader"s sought to kill and crush people for their beliefs.
Then freed the heads of the Orthodox church when they needed them
to keep the people's support as the German's were inches from running over
Moscow like dog on the autobon?
Because everyone needs something to believe in that's bigger than they are,
be it an ambiguous figure who created everything,
A country that you work for slavishly spending your life defending,
or a man who pays your checks each week.
Religion is necessary to the human mind, whether you worship a tree,
a man, ideals of enlightenment. Or anything else.
Everyone at some point has to come to the conclusion that there IS
something bigger than all of us. That we did come from something,
and we ARE going Somewhere.
I don't care a whole lot what the Unwashed and ignorant masses think
of mine or any other religion. Because I figure that most people do
believe in something "Better" or Bigger than them, and that's what
religion is.
There are few true atheists, there are many possers, simply looking
to beat down the beliefs of others because they cannot come to
grips with the fact that what we do Does affect what happens to us
in the end, and that Humans are NOT the only intelligence in this world
and what lies beyond.

Few points here. One I'm not a commie as u so well put it. Just thought I'd get that out there first.

Second: I do believe in things that are bigger in myself I just chose to believe in things that actually can prove that what they are saying is right rather than shouting down, killing or imprisoning anyone who speaks against them.

Third: Personally i consider myself an Atheist. I have a scientist view of the world which has a tendency to disagree with the ideas that religion entails.

Fourth: eheheheheheh atheist put down the beliefs of others? Okay we like to argue mostly because from our point of view the lot of you look like moronic idiots following some random set of ideals BUT at least we only argue (one point there yes Stalin and Mao killed people. No im not sure they were really atheists and even if they were banning religions had nothing to do with being atheist . . . .rather it was just another power play . . . .if u can get rid of the biggest power monger around, thats religion, then you will be the biggest power monger around). Religions have a tendency to try to kill anyone who doesn't agree with exactly what they say. Need examples? Iraq (Christian), Iran (Muslims), Isreal (Muslims), Pakistan/India (Hindus and Muslims), the crusades (Christians), Ireland (catholics vs. protestants) .

Fifth
Religion has nothing to do with believing in something bigger. Its about power. Somebody in power (the pope for example) tells everybody else that unless you do this then you will burn in hell for all eternity. but if you do do it then you'll receive some kind of reward in the afterlife. If religion was about believing in something bigger and better then why so many wars, why the hatred of those who are different? why the hatred of all other religions after all don't they all believe in something bigger and better too?

Sixth
We are all going somewhere . . .. that would be death . . . and we all came from somewhere too . . . .that would be birth. I did not exist before I was born and I will return to that state after I am dead. All my biological processes will cease to function and I will be dead. Why are you so afraid of that concept? why do you have to believe that you are in fact going somewhere else?

Seventh
Those places where religion keeps you alive or gets you killed are run BY RELIGION thats why your religion can kill you. I dont want to live somewhere like that? who does?

Eight
Be careful who you call ignorant. I have read the bible (new and old testament) cover to cover. I have attended churches of various faiths on several occasions. I know the history of that bible better than most RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. I have also read the koran. I'm in university. and most importantly I don't generally judge people by what they believe. I may find their beliefs ignorant or outright ludacris but they are still good people and many of them are smart and talented. Do you extend the same courtesy?
Guibou
07-04-2008, 03:22
Fifth
Religion has nothing to do with believing in something bigger. Its about power. Somebody in power (the pope for example) tells everybody else that unless you do this then you will burn in hell for all eternity. but if you do do it then you'll receive some kind of reward in the afterlife. If religion was about believing in something bigger and better then why so many wars, why the hatred of those who are different? why the hatred of all other religions after all don't they all believe in something bigger and better too?

Sixth
We are all going somewhere . . .. that would be death . . . and we all came from somewhere too . . . .that would be birth. I did not exist before I was born and I will return to that state after I am dead. All my biological processes will cease to function and I will be dead. Why are you so afraid of that concept? why do you have to believe that you are in fact going somewhere else?


In answer to fifth: Religion is only about power for those who run it. It's about faith for pretty much everyone in it. Don't forget that some of us have their "personnal" religion, which they do not try to force onto others.

In answer to sixth: How do you know you have no soul? How are you so damn sure? Also, why do you think we "have to believe"? We don't have to do anything, we choose to believe, basically because it's fun. That's just me of course.

I'm offended that you can generalize so much about "religion". All religions are not the same.
Hadopelia
07-04-2008, 04:01
Religions have a tendency to try to kill anyone who doesn't agree with exactly what they say. Need examples? Iraq (Christian), Iran (Muslims), Isreal (Muslims), Pakistan/India (Hindus and Muslims), the crusades (Christians), Ireland (catholics vs. protestants) .

Fifth
Religion has nothing to do with believing in something bigger. Its about power. Somebody in power (the pope for example) tells everybody else that unless you do this then you will burn in hell for all eternity. but if you do do it then you'll receive some kind of reward in the afterlife. If religion was about believing in something bigger and better then why so many wars, why the hatred of those who are different? why the hatred of all other religions after all don't they all believe in something bigger and better too?

Eight
Be careful who you call ignorant. I have read the bible (new and old testament) cover to cover. I have attended churches of various faiths on several occasions. I know the history of that bible better than most RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. I have also read the koran. I'm in university. and most importantly I don't generally judge people by what they believe. I may find their beliefs ignorant or outright ludacris but they are still good people and many of them are smart and talented. Do you extend the same courtesy?

You seem to confusing religion in general with Abrhamism (Jewish, Catholic, Islam and Satanism [believe it or not, this is Abrhamist because it would not exist without Abraham's ideas]). Just remember there are hundreds more, and most of them are MUCH more peaceful. Believe it or not, there are religions out there that actually forbid harming in any way shape or form (including the infringment of free will), instead of giving laws of how to wage war fare (like in Leveticus).
PelecanusQuicks
07-04-2008, 04:29
In answer to fifth: Religion is only about power for those who run it. It's about faith for pretty much everyone in it. Don't forget that some of us have their "personnal" religion, which they do not try to force onto others.

In answer to sixth: How do you know you have no soul? How are you so damn sure? Also, why do you think we "have to believe"? We don't have to do anything, we choose to believe, basically because it's fun. That's just me of course.

I'm offended that you can generalize so much about "religion". All religions are not the same.

I have to agree here for the most part. I am not sure I am offended, I am just saddened by such generalities and assumptions.

And I will also add that I find it very naive to see this:

Third: Personally i consider myself an Atheist. I have a scientist view of the world which has a tendency to disagree with the ideas that religion entails.

Having a 'science view of the world' is not what makes you atheist, you simply made a chioce regarding the belief in a deity or not. That is what makes you an atheist.

Religion and science are certainly not mutually exclusive. I have no problem in the least embracing both without any sacrifice to either.

As far as it being a "tendency", I am genuinely surprised that is what you find.

Most everyone in my life is religious (family, extended family, friends and colleagues) and honestly I can count on one hand how many of those have issue with some of the sciences. The rest have no problem with any aspect of it.
Obscurans
07-04-2008, 05:42
Having a 'science view of the world' is not what makes you atheist, you simply made a chioce regarding the belief in a deity or not. That is what makes you an atheist.

Religion and science are certainly not mutually exclusive. I have no problem in the least embracing both without any sacrifice to either.

As far as it being a "tendency", I am genuinely surprised that is what you find.

Most everyone in my life is religious (family, extended family, friends and colleagues) and honestly I can count on one hand how many of those have issue with some of the sciences. The rest have no problem with any aspect of it.

There is no scientific (= objectively verifiable) evidence for the existence of "anything bigger". Since science has tried, many times, to demonstrate such an existence it is safe to conclude said being even if extant has a minor effect on the world. It's the same thing. You can never prove an arson did NOT occur as the cause of a fire - direct video surveilance can be defeated for example. But if forensics experts go and search for days on end and find not as much as a lighter, and worse found a gas leak instead, you say "no arson". At least they don't charge anyone with arson.

Religion has a part in the definition that implies dogma - all the holy writ for example, is "true" (modulo interpreting it) flatly. Not all Christians will support a strict literal interpretation of the Bible for example, but none will ever dispute that it is "the word of God" (maybe transcribed by human hands but always, divinely inspired). THAT, in itself is the defining characteristic that makes its elimination a goal. Whenever you elevate some object to the category "not to be questioned" - the elevation is to be questioned. But now you're a heretic.

Science has a very high tendency to disagree with any form of literally interpreting holy writ since those were written (usually) way before true measurements were done - for example the creation myths. The chance that some holy book manages to duplicate the exact objectively observable evidence is close to none. No comment on molding the writing to fit the facts. That I contend is what people who have "no problem with holding both religion and science". WHAT does the Bible mean if Genesis is not literal?
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 07:12
You seem to confusing religion in general with Abrhamism (Jewish, Catholic, Islam and Satanism [believe it or not, this is Abrhamist because it would not exist without Abraham's ideas]). Just remember there are hundreds more, and most of them are MUCH more peaceful. Believe it or not, there are religions out there that actually forbid harming in any way shape or form (including the infringment of free will), instead of giving laws of how to wage war fare (like in Leveticus).

o i know i was just working with the three major ones
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 07:19
In answer to fifth: Religion is only about power for those who run it. It's about faith for pretty much everyone in it. Don't forget that some of us have their "personnal" religion, which they do not try to force onto others.

In answer to sixth: How do you know you have no soul? How are you so damn sure? Also, why do you think we "have to believe"? We don't have to do anything, we choose to believe, basically because it's fun. That's just me of course.

I'm offended that you can generalize so much about "religion". All religions are not the same.

ok I dont KNOW i have no soul i just dont believe I have one . . . .how do you KNOW you do have a soul???? I like the idea of a personnel religion and I know I generalized in my post but its nigh on impossible not too. . . . I'm sorry if I offended anyone who does actually believe in a religion that forces itself on others but those are few and far between. Lastly yes I generalize but I had to and btw I generalized a hell of a lot less than the guy to whom i was responding . . . . as to forcing you too believe . . . .most religions do and even those that dont will often attempt to convert you to their beliefs. And very few people chose what to believe . . . .mostly we just do what our parents do our w/e but few go out there, read all about their religion and the history behind it and then chose to believe in it. As for power . . . .power is always only about those who run it . . . .. that means nothing . . . .and its always about faith for other's . . .you didn't actually say anything there. Communisms one example. the people had faith the leaders wanted power. Every scam ever is about people having faith and leaders wanting power . . . .thats the whole point.
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 07:28
I have to agree here for the most part. I am not sure I am offended, I am just saddened by such generalities and assumptions.

And I will also add that I find it very naive to see this:



Having a 'science view of the world' is not what makes you atheist, you simply made a chioce regarding the belief in a deity or not. That is what makes you an atheist.

Religion and science are certainly not mutually exclusive. I have no problem in the least embracing both without any sacrifice to either.

As far as it being a "tendency", I am genuinely surprised that is what you find.

Most everyone in my life is religious (family, extended family, friends and colleagues) and honestly I can count on one hand how many of those have issue with some of the sciences. The rest have no problem with any aspect of it.

Okay again sry for generalizing. again did it a lot less than the guy to whom i was responding. on the other hand science was repeatedly quashed by religion. It still is . .. . stem cells, super colliders and darwinism are some examples . . .AGAIN I AM GENERALIZING but three most popular religions out there have done so. There are always exceptions but many many of the religious people I have talked too cannot bring themselves to believe in even something as basic as evolution . . . .things DO evolve u can PROVE it and yet somehow this is hard to believe for many religious types. And i agree that It was a choice that made me atheist (actually its more like very very very strongly agnostic.) but I made this choice through a scientific mind set. I looked at the options and the evidence and the history and their value system and chose that mostly it was a power grab that I wanted no part off.
PelecanusQuicks
07-04-2008, 07:30
There is no scientific (= objectively verifiable) evidence for the existence of "anything bigger". Since science has tried, many times, to demonstrate such an existence it is safe to conclude said being even if extant has a minor effect on the world. It's the same thing. You can never prove an arson did NOT occur as the cause of a fire - direct video surveilance can be defeated for example. But if forensics experts go and search for days on end and find not as much as a lighter, and worse found a gas leak instead, you say "no arson". At least they don't charge anyone with arson.


I don't think it should ever be assumed that just because science can or can't prove a thing it should be dismissed. If that were the case much of the science we have today we would not have. ;) Just because something today isn't objectively verifiable do you really believe it should be dismissed forever more? I don't.

For example lots of scientists believe in black holes yet a definitive description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown. Is that not correct?

Assuming that is correct, then why doesn't science just dismiss the folly of the black hole? Isn't that what you are suggesting science must do to religion? Because they can't prove or disprove things it must be dismissed?



Religion has a part in the definition that implies dogma - all the holy writ for example, is "true" (modulo interpreting it) flatly. Not all Christians will support a strict literal interpretation of the Bible for example, but none will ever dispute that it is "the word of God" (maybe transcribed by human hands but always, divinely inspired). THAT, in itself is the defining characteristic that makes its elimination a goal. Whenever you elevate some object to the category "not to be questioned" - the elevation is to be questioned. But now you're a heretic.


Many Christians do not support a literal translation at all but see the entire Old Testament as parables used to teach the history of Judaism. A necessary teaching tool to understand the event of the coming of Christ. But the OT is certainly not the divine dogma of Christianity. It is a history book and it tells us it is in Genesis when it says "This is the book of the generations of Adam..." Genesis 5:1. It's a family history.

I have questioned the Bible and religion since I was five years old. My grandmother (a devout Catholic) used to say "you would question Christ!" to me all the time because I questioned it all even then. The Bible is a book, it is a guide book. It is not what makes me a Christian or what makes me religious even. I think many people get entirely too hung up trying to make religion something tangible. It isn't. Take all the churches, books, icons away and you will not end religion.

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether the Bible is the word of God or not isn't the issue. Nor does it define Christianity. My belief in Christ defines Christianity. Trying to eliminate the Bible is a futile exercise by anyone if the point is to discredit religion/God. Futile in that it is a mistake to think that is what religion is about.

As far as whether I am a heretic or not. Probably by some standards. But those standards are not my judge and jury. That is God's job. ;) During the Reformation Servetus was burned as a heretic, Castellio stated "he (Servetus) was killed for preferring his own truth to that of John Calvin". Heresy assumes that objective divine law should be put before subjective opinions.

I find that last statement sums it up myself. The Bible (that teaching tool) in the Epistle of Paul, he tells Titus that a heretic should be rejected from the church. Nothing more. That is the one and only verse in the Bible regarding heretics. I have no fear of God dismissing me if I don't get the story exactly right....organized religion might, but not God. :p



Science has a very high tendency to disagree with any form of literally interpreting holy writ since those were written (usually) way before true measurements were done - for example the creation myths. The chance that some holy book manages to duplicate the exact objectively observable evidence is close to none. No comment on molding the writing to fit the facts. That I contend is what people who have "no problem with holding both religion and science". WHAT does the Bible mean if Genesis is not literal?

I disagree. In fact I find it rather fascinating that though the description is very rough and non-exact the basic idea that the earth formed as it did and life evolved comes very close to what science tells us today. How did they get any sembalence of order correct?

How in the day of NO science did they know this:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

I find it fascinating that Genesis describes aspects of evolution of the planet and then describes man being created. Tell me, how in the era that Genesis was written (or handed down verbally) did anyone know this was the order?

I don't think it is a coincidence. I also don't think there is "molding" of facts going on. I believe the information is parables but if you study it and lay much of it side by side with what we know to date, there is smoke that indicates a probable fire in reality. (figurative of course). We know there was a flood for instance. Things like that.

It's a mystery that is still playing out. Religion is like all things, it is constantly evolving. It is becoming more and more personal for Christians, who are seeing the church and organized religion as a help mate to faith more than the root of faith as it once was.

All of which of course is just my opinion. I know there are descrepancies with what we know now and what is recorded then. So what. Science is about mysteries and solving them, so is religion.

You are more than free to explain me away if you need to do that. I'm at peace with what I know. :)
PelecanusQuicks
07-04-2008, 07:35
Okay again sry for generalizing. again did it a lot less than the guy to whom i was responding. on the other hand science was repeatedly quashed by religion. It still is . .. . stem cells, super colliders and darwinism are some examples . . .AGAIN I AM GENERALIZING but three most popular religions out there have done so. There are always exceptions but many many of the religious people I have talked too cannot bring themselves to believe in even something as basic as evolution . . . .things DO evolve u can PROVE it and yet somehow this is hard to believe for many religious types. And i agree that It was a choice that made me atheist (actually its more like very very very strongly agnostic.) but I made this choice through a scientific mind set. I looked at the options and the evidence and the history and their value system and chose that mostly it was a power grab that I wanted no part off.

I can understand that completely.

I think each person has to search for his own answers and I don't believe anyone can tell a person what to believe. It is a journey....a very individual one at that.

Those few I know who cannot handle the science aspect are old timers. Their comfort zone is what they know and at this stage of life they are not interested in learning new tricks. ;) I find that most young people who have been exposed at all to evolution at least give it thought. That is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

I genuinely belief that religion and science can co-exist and in fact as supposed to co-exist and compliment each other. :)
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 07:45
I don't think it should ever be assumed that just because science can or can't prove a thing it should be dismissed. If that were the case much of the science we have today we would not have. ;) Just because something today isn't objectively verifiable do you really believe it should be dismissed forever more? I don't.

For example lots of scientists believe in black holes yet a definitive description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown. Is that not correct?

Assuming that is correct, then why doesn't science just dismiss the folly of the black hole? Isn't that what you are suggesting science must do to religion? Because they can't prove or disprove things it must be dismissed?






Many Christians do not support a literal translation at all but see the entire Old Testament as parables used to teach the history of Judaism. A necessary teaching tool to understand the event of the coming of Christ. But the OT is certainly not the divine dogma of Christianity. It is a history book and it tells us it is in Genesis when it says "This is the book of the generations of Adam..." Genesis 5:1. It's a family history.

I have questioned the Bible and religion since I was five years old. My grandmother (a devout Catholic) used to say "you would question Christ!" to me all the time because I questioned it all even then. The Bible is a book, it is a guide book. It is not what makes me a Christian or what makes me religious even. I think many people get entirely too hung up trying to make religion something tangible. It isn't. Take all the churches, books, icons away and you will not end religion.

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether the Bible is the word of God or not isn't the issue. Nor does it define Christianity. My belief in Christ defines Christianity. Trying to eliminate the Bible is a futile exercise by anyone if the point is to discredit religion/God. Futile in that it is a mistake to think that is what religion is about.

As far as whether I am a heretic or not. Probably by some standards. But those standards are not my judge and jury. That is God's job. ;) During the Reformation Servetus was burned as a heretic, Castellio stated "he (Servetus) was killed for preferring his own truth to that of John Calvin". Heresy assumes that objective divine law should be put before subjective opinions.

I find that last statement sums it up myself. The Bible (that teaching tool) in the Epistle of Paul, he tells Titus that a heretic should be rejected from the church. Nothing more. That is the one and only verse in the Bible regarding heretics. I have no fear of God dismissing me if I don't get the story exactly right....organized religion might, but not God. :p





I disagree. In fact I find it rather fascinating that though the description is very rough and non-exact the basic idea that the earth formed as it did and life evolved comes very close to what science tells us today. How did they get any sembalence of order correct?

How in the day of NO science did they know this:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

I find it fascinating that Genesis describes aspects of evolution of the planet and then describes man being created. Tell me, how in the era that Genesis was written (or handed down verbally) did anyone know this was the order?

I don't think it is a coincidence. I also don't think there is "molding" of facts going on. I believe the information is parables but if you study it and lay much of it side by side with what we know to date, there is smoke that indicates a probable fire in reality. (figurative of course). We know there was a flood for instance. Things like that.

It's a mystery that is still playing out. Religion is like all things, it is constantly evolving. It is becoming more and more personal for Christians, who are seeing the church and organized religion as a help mate to faith more than the root of faith as it once was.

All of which of course is just my opinion. I know there are descrepancies with what we know now and what is recorded then. So what. Science is about mysteries and solving them, so is religion.

You are more than free to explain me away if you need to do that. I'm at peace with what I know. :)

hehehe actually black holes are verifiable . . .its an equation using something called swartzchild radius (spelling could easily be wrong there) but I get the point. On the other hand there is at least some proof for that whereas there is none for the existence of a god. Its true though that it cant be completely disprove (see above strongly agnostic) but here another example. I could claim that there is a immeasurably small particle that cannot be detected in anyway that actually determines exactly when and how you die and also determines what kind of a person you are. now it is in no way provable that this is the case. Its highly highly highly unlikely and I would suspect that most scientists would discard it but it can never be dis proven. Ok the second part of your arguments been done over and over . . .you can take the bible and make it say literally anything. And i mean anything at all, IF you take it all as parable and only an outline. Seeing as this is true where does the modern version of christianity come from? how do so many people share the same Interpretation of the bible . . .the answer is that they dont interpret it at all they believe in the litteral truth of PARTS of the bible while soomthing over the parts they dont like by calling it parable. As to religion maybe it does but only VERY VERY unwillingly. Look at young earth creationism or Creationism its self . . . .centuries after darwin and others conclusively proved that creationism is not right religion still attempts to deny it because it doesn't fit with many of those parts of the bible that are in fact literal truth. As to solving mysteries that is not what monotheism at least is about. All of the monotheistic religions that i know off (and i dont claim in any way to know them all) attempt to say that they hold the answer to all mysteries and that answer is god . . . and anytime something different is proven they either deny it for as long as possible or say A HA but god designed it that way! As to we know there was a flod what exactly are you talking about and where????
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 07:50
I can understand that completely.

I think each person has to search for his own answers and I don't believe anyone can tell a person what to believe. It is a journey....a very individual one at that.

Those few I know who cannot handle the science aspect are old timers. Their comfort zone is what they know and at this stage of life they are not interested in learning new tricks. ;) I find that most young people who have been exposed at all to evolution at least give it thought. That is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

I genuinely belief that religion and science can co-exist and in fact as supposed to co-exist and compliment each other. :)

This i can agree with. I genually believe that a religion, as long as it allows for true open mindedness would perfectly compliment science and in fact there are some ways in which science is almost like a religion . .. . you do take things on faith because iit is impossible to discover them all for yourself and you must have faith that there is in fact some point to what you are doing. also I believe that religion is a necessary part of many peoples lives . . .they need to believe in something bigger than themselves and thats fine as well.
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 08:13
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
all life does come from water though and you dont need science to see that. flowers need it people need it and it provides food etc. its possible that this was in fact created by god but I would think that someone clever might have said hey this is true lets write it down in verse. Theres another point here. this verse also talks about firmament which doesnt exist.
PelecanusQuicks
07-04-2008, 08:31
hehehe actually black holes are verifiable . . .its an equation using something called swartzchild radius (spelling could easily be wrong there) but I get the point. On the other hand there is at least some proof for that whereas there is none for the existence of a god. Its true though that it cant be completely disprove (see above strongly agnostic) but here another example. I could claim that there is a immeasurably small particle that cannot be detected in anyway that actually determines exactly when and how you die and also determines what kind of a person you are. now it is in no way provable that this is the case. Its highly highly highly unlikely and I would suspect that most scientists would discard it but it can never be dis proven. Ok the second part of your arguments been done over and over . . .you can take the bible and make it say literally anything. And i mean anything at all, IF you take it all as parable and only an outline. Seeing as this is true where does the modern version of christianity come from? how do so many people share the same Interpretation of the bible . . .the answer is that they dont interpret it at all they believe in the litteral truth of PARTS of the bible while soomthing over the parts they dont like by calling it parable. As to religion maybe it does but only VERY VERY unwillingly. Look at young earth creationism or Creationism its self . . . .centuries after darwin and others conclusively proved that creationism is not right religion still attempts to deny it because it doesn't fit with many of those parts of the bible that are in fact literal truth. As to solving mysteries that is not what monotheism at least is about. All of the monotheistic religions that i know off (and i dont claim in any way to know them all) attempt to say that they hold the answer to all mysteries and that answer is god . . . and anytime something different is proven they either deny it for as long as possible or say A HA but god designed it that way! As to we know there was a flod what exactly are you talking about and where????

When you look at how slow evolution is in animals, religion is traveling faster than light. :p

I keep hearing this thing about never questioning religion. Why is that? If I, as the religious faithful feel free to question it with no reprisals or repurcussions, why do I hear non-religious people telling me I can't do that? ;)

Who says that's not what monotheism is about? Monotheism is about believing in one God. I have just as much authority to interpret as the next human being. I do not believe that any one human is somehow closer to divine knowledge than I am. Christ said we are all equal. I believe that and hold Him to that. :p

As to the proof thing. Again I think people look for the tangible. You won't ever understand religion if that is all it means to you. (Not you as in you, but you as in anyone, ok)

When I was 13 I read all kinds of books about girls falling in love. Romances that described love and passion and all the emotions that go with it. I would read about the young woman or man who would lay down their life for love. Wow, very cool stuff. It gave me a view of what to expect.

But the reality of love is something no amount of words or descriptions or anything anyone could tell me about it comes close to describing. Yet you cannot deny love is a real thing. It is very real. It is very intangible. We study it constantly both from a literary stance and even a science stance. We don't discredit it simply because it is hard to describe in any real terms to someone who has never felt it. And if you want to know what love is, you look for it.

Religion is not a lot different. I can't describe to you why I know, it's an experience. Actually it is a culmination of experiences. Some call it spiritual, some call it transcendent, some call it mystic. I don't have a name for it, I just know it. I feel it, I experience it. But I also actively looked for it. I want to know about it.

Those that don't want to know about evolution will never know about it. Those that don't want to know about religion will never know about it. Funny thing to me, those two cases are very much the same. ;)

As far as the Bible, and parable vs. literal. Again what does it matter? You want to hold people to rules that you believe they should have to abide by....that is only so you can say "nuh-uh" to them. You aren't even religious, so what do you care if people read it literally or figuratively or some of both?

The whole point of the Bible is so that the most people get the most bang out of it. So of course it is written to meet the needs of the masses as much as possible. I believe it is intention was different interpretations. There is no one interpretation that is correct. That's why Christians can all shout heretic at each other. :rolleyes: Heresy has a useful place though, it teaches us to value our own beliefs more. ;)

I believe that religion is completely personal. I gather some of what I believe from the Gnostic gospels too. You find much more promotion of the individual relationship with Christ and God than you do in the cannonized gospels. Some would say it was a conspiracy by organized religion to try to hide those gospels from world view. It is a possibility.

There is a thought, so what if organized religion is actually the culprit for hiding that facts from humanity? What if they KNOW the scientific connection but it would kill the power of men in organized religion....LOL not an original thought at all. But interesting no doubt, even if silly sounding. :p

I need sleep, I feel way to rambly. I will check back later. G-nite.
DaWoad
07-04-2008, 09:01
When you look at how slow evolution is in animals, religion is traveling faster than light. :p

I keep hearing this thing about never questioning religion. Why is that? If I, as the religious faithful feel free to question it with no reprisals or repurcussions, why do I hear non-religious people telling me I can't do that? ;)

Who says that's not what monotheism is about? Monotheism is about believing in one God. I have just as much authority to interpret as the next human being. I do not believe that any one human is somehow closer to divine knowledge than I am. Christ said we are all equal. I believe that and hold Him to that. :p

As to the proof thing. Again I think people look for the tangible. You won't ever understand religion if that is all it means to you. (Not you as in you, but you as in anyone, ok)

When I was 13 I read all kinds of books about girls falling in love. Romances that described love and passion and all the emotions that go with it. I would read about the young woman or man who would lay down their life for love. Wow, very cool stuff. It gave me a view of what to expect.

But the reality of love is something no amount of words or descriptions or anything anyone could tell me about it comes close to describing. Yet you cannot deny love is a real thing. It is very real. It is very intangible. We study it constantly both from a literary stance and even a science stance. We don't discredit it simply because it is hard to describe in any real terms to someone who has never felt it. And if you want to know what love is, you look for it.

Religion is not a lot different. I can't describe to you why I know, it's an experience. Actually it is a culmination of experiences. Some call it spiritual, some call it transcendent, some call it mystic. I don't have a name for it, I just know it. I feel it, I experience it. But I also actively looked for it. I want to know about it.

Those that don't want to know about evolution will never know about it. Those that don't want to know about religion will never know about it. Funny thing to me, those two cases are very much the same. ;)

As far as the Bible, and parable vs. literal. Again what does it matter? You want to hold people to rules that you believe they should have to abide by....that is only so you can say "nuh-uh" to them. You aren't even religious, so what do you care if people read it literally or figuratively or some of both?

The whole point of the Bible is so that the most people get the most bang out of it. So of course it is written to meet the needs of the masses as much as possible. I believe it is intention was different interpretations. There is no one interpretation that is correct. That's why Christians can all shout heretic at each other. :rolleyes: Heresy has a useful place though, it teaches us to value our own beliefs more. ;)

I believe that religion is completely personal. I gather some of what I believe from the Gnostic gospels too. You find much more promotion of the individual relationship with Christ and God than you do in the cannonized gospels. Some would say it was a conspiracy by organized religion to try to hide those gospels from world view. It is a possibility.

There is a thought, so what if organized religion is actually the culprit for hiding that facts from humanity? What if they KNOW the scientific connection but it would kill the power of men in organized religion....LOL not an original thought at all. But interesting no doubt, even if silly sounding. :p

I need sleep, I feel way to rambly. I will check back later. G-nite.

if everyone held to your view of religion the world would be a much better place
night man
Andaras
07-04-2008, 10:02
We are going somewhere, it's a hole in the ground to rot. Anyone who can't cope with reality without believing a fairytale is emotionally infantile anyways.
Laerod
07-04-2008, 10:26
Anyone who can't cope with reality without believing a fairytale is emotionally infantile anyways.Ohohoho. :D
Peepelonia
07-04-2008, 11:20
We are going somewhere, it's a hole in the ground to rot. Anyone who can't cope with reality without believing a fairytale is emotionally infantile anyways.

Bwahahah! And so you know what is real then?
Andaras
07-04-2008, 11:25
Bwahahah! And so you know what is real then?
That's sounds infantile to me Peep, didn't your parents inform you that the Jesus/Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? (sorry for the spoiler)
Art-Vandalay
07-04-2008, 11:36
What? The tooth fairy doesn't exist. You bastard. thanks for ruining it. lick my ass.:upyours:
Peepelonia
07-04-2008, 11:48
That's sounds infantile to me Peep, didn't your parents inform you that the Jesus/Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? (sorry for the spoiler)

What the question 'so you know what is real then' sounds infantile to you? Well I guess it takes all sorts huh, but really I would have seen it as a deeply philosophical question, still if that seems infantile to you, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

However attempting to brush such a question aside seems infantile to me.

Bwahahah!
Dagnus Reardinium
07-04-2008, 11:55
What the question 'so you know what is real then' sounds infantile to you? Well I guess it takes all sorts huh, but really I would have seen it as a deeply philosophical question, still if that seems infantile to you, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

However attempting to brush such a question aside seems infantile to me.

Bwahahah!
Don't be idiotic. What we "know" is merely an individual's perception of the world. Humankind is equipped to perceive reality through senses, via touch, smell, sense, sight, sound, and the logic to connect them. What a person says "I know this is real," what they are saying is, "My reasoning and logic are translating my sensory inputs to say this is real." This is the essence of not believe in every random thing that one's mind thinks of. Religion is one such example. There is no logic nor reasoning--essentially, no proof--behind the existence of a God nor of the divinity of Jesus. There is no scientific research supporting such an existence.

Try as you might, you will not sound more intelligent by stating how grand and beyond-our-grasp this "philosophical question" is. The essence of philosophy is not to suspend your judgment, reasoning, and logic, and to pronounce an unproven, uncertain belief to be true. The essence of philosophy is to apply reason and thought in the contemplation of the actions, thoughts, and interactions of mankind, among other things.

Yes. You sound infantile.
Andaras
07-04-2008, 12:00
Don't be idiotic. What we "know" is merely an individual's perception of the world. Humankind is equipped to perceive reality through senses, via touch, smell, sense, sight, sound, and the logic to connect them. What a person says "I know this is real," what they are saying is, "My reasoning and logic are translating my sensory inputs to say this is real." This is the essence of not believe in every random thing that one's mind thinks of. Religion is one such example. There is no logic nor reasoning--essentially, no proof--behind the existence of a God nor of the divinity of Jesus. There is no scientific research supporting such an existence.

Try as you might, you will not sound more intelligent by stating how grand and beyond-our-grasp this "philosophical question" is. The essence of philosophy is not to suspend your judgment, reasoning, and logic, and to pronounce an unproven, uncertain belief to be true. The essence of philosophy is to apply reason and thought in the contemplation of the actions, thoughts, and interactions of mankind, among other things.

Yes. You sound infantile.

Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself.
Nipeng
07-04-2008, 12:04
Humankind is equipped to perceive reality through senses, via touch, smell, sense, sight, sound, and the logic to connect them.
I no longer subscribe to that point of view after certain incident (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546775&highlight=hooked).
There was no touch, smell, sense, sight or sound to explain this. (And if you think that adding "nor the logic to connect them" is clever, I've done it for you ;)).
Peepelonia
07-04-2008, 12:05
Don't be idiotic. What we "know" is merely an individual's perception of the world. Humankind is equipped to perceive reality through senses, via touch, smell, sense, sight, sound, and the logic to connect them. What a person says "I know this is real," what they are saying is, "My reasoning and logic are translating my sensory inputs to say this is real." This is the essence of not believe in every random thing that one's mind thinks of. Religion is one such example. There is no logic nor reasoning--essentially, no proof--behind the existence of a God nor of the divinity of Jesus. There is no scientific research supporting such an existence.

Try as you might, you will not sound more intelligent by stating how grand and beyond-our-grasp this "philosophical question" is. The essence of philosophy is not to suspend your judgment, reasoning, and logic, and to pronounce an unproven, uncertain belief to be true. The essence of philosophy is to apply reason and thought in the contemplation of the actions, thoughts, and interactions of mankind, among other things.

Yes. You sound infantile.

Hey thank you for you input, unfortunatly you are no mind reader to asertian the direction of my thought process.

You are right what we 'know' is what our brains does with our senseory input.
The question I asked and in response to Andaras' was 'You know what is real then?'

Do you know what is real, or can you only know what you percive and call that real? How are you certian that your percpetions shows you what is really there?
Andaras
07-04-2008, 12:06
I no longer subscribe to that point of view after certain incident (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546775&highlight=hooked).
There was no touch, smell, sense, sight or sound to explain this. (And if you think that adding "nor the logic to connect them" is clever, I've done it for you ;)).
I am sorry, I am far too cynical for that story.
Andaras
07-04-2008, 12:08
Hey thank you for you input, unfortunatly you are no mind reader to asertian the direction of my thought process.

You are right what we 'know' is what our brains does with our senseory input.
The question I asked and in response to Andaras' was 'You know what is real then?'

Do you know what is real, or can you only know what you percive and call that real? How are you certian that your percpetions shows you what is really there?
Yes Peep, we are actually in big tube things kept alive by machines who need us for thermal heat because the sky was blackened by nuclear war. They stimulate our minds through a virtual reality world which simulates reality.
Dukeburyshire
07-04-2008, 12:10
People fear eligion because if God exists they're on a "Highway to Hell"
Peepelonia
07-04-2008, 12:10
Yes Peep, we are actually in big tube things kept alive by machines who need us for thermal heat because the sky was blackened by nuclear war. They stimulate our minds through a virtual reality world which simulates reality.

Naaa I don't buy that one. Ask yourself what do these machines get out of us, what type of energy that would be easyer and cheaper got at another way. Think about it man geeze!
Dagnus Reardinium
07-04-2008, 12:12
I no longer subscribe to that point of view after certain incident (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546775&highlight=hooked).
There was no touch, smell, sense, sight or sound to explain this. (And if you think that adding "nor the logic to connect them" is clever, I've done it for you ;)).
"I felt the Niagara of tears flowing down my cheeks, and I protested this change I felt inside me - too late, too late, I thought, nothing will be the same. I was trembling. I felt... invaded. It was a terrible experience."

Honestly? I will conclude that you are being sarcastic.

Do you know what is real, or can you only know what you percive and call that real? How are you certian that your percpetions shows you what is really there?
What an irrelevant question: seeing how sensory input are our only perceptions of the world, if they were lying to us, the world would be meaningless. There is no point as to the contemplation of such a question. Idiot.

Edit:
Hey thank you for you input, unfortunatly you are no mind reader to asertian the direction of my thought process.
If your thought process doesn't follow what I described aka
1. Receive sensory information
2. Apply reason
3. Reach conclusion
then that explains your stupid beliefs, I guess.
Peepelonia
07-04-2008, 12:20
What an irrelevant question: seeing how sensory input are our only perceptions of the world, if they were lying to us, the world would be meaningless. There is no point as to the contemplation of such a question. Idiot.

Then the world must be meaningless to you, as our senses and the data from which our brains tries to make sense of the world do certianly lie to us.

You don't find anything in that worthey of your time to contemplate? Well fine, but please don't call me an idiot because I disagree with that.

So you know about optical illusions I assume? So the world must be meaningless to you. You know how the brain makes up for missing data I assume? So the world must be meaningless to you.

Now that seems truly idiotic to me.
Peepelonia
07-04-2008, 12:22
If your thought process doesn't follow what I described aka
1. Receive sensory information
2. Apply reason
3. Reach conclusion
then that explains your stupid beliefs, I guess.

You have no way of knowing what I belive, you just went ahead and took a great leap (of faith?) based only on my words to Andaras.
Andaras
07-04-2008, 12:24
You have no way of knowing what I belive, you just went ahead and took a great leap (of faith?) based only on my words to Andaras.

Well I am not certainly not going to follow your tangent half way round the globe.
Dagnus Reardinium
07-04-2008, 12:24
What seems idiotic to me is that you are apparently ignoring that men have the capability of reason and logic and they use this reason and logic to discover these things. If men did not believe in their perceptions, they would not have been able to discover the phenomenon you named. We all know that I was referring to a drug-free, homeostatic aka healthy and normal body, so I will let your poor twist on my words slide.

Oh and fyi it's spelled ascertain. And worthy. But I suppose when you read that, you assumed your eyes were lying to you and, independent of your senses, you decided you had typed those words correctly, so you must have been correct, despite what your eyes were telling you.
Dagnus Reardinium
07-04-2008, 12:25
You have no way of knowing what I belive, you just went ahead and took a great leap (of faith?) based only on my words to Andaras.
I don't need to know what you believe. I only need to know that if your mind does not follow that thought process, your beliefs are destructive, irrational, and irrelevant.

Edit:
Furthermore, it is a logical conjecture that I could possibly make that you believe in a deity of some sort by extrapolating information from your words. But seeing how I've already answered to your inane words above, I shall decline to do so.