The Clockwork Mansion

QuoteBiblical debates aside, it's general knowledge that satan was the angel of music.

So, with that gem, you pretty much discredit future comment from consideration.

What do you mean? I am open for debates on what exactly Satan was the angel of, if anything, or if he even exists or if he even deserved it or if, or if, or if.

HOWEVER! This is not the place to do so! General knowledge thus comes into play and people will have to understand the opinion of the masses in a situation where debating such fact is not even on topic.  If someone thought the sky green, in a thread about red pants, that is fine and dandy but this is not the thread about the sky! Most people assume the sky to be blue, and they will continue to do so in this thread of pants. If you wish to enlighten people otherwise, consder a sky thread. Or a satan thread.

Or maybe satan is somehow on topic and I am blowing hot air. Continue onward, downward, forward!

Your wish is my command, Netami.

This is not the place to do so!

QuoteTopic: Netami's Religion Thread

It's not?

Anyway, debating the existence of Satan at all, you might as well believe the sky is green, yes.  With purple elephants.

Ooooo, I hates legends.

Um, well, it is now. But if you're not going to talk about existance of specific individuals in length, then what's the point of throwing logical fallacies at each other all day? Do you have proof of it either way? If so, share your experience. If not, why do you feel that way then? I do not claim to know anything for sure, but what I do want to do is make sure that people trust in what they believe. And they have to be polite while doing so or else!

This is an argument used all too often.  Once again, It's not the burden of a skeptic to prove that something doesn't exist, it's on the burden of the claimant.  Simple logic.  For instance, if I told you my penis was 12 inchs long, you'd probably want to see.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 03, 2007, 10:30:16 PM
This is not the place to do so!

QuoteTopic: Netami's Religion Thread

It's not?

Anyway, debating the existence of Satan at all, you might as well believe the sky is green, yes.  With purple elephants.

Perhaps I am missing posts from the thread this was snipped from.  would you care to elaborate as to why, exactly, you beleive that debating the existence of Satan equates to nonsense?

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 03, 2007, 10:35:53 PM
This is an argument used all too often.  Once again, It's not the burden of a skeptic to prove that something doesn't exist, it's on the burden of the claimant.  Simple logic.  For instance, if I told you my penis was 12 inchs long, you'd probably want to see.

Hell yeah I would!

But look, I am not trying to be skeptical about whether or not your proof is legitimate to everyone, just whether or not ti is legitimate to yourself. Tell me why you think the way you do, however nonsensical it may be to the majority of others.

If you lived by the thought that daisies were the worst thing in the world, and stuck to that belief, then by god you are to be respected for your integrity and general disposition towards flowers!

Because all legitimate reasoning doesn't indicate any such thing?

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 03, 2007, 10:39:31 PM
Because all legitimate reasoning doesn't indicate any such thing?

Because all legitimate reasoning doesn't indicate the prescience of Satan? Satan as what, first of all? As the angel cast out of heaven for his transgressions against God, or Satan as the ideal of a greater evil; the all encompassing embodiment of evil? Or both?

Angel, God, Satan, Evil, etc... theo-babble.  As well as the cause of much intellectual regression.

So how have you come to this conclusion? Have you looked at the various arguments, also known as dilemmas, and taken into consideration every little point and nuance and how you feel as an individual against the world, or are you running off something else?

I didn't come to any conclusion other than to simply reject the long discredited mysticrap of others, like yourself.  Why would I give any pause to consider thinking like this:

Waves?  Sea serpent.

Sky?  Star chariot.

Murder?  Goat with pitchfork.

Is this 2007, or what?

Whoops, double post.  This double post is proof of an ancient evil, by the way.

Ah, an opinion born of himself, a true modern day philosophist caught in the wilds! Very well. Your views are like many, however, and I see elements in what you say in many other's arguments. The death of deities as man explains away their old functions is a popular point to make, but it's typically more verbose and less filled with accusations  :mwaha

I can tell this isn't really going to go anywhere. I am not full of mysti-crap, or at least the type you're thinking of. Who am I to stand in the way of a fiery individual and his true feelings?! C.a.s.e.C.l.o.s.e.d.

OOOKAMA WAY!

sorry for starting all of this but...

if the devil or what ever you want to call him does exist then when i die and possibly have the option of talking to him i am asking him qwestions...lots and lots of qwestions.

Do you want to know what I think? I think hell is a very empty place. I think that if you trust in an afterlife where many answers lie, then you better have a lot of questions to ask. Questions have never been viewed as something sinful. Question all things, I say. Question life, the universe, and everything. Ask bitter questions, too, like "Why is this happening to me?" "Why are you such a prick!" People should not feel ashamed of asking questions.

yes and that is why when i die the qwestions shall fly...is it just me or did i just ryme that many times by accident...i hate that...

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 03, 2007, 10:35:53 PMOnce again, It's not the burden of a skeptic to prove that something doesn't exist, it's on the burden of the claimant.  Simple logic.

You're confusing logic with criminal law again.  There is no burden of proof in logic.  Having one would result in Bad Things.

For example, the Homestake mine was designed to detect electron neutrinos from the sun, but it only detected a fraction of the neutrinos that it should have found.

So, by your `logic,' all you could say is ``some electron neutrinos are undetectable.''  Which is wrong.

ok what? i have the IQ of a brick could you say that so a dumb person like me can understand?

Quote from: Netami on May 03, 2007, 10:53:10 PM
OOOKAMA WAY!

O...kama? What's that? o_o In what way is okama your way?

yea...i was wondering what that meant too...

Maybe he means he's an okama? Sounds Japanese. It's not another word for cute is it? Because I've had enough of kawaii as it is.

Well, technically he couldn't say just that, but he could just assume something of the like out of nothing and then settle for that explanation because it suits him and then moralize and preach about things that really don't seem to have anything with any logical connection to it, which is technically what religion generally seems to be about today, scientology partially excluded.

However, on the topic of religious knowledge, or rather knowledge within religion rather than through it, I'd very much like to discuss. And on that topic, it really depends a whole lot of which interpretation of Satan that you favor. If it is the New or Old testament one, if it's the Islamic interpretation or the one from the Tanakh or the Torah or the Kabbalah... Really. He's been renamed from Shaitan in arabic and the ever-hostile accuser to Ha-Satan, a great and glorious angel created on the sixth day of creation, connotated with Lucifer, Abbadon, Metatron, Leviathan, Ahriman, Baal... He is a many-faced character, really. And as is the case with all religion, the various statements and sources contradict each other, and sometimes themselves.

that makes sense i suppose...alot more than what super said...intellegence hurts thine brain... :mowdizzy

The basic, obvious logic of the matter is that all religion is created by man, not by gods. It was created as an explanation for the universe by beings that have no concept of the reality of the universe. What they come up with is pure imagination, stupid creations to divine a universe in a way that obviously doesn't really exist.

Satan, angels, gods, devils, demons, dragons, et all, are all just imaginary creations. There is no point in believing in any of it when you realize that none of it actually has an real bearing on how the universe, and thus your own life, operates.

There we go thank you dark moon for translating...even though im not as dumb as i claim i dont like thinking anyway...

Quote from: crimson_wolf on May 04, 2007, 12:30:30 AM
There we go thank you dark moon for translating...even though im not as dumb as i claim i dont like thinking anyway...

You know what? You're too honest not to sort of like, even though you're probably pissing Dmoon off hard with those replies...

Quote from: RJ on May 04, 2007, 12:09:17 AM
Maybe he means he's an okama? Sounds Japanese. It's not another word for cute is it? Because I've had enough of kawaii as it is.

It's a reference to One Piece. Okama as I understand it means a crossdressing man.

riiiiiight...i officially dont want to know anymore...

QuoteQuestions have never been viewed as something sinful.

Whoa-ho-HO!  Do some research, and you'll find evidence to the contrary.

QuoteYou're confusing logic with criminal law again.  There is no burden of proof in logic.  Having one would result in Bad Things.

For example, the Homestake mine was designed to detect electron neutrinos from the sun, but it only detected a fraction of the neutrinos that it should have found.

So, by your `logic,' all you could say is ``some electron neutrinos are undetectable.''  Which is wrong.

I'm not confusing anything.  I didn't say we needed "probable cause", "beyond reasonable doubt", or anything like that.  I'm just reasoning like a modern human should.  The only reason to assume there would be one of these godmen in this day and age is because some jackass a millenia or two said there was, and that any opinion to the contrary was wrong.  Why even entertain such brash bullshit, with the knowledge we currently have?  And why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

Quote from: Roureem Egas on May 04, 2007, 12:43:17 AM

Quote from: RJ on May 04, 2007, 12:09:17 AM
Maybe he means he's an okama? Sounds Japanese. It's not another word for cute is it? Because I've had enough of kawaii as it is.

It's a reference to One Piece. Okama as I understand it means a crossdressing man.

...

Oh. But it still makes no sense as to why he says it....

I do recall early Christian purists claimed that satan fashioned the first drum from human skin, but that belief has largely fallen by the wayside. most people today only give concession to this by leaving drums out of church music.

i find the need to clarify some things, just because i have a large amount of knowledge on the topics of demonology and cryptology (see my threads on these topics...wherever they went). the name of 'the' devil is often treated like an interchangeable title, and i wish to make sure everyone knows the basics of how the hellish highearchy works. first off every major devil (the ones we have names for) has a job to do or a domain of influence.

Lucifer- the angel of light, cast down from heaven as punishment for leading a rebellion of angels. Lucifer is the emperor of hell, and is not really as 'evil' as you may think. his existence is the ultimate testimate of free will, and as they say in order for winning to mean anything it must be possible to loose... in chess someone has to play the black pieces

Satan- the tempter, it is his duty to try to lure souls to damnation. often thought of as 'the' devil but that title is better saved for luci. Satan is the one who usually comes to earth to bargain for peoples souls, and generally is one of the only demonic beings able to freely come to earth without being summoned or sent so is usually the one depicted when the demon initiates the contract. Satan IS evil, even if he is 'just doing his job'

Beelzebub- definitely not either of the previous two. he is 'lord of the flies' as a title, which actually means things like flies were his creation and were sent to earth. Beelzebub is in charge with making life on earth as miserable as possible for mortals, and goes out of his way to think of new irritations and stupidity to unleash on us. don't believe me? turn on the TV

Belphegor- the 'demon of portals', who for some reason seems to be in charge of poop

Asmodeus- lord of sin, probably the most powerful demon of all time and the original 'the' devil before Satan got big. ass here could be blamed for most of the problems that happened before about 2000 BC, but king Solomon sealed him inside of a bottle and threw him into the red sea

Baal- lord of lies, main assistant to Satan. his job is to tempt people into creating their own web of lies to spread sin on their own and eventually lead to their own death, no contract needed.

Mammon- lord of avarice, greed, and ill gotten riches. he enjoys a bit of reprieve as being a very influential being without being targeted much. Mammon exists almost unchanged in every language, except Spanish where his name is "Dinero", or the word for money.

QuoteA generation of men is like a generation of leaves; the wind scatters some leaves upon the ground, while others the burgeoning wood brings forth - and the season of spring comes on. So of men one generation springs forth and another ceases.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 04, 2007, 01:04:38 AMI'm not confusing anything.  I didn't say we needed "probable cause", "beyond reasonable doubt", or anything like that.

And I'm saying that logic exists independent of evidence.  Logic can say, ``Assuming that X is true, then Y will be the consequence,'' and then we can debate if X is true, but debating whether X is true is not necessarily logic.

So logic could say, ``If logic can prove something without evidence, then logic must be able to exist independent of evidence.''

So, for example, we claim to know pi to a trillion places.  We know that through logic.  We could never experimentally prove that that value is correct, since ``if you had a circle the size of the observable universe, and you wanted to compute its circumference with an accuracy equal to the size of a proton, the number of digits of pi that you'd need is only 43 (http://www.coolsciencefacts.com/2006/pi.html).''

Logic exists independent of evidence.  I just proved that.  With evidence.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 04, 2007, 01:04:38 AMAnd why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

The theory said that we should be detecting a lot more neutrinos than we were detecting.  Therefore, according to your `logic,' those neutrinos must be undetectable.  There was evidence of missing neutrinos, but no evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 04, 2007, 01:04:38 AM
Whoa-ho-HO!  Do some research, and you'll find evidence to the contrary

Well that may have been true in the past, but for the majority of my lifetime it hasn't been. I hope the same follows here and throughout your experience in life. The pursuit of truth to personal questions cannot be ignored!

:hug

My $0.02

I may be going out on a limb here, but really, anything to do with religion needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Back in the day, when the (and I use the term loosely) "wise" men wrote all this stuff, they didn't have all the knowledge that we have today.  (And keep in mind that MEN wrote these writings as women weren't allowed back then.)  They believed that there really is a god.  Is there a god?  The faithful believe so.  But you shouldn't be revolving your life around your religion.  It's unhealthy and leads to long strings of arguments, logic that makes peoples brains go asplode, and lots of fighting in the names of various deities.

What you should be looking at is the fundamental lessons being taught in the various writings.  Take the Bible for instance.  Look at the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Love thy neighbor.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Stuff like that.  Granted, all religions don't teach the same lessons, and some teach some really bad ones, but in essence, that's how they should be treated: as a guideline for living your life.  But again, take it all with a grain of salt.

Take also with a grain of salt what the fundamentalists and extremists say.  They're the ones who warp what's written to their own benefit, which is why people are so upset with catholics.

Religions are as various and at the same time as contradictory as we are.

But still... Who's right?  Who's wrong?  Who knows?

Argue it all you like, but when you get right down to it you have those who believe and those who don't believe.  Those that believe take that these deities exist on faith and the various little miracles that happen in life (not to mention that Jesus always helps the winning team in any sporting event for some reason).  Those who don't believe take that God and other deities doesn't exist on the fact that there's no way to prove that they physically exist.  There's no real way to decide which side is right, and you can argue logic until you're blue in the face.  You either got faith or you don't.  It's as simple as that.

Are people who have faith stupid?  No.  I think it's wrong and demeaning to say such things.  People of faith are all over this world, doing great (and equally horrible) things.  Granted, there are rednecks fundamentalists and extremists, but that doesn't make all people of faith bad people.  There are genuinely good people who believe in a god out there.  They're just a minority in the community, unfortunately.

Are people who don't have faith wrong?  No.  They live their lives just like any other person.  In the end, we're all human.  We have the ability to decide what we want or don't want to believe in.  But just because someone's opinion differs from another's on something that can't really be proved by both sides, it doesn't mean their wrong (or right... yet).  The thing is, you don't know who's wrong or who's right in these instances.  Fingerpointing and arguments get you nowhere.

Alright, I'm done here.

We could also put it this way:  Satan spent many years setting up all the false religions and paganized pseudo-Christian theologies, which evetually cause people to realize "Hey, all these idiotic beliefs and rituals don't make any sense!",  and then they invent atheism, which tosses away belief in all gods... thus he wins by default if everyone decides to become atheist because everyone is wiped out in the end.  Which is exactly what I'd expect from a being with phenomenal intelligence and a perfect understanding of the weaknesses of the human mind.

Oh, and I think people need to actually READ the Bible in its original form.  The 'hell' that developed over the centuries is actually derived from the Greek belief.  If one actually reads carefully, there is no eternal hell.  The passages people have used to infer it are misquoted parables (which Jesus used to teach to people familiar with Greek religion and to provide contextual information, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus being a prime example).  Other direct quotes from Jesus and prophets declare quite specifically that after the judgement, all those who will not be in heaven will be utterly destroyed.  There is also the quote "The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything."  And "For dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return."  There are also the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, which compare the soul of man to the soul of animals:  they are the same and both cease function upon death.  Therefore, the dead cannot be anywhere but in the ground.  Again, instant soul movement to heaven/hell was an infusion from Roman'Greek/Egyptian religion which took place gradually after Christianity was Romanized by the emperor.

And I shall quote Mr. Spock as far as logic is concerned "Logic is the beginning of wisdom... not the end."

For example, it is purely logical to say that if all humans were dead then there would be no more wars.  Therefore, to end all wars one must kill all humans.  Logic alone can lead to very horrible things.  That is why we have philosophy in all its forms.  With logic alone, there is no emotion.  With no emotion you have sociopathy and apathy.  Once those two are dominant, society dies.

The concept of hell exists... at least in the new testament... with the whole eternal torment, fire and brimstone, and gnashing of teeth... that lot in the revelations.

Even if one reads the purest form of any scripture, there will be differences on how it is percieved.

My friend is an adventist, their belief is that the devil does not rule in hell but is tormented there as well. That hell does not exist until the day of judgement to purify sin, as opposed to my Catholic belief that it already exists and all that is left on the day of judgement is the final sentence.

I think Ryuudo's post is all that has to be said in this topic.

And c'mon, ANOTHER religion thread that focuses on Christianity? Let's bring on the Taoists, the Zoroasterists, the Hindu for some equal facetime.

.. And not the Wiccans?

I note that recently the US Army allowed the wiccan pentagram as an acceptable symbol to be put on a gravestone of a wiccan soldier who died in battle.

... Along with the 37 or 38 others they already had, including one for Atheists...

what about the Aesirists?

i say RyudoLees statement a bit farther- assume that the big man did come down and lay down the law all those centuries ago. do you think everyone understood what he said? no way in niffleheim. Any divine contact would have to have been dumbed down by the speaker, misunderstood by the prophet, and then dumbed down again to be preached to the tribes of ignorant pagans that were the target audience. in addition assume that maybe 1 out of every 4 of these prophets was just some loony bird who ate the funny colored mushrooms that grow in the desert during the rainy season, this explains leveticus who for some reason thought that bunny rabbits, garden vedgetables, hamburger meat, homosexuals (interpreted as, not definite), synthetic fabrics, and i believe certain colors were all abominations unto god, and further went to say that god wants you to follow certain rules concerning the deaf, elderly, shaving, how you treat strangers, how you burn your offerings, how you are supposed to hurt yourself, how only heathens can be kept as slaves (nice and ambiguous), and the proper way to stone people.

now, try to understand that the first edition bible was not even that- about a third of it was passed down by word of mouth for a couple centuries before it was written down, people keep forgetting that the written word is not as old as we think, first being invented by king Scorpious of Egypt as a way of making sure everyone knew how badass he was in war and promptly used thereafter (in the form of tiles) as tax forms... many other languages weren't even invented as written scripts until about the halfway point of the old testimant.  so guess that between 3 to 10 generations of faithful Jews and unfaithful Jews who tainted it with their previous knowledge of goat sacrifice, passed down the nearly patronizing words of the prophets mixed with the lectures of a few guys who drooled on themselves. doubtless some precise wording was stretched.

example- in the old testimant Yahweh goes all "don't kill people or gunna cut you!" but in the new testimant Jesus says "dude, play nice alright? were all buddies here". its the difference both between a god that thinks his followers are children who need to be threatened with spanking and people molding their conception of god to follow traditional dogma of smiting and fear.

if you read the bible it seems about 75% of what Jesus does is correct the bad translations people had about god, a good example of this is when he had to clarify the whole working on the sabbath thing, because the theologians believed that even if your child was stuck down a well it was against religious law to save him because that would constitute 'work' on the sabbath day.

grain of salt people, consider if the works of Karl Marx were presented as read by paris hilton, some of the details get blurred.

QuoteI always know the exact wrong thing to say, call it a gift

QuoteAnd I'm saying that logic exists independent of evidence.  Logic can say, ``Assuming that X is true, then Y will be the consequence,'' and then we can debate if X is true, but debating whether X is true is not necessarily logic.
So logic could say, ``If logic can prove something without evidence, then logic must be able to exist independent of evidence.''
So, for example, we claim to know pi to a trillion places.  We know that through logic.  We could never experimentally prove that that value is correct, since ``if you had a circle the size of the observable universe, and you wanted to compute its circumference with an accuracy equal to the size of a proton, the number of digits of pi that you'd need is only 43.''
Logic exists independent of evidence.  I just proved that.  With evidence.


Quote from: Evil Richter on Today at 12:04:15 AM
And why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

The theory said that we should be detecting a lot more neutrinos than we were detecting.  Therefore, according to your `logic,' those neutrinos must be undetectable.  There was evidence of missing neutrinos, but no evidence to the contrary.

Are you trying to argue over the definition and use of words, or are you making a counter point to me?  It seems you're more concerned with my grammar (which I'm quite well versed on but often use lazily because well, I feel like it) than my points.  You've known what I've meant from the beggining, but you keep throwing up strawmen.  Logic or evidence or flippity floppity, religion is bullshit.  A collection of pleasant stories at best, the motivation for mass murder at worst.

And, thanks Netami.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 04, 2007, 03:05:58 PM

QuoteAnd I'm saying that logic exists independent of evidence.  Logic can say, ``Assuming that X is true, then Y will be the consequence,'' and then we can debate if X is true, but debating whether X is true is not necessarily logic.
So logic could say, ``If logic can prove something without evidence, then logic must be able to exist independent of evidence.''
So, for example, we claim to know pi to a trillion places.  We know that through logic.  We could never experimentally prove that that value is correct, since ``if you had a circle the size of the observable universe, and you wanted to compute its circumference with an accuracy equal to the size of a proton, the number of digits of pi that you'd need is only 43.''
Logic exists independent of evidence.  I just proved that.  With evidence.


Quote from: Evil Richter on Today at 12:04:15 AM
And why would I say "some electron neutrinos are undetectable", when there's no evidence that they are so?

The theory said that we should be detecting a lot more neutrinos than we were detecting.  Therefore, according to your `logic,' those neutrinos must be undetectable.  There was evidence of missing neutrinos, but no evidence to the contrary.

Are you trying to argue over the definition and use of words, or are you making a counter point to me?  It seems you're more concerned with my grammar (which I'm quite well versed on but often use lazily because well, I feel like it) than my points.  You've known what I've meant from the beggining, but you keep throwing up strawmen.  Logic or evidence or flippity floppity, religion is bullshit.  A collection of pleasant stories at best, the motivation for mass murder at worst.

And, thanks Netami.

Well, maybe you should try backing up your statements instead of assuming that we'll take them as fact.  It's all well and god that you think religeon is BS, but if you have no reason to believe so, or aren't going to share your reasoning, they you're wasting our time and yours.  (unless we're the ones here for "teh drama", in which case we bring popcorn. ;) )

So far, you've said that it's logical that god and satan don't exist, or, atleast, that's waht I've been able to get from what you're saying.  So far, you ahvn't said anything as to why it's logical.  I'm not saying you need to provide evidence, logic is not dependant on evidence, but logic does require reasoning, if which you've supplied none.

At the atheist comments earlier (this not in response to Evil Richter)...

I never really saw the point of Atheism.  I can believe something, not believe something, or believe something is not.  I don't see any benefit in beleving there is no god.  If god exists, then I'm screwed for denying him.  If god doesn't exist, then I've wasted the effort denying what doesn't exist.  Also in either case, there's certainly no benefit for me to proselytize.

Pass the popcorn please.  I wanna see how this one turns out.   :popcorn

Atheism is very useful for those wanting to be evil.  After all, if there is no god at all, then there is no good or evil, just things in context.  And if you can gain control of society, you can make laws be whatever you want them to be.  Ethics are arbitrary.  Nothing matters because once you're dead it's all over and eventually the universe will run out of usable energy and be a cold dead nothing forever after.  :/
No reason to live...  L:
None at all...  :c
It's pointless...  :C
Meaningless...  :(
Useless...  :crying
Futile...  :redrum

But at least there's no morality!  Sexxorz with everything!  Whoot!   :wiggle :catgirl

>:3

That's right! Spread those wild oats.

Quote from: Alondro on May 04, 2007, 04:49:19 PM
Atheism is very useful for those wanting to be evil.  After all, if there is no god at all, then there is no good or evil, just things in context.  And if you can gain control of society, you can make laws be whatever you want them to be.  Ethics are arbitrary.  Nothing matters because once you're dead it's all over and eventually the universe will run out of usable energy and be a cold dead nothing forever after.  :/
No reason to live...  L:
None at all...  :c
It's pointless...  :C
Meaningless...  :(
Useless...  :crying
Futile...  :redrum

But at least there's no morality!  Sexxorz with everything!  Whoot!   :wiggle :catgirl

>:3

Sorry, gotta disagree with you there. Being an atheist doesn't lead to evil any more than having a religion automatically leads you being good. People will do things whether they are motivated by "god" or not, whether they think god "thinks it's right" or not. People are people and will do what they like, religion be damned.

As for the logic of stating "there is no proof of god, therefore there is no god," I gotta say I agree with ER there. Nothing I have seen leads me to assume a god is at work behind the scenes, pulling strings. If anything, I think people make their destiny for themselves, manifest what they "deserve". No god is involved in that prospect. Logically, no proof has ever shown itself that says "yes, there is a God." The burden of proof is on those attempting to make a case FOR something.

You think there's a god? Why? What made it indisputable for you that says "hey, there really is some bearded freakball in the sky pulling my puppet strings!"?

Quote from: RyudoLee on May 04, 2007, 09:42:05 AMTake also with a grain of salt what the fundamentalists and extremists say.  They're the ones who warp what's written to their own benefit, which is why people are so upset with catholics.

And which is why the Catholic Church has been moving away from extremism and fundamentalism.  We know that the stewards of the Catholic Church have been responsible for some heinous acts--unbelievably terrible things, and we're eager not to repeat them.

Biblical literalists often take a verse out of context and form it into something that it's not meant to be, such as Paul's attacks on being `soft' which somehow became `homosexuality.'

The Catholic Church has been moving to interpret scripture as a set of inspired works set down by holy men writing in the form of memoirs colored by cultural norms, rather than a book that appeared one day when the heavens were torn open.

We're working on it--we can use more help, but we really don't like extremists or fundamentalists.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 04, 2007, 03:05:58 PMAre you trying to argue over the definition and use of words, or are you making a counter point to me?  It seems you're more concerned with my grammar (which I'm quite well versed on but often use lazily because well, I feel like it) than my points.

We are in a text-based medium.  Our words are our only tools.  You said ``It's not the burden of a skeptic to prove that something doesn't exist, it's on the burden of the claimant.  Simple logic.''

I can only assume that you mean the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning when you say `logic.'

If you mean a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment, that's something else, not logic.

There is no burden for logic.  If you want to talk evidence, there is no burden for belief.  If I want to prove something, then there is a burden, but no one's trying to prove that God exists, here.

I've seen it written a million times--if there's no evidence for God, then we must assume that he/she/it/they do(es) not exist.  Similarly with sweatshops.  Have you ever seen evidence that they exist?  Couldn't your shirt have been sewn by some machine alone in a warehouse?

So I guess that means that we don't have to worry about worker abuse, since there's no evidence that those workers even exist.

Quote from: Reese Tora on May 04, 2007, 04:28:51 PMI never really saw the point of Atheism.  I can believe something, not believe something, or believe something is not.  I don't see any benefit in beleving there is no god.  If god exists, then I'm screwed for denying him.  If god doesn't exist, then I've wasted the effort denying what doesn't exist.  Also in either case, there's certainly no benefit for me to proselytize.

Ah, Pascal's Wager.

Note that it still could make sense to proselytize, since you're helping others to get to God.

That's not my belief--my belief is that since God calls you to Him, proselytization is ineffective unless God's calling you right now.  If you've already heard the Word, then proselytization might push you away, but it's not going to bring you any closer.

Also, what Darkmoon said about atheism not leading to evil is more or less right.  You can be ethical and amoral and still do good things.

I feel as if there are things that cannot be explained by logic, I feel as if there are forces beyond our perception at work. Whether or not these things are God as we know it, or something else less calculating, I bet it's out there. Or at least I'd like to think so.

People always get hung up on Dogma and finer points of rules or equations, and they forget to feel things out. Religions are about spiritual feelings, unless you're a scientologist or something. If you cannot gain a deeper understanding of yourself as relating to the universe, what's the point?

I think all it boils down to is matters of opinion. You can't really argue something you can't prove, either way. Religon is based on faith, and evidence is what they wish to see. Likewise you can't really prove God DOESN'T exist. It's just what you choose to believe, and trying to argue something that you chose to believe is...pointless.
You can't prove with cold hard evidence that God exists, and you can't prove with cold hard evidence that God doesn't. This arguement is just going to go on forever and ever until someone gets bored and walks away.

Quote from: Zina on May 04, 2007, 07:00:54 PM
This arguement is just going to go on forever and ever until someone gets bored and walks away.

Isn't that how all internet arguments are won?  Keep head-butting till one gets bored and the remaining person is the victor?  :0

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on May 04, 2007, 12:33:55 PM
Grain of salt people, consider if the works of Karl Marx were presented as read by paris hilton, some of the details get blurred.

Quoted for truth.

Also, two things; as long as we're debating religion here, we're not actually debating the existence of God. It might seem unneccessary, seeing as how we could not possibly judge, but in my belief and most logical capable deduction one must bear in mind that even if we were able to confirm or deny the existence of God, it would not neccessarily directly prove any religion or its ways as "wrong" or "right" whatsoever. The existence of God and the correctness of religion are two wholly different things and should be treated separately, really. And I think that you understand why, if you ponder it for just a second.

Secondly, I'm not with you, Alondro. Me, I am against the whole idea of religion as a system, and just like you say I view ethics as a product of the human psyche rather than any sort of rule or guideline. However, one must take into account that even with their limited thought capacity, people do try and act as logically and intelligently as they can, under the circumstances. And in practice, a person's intelligence is a whole lot more powerful, and correct, than any sort of ethics or morals. Normally, that is. Silly hypothetical questions and old stereotyped rules aside, there really are logical reasons and chains of thought and in the worst case emotional responses that keep people in line. And, seeing as how morals and ethics are not "hard-wired" to a person like emotions and instincts are, they're not going to do much to keep anyone not dispositioned to "good" straight and on the narrow path. Which is where religion fails too, really. Applied to humans and humanity, things work a whole lot differently than imagined.

So generally, I think Darkmoon is mostly right there. But not on the part about the existence of God. However, I will agree with you on the point of "Sexxors with Everything!". Because that's a really nice idea.

Also, Amber... Sometimes people act illogically, motivated and compelled by strong emotions. For example, they go on the net and post in forums, even though there really is no need or reasonable benefit from it. They even post in silly threads like ones about religion, where anyone with even the least of experience should tell that saying something really is like headbutting a brick wall. And then they are so damn stupid that they're even content with it, responding to basic urges and needs and feelings simply made up and triggered by the workings of their brains.

Clearly, people are idiots. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: Stygian on May 04, 2007, 08:27:41 PM
Clearly, people are idiots. Wouldn't you agree?

Not really.  For all the zany and "wtf"ness that some people do, I tend to look optimistic on the human race. 

It's a comment about the question of God. Feeling it out is the best response so far posted in just about any debate I've seen. It's gut instinct, but the gut is a smart brain, often enough, You let your guts do your thinking, often times it'll steer you right...

Although, other times, your guts have shit for brains. And this is where I but up against. It becomes a matter of gut w/ logic, and  gut vs. logic. Organized religion flies in the face of logic. God flies in the face of evidence.

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and the rules?
Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and some of the rules?
Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and none of the rules?
If you don't take the rules, do you really have the religion?
If you take ideas from two religions, because both seem right, is that having two religions?
If you take the ideas from different religions, would god care?
Should god care, if it feels right?

Those are the big questions, and the ones I run through about all the religions. It's a logical progression when "finding" one's self, and the reason I stand where I stand.

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and the rules?
If you don't question it, you're a fundamentalist. I don't know how anyone in this day and age, with everything we see and are exposed to -- how can anyone not question to at least a certain extent their own religion?

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and some of the rules?
I'd be willing to bet that most Christians (and probably most other "religious" people, stand here on the issue. They like their religion, their feeling that it's the "answer" for them, and the contentedness that comes from knowing something that works for them. I don't fault that. More power to them...

But my issue comes from "at what point, once you've started to pick and choose, have you started to choose not to follow so many parts of the religion, you pretty well don't follow the religion?" Can you really be christian if all you believe in is God and Jesus? Is that enough of an anser for others? It certainly isn't the right one for me...

Do you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and none of the rules?
This is a fringe few, likely (nicely represented in this thread), and they don't get my respect at all. They hold onto their religion out of fear that god will smite them if they don't "say" they have it, just in case god does exist.

If you're already to the point of questioning the very basics of the religion, why cling to it? Of course, that answer is below...

If you don't take the rules, do you really have the religion?
Some would argue yes, just so they don't get fucked vy god when they end up in "heaven" (a construct I don't believe exists, any more than hell does -- not in the classical sense of the term, anyway).

If you take ideas from two religions, because both seem right, is that having two religions?
I personally feel that it's forging your own path. Others would term it blasphemy, I'm sure.

If you take the ideas from different religions, would god care?
Christians would argue yes, I'm sure. God wants you to be "part of the flock" -- a sheep term for a sheep mentality. You can question and find the deeper answer i you follow the heard. Di god, if he really is behind all this and really did create us -- did god simply make us to then go "oh, here's the answer, now try to stick with it"?

That seems against the idea of making a planet and populating it. If we can't think for ourselves, we can't grow, and if we have the answers, we grow with a feeling of guilt for ignoring the answer that "should" be right... or you get where I am and realize the guilt is a construct of the organized religion, is false, and isn't necessary. Move past, move on.

With all that in mind, I pose one more question, and I think I'll leave it more or less open for someone else here to answer: If God made us, and he made us so we can grow as souls (since that seems like a solid, reasonable answer to the age old question of "why are we here"), then is he really going to slap us down for trying to find the answer that works for us?

Quote from: Amber Williams on May 04, 2007, 08:55:14 PM

Quote from: Stygian on May 04, 2007, 08:27:41 PM
Clearly, people are idiots. Wouldn't you agree?

Not really.  For all the zany and "wtf"ness that some people do, I tend to look optimistic on the human race. 

Ehm... I won't take you seriously on that one, and really, you shouldn't be taking me seriously at all either. I was being quite as sarcastic as I can possibly be right there.

Quote from: Stygian on May 04, 2007, 08:27:41 PMHowever, one must take into account that even with their limited thought capacity, people do try and act as logically and intelligently as they can, under the circumstances.

I never thought I'd say this, but you've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

People don't always (or even often) try to act rationally or logically or intelligently.

And Amber, I'm optimistic about humanity, but rather not when it comes to us using logic.  Monty Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem) and all that.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 04, 2007, 09:04:18 PMDo you take the religion, and the deitie(s), and the rules?
If you don't question it, you're a fundamentalist. I don't know how anyone in this day and age, with everything we see and are exposed to -- how can anyone not question to at least a certain extent their own religion?

What if you take religion and the deit(y/ies) because you're constantly questioning everything, and constantly coming up with the same answer?

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 04, 2007, 09:04:18 PMIf God made us, and he made us so we can grow as souls (since that seems like a solid, reasonable answer to the age old question of "why are we here"), then is he really going to slap us down for trying to find the answer that works for us?

If God says, ``Psst!  I'm God.  Worship me,'' and we say, ``LOL STFU, N00B!'' I think He may have a point.  Otherwise, see invincible ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance).

If you're taking the religion and the deities, and questioning everything, can you really take all the rules? What is the point of not eating meat on a friday if you're questioning the basis for everything?

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 12:57:12 AMWhat is the point of not eating meat on a friday if you're questioning the basis for everything?

Not eating meat on Fridays of Lent is a matter of discipline.

It is to remind us--in some small way--of the great sacrifice that Jesus made for us.  This could in theory be done by tying a string around your finger, or by chopping off that same finger.

But it makes sense for it to be somewhere in between those two.  No meat on Friday during Lent is probably a little bit on the light side for sacrifice, but it does the trick.

I should also mention that no meat on Fridays during Lent doesn't come from the Bible, but rather is just a matter of discipline from the Magisterium of the Church.  Benedict XVI could decree tomorrow that instead of no meat on Fridays during Lent is no longer a rule, and replace it with a rule that you have to keep Kosher on Fridays during Lent.  And that would be fine.

Go with the scapular ritual then.  The basis for that is if you're good, wear your scapular, don't ever eat meat on Friday, etc, you will skip purgatory (which coincidently no longer exists, but we'll ignore that for now) and go directly to heaven no matter what.  Now please apply Darkmoon's question.

Quote from: Damaris on May 05, 2007, 01:19:18 AMGo with the scapular ritual then.  The basis for that is if you're good, wear your scapular, don't ever eat meat on Friday, etc, you will skip purgatory (which coincidently no longer exists, but we'll ignore that for now) and go directly to heaven no matter what.  Now please apply Darkmoon's question.

OK.

1.) Purgatory exists.  You're probably confusing that with the Limbus Puerorum (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm) (or Infantium)--the place to which people theorize that unbaptized babies go.

Every few years (going all the way back to Augustine), the Catholic Church says, ``Look, we never said anything about that.  If you want to believe it, fine, but we don't see any evidence that it exists.''

2.) The statement on The Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel was first recorded by a saint, so we have reason to believe that it was transcribed (from a supernatural source or otherwise) with fidelity.

But it's private revelation, and not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Look it up on the Vatican web site.  It mentions that it's good for devotion to Our Lady, but otherwise it says nothing about its salvific powers.

Why do catholics put so much time and effort into saints and not simply the holy three? Or the holy two? >_>

Quote from: Amber Williams on May 04, 2007, 07:26:19 PM

Quote from: Zina on May 04, 2007, 07:00:54 PM
This arguement is just going to go on forever and ever until someone gets bored and walks away.

Isn't that how all internet arguments are won?  Keep head-butting till one gets bored and the remaining person is the victor?  :0

I always thought the victor was the other guy. :B

Quote from: Reese Tora on May 05, 2007, 02:15:12 AM
I always thought the victor was the other guy. :B

Actually, it depends on who has the most support for their view at the time.

Superluser, you completely ignored the actual question as to why it matters if you're constantly questioning your faith.  Why bother if you're not sure?

Dear lords, people, you're missing the point of it all. It's not the specific rule. I picked one that seemed like one people could debate easily without a lot of contention. Instead you got fixated on the specific rule...

Oh, and for the record, I said no meat on Fridays. I didn't say no meat on Friday's during Lent. At one point, you weren't supposed to eat meat on Fridays at all.

But, for the record, it seems less like you're questioning the rules and more like you're simply following them. Jesus sacrificed himself, huh? Great. You make a small sacrifice by not eating meat? Aren't there better sacrifices to make? Couldn't it be a "do an hour of community service on Fridays" instead?

And, for that matter, why even bother with the sacrifice? Why bother with any of it. Jesus died for your sins. If you believe in him, and believe in God (which follows from believe in Jesus), and, if you're Catholic, you don't commit suicide, aren't you guaranteed into heaven, no harm no foul?

Seems little tangible point to giving up tasty meats on Fridays...

It's all about personal integrity, man. If you can give up something you enjoy a lot, even that much is still worth it! I'm not saying there's some Chuck E Cheese style turn in for sacrificial points or anything, it's all about how you feel after you do something. Maybe I gave up eating meat every friday, or just ONE friday, or maybe I spend my entire life working community service. As long as you feel like you're contributing, that's all that matters! The stereotype of people buying away their guilt is faulty only because the people tend to not feel fulfilled afterwards or do so coming from a rotten point. "Don't badger me, I paid my dues!" is a terrible response to such an inquiry. People should be proud of any contribution, any sacrifice, no matter how large or small.

This is how I feel people should approach their spirituality. Never compare yourself to one another, and though you can certainly learn from others and try to mimic their lifestyles, ultimately you should forge your own path. No one lives the same life, no one has the same amount of this or that... Maybe you're not great at giving things up or making personal sacrafices, as long as you begin your day with a positive outlook and live by example then who can deny you?!

Most Christian organizations?  "Feeling" is for bleeding heart liberals, don't ya know.

T_T Feeling is what spirituality is all about! Your personal relationship with God, or  the universe, or whatever deity you feel for. I cannot stand organized religions that would deny people's personal conclusions simply because they do not fit in with the mold. I have a problem with that whole lawful spectrum, if you haven't noticed.  >:3

Limbus Puerorum isnt recognized by the Catholic faith anymore, I believe it was revoked sometime this year. Unbaptized babies now go to heaven.

i find it mildly amusing that they can change stuff like that, as though the pope sends a memo on a balloon notifying the middle management where the paperwork gets filed now.

QuoteThor says- It's hammer time!

I wonder how many people would be that much happier if the catholic church wasn't around anymore. I wonder how many people would be lost in the tide without it.

Last I had heard, most catholics were supposed to loathe their religion, not embrace it. ;)

Netami, you obviously are questioning, which is great, good for you. That was what I was looking for. Not blindly following the rules. Questioning isn't about regugitating the answer the church tells you. Questioning is going "is the church even necessary to begin with if I believe in God and all that jazz (fossy hands)."

Or, you know, you take it 8 steps further, abandon all attempts at organized religion, pick and choose what feels right to you, abandon the concept of deities, and live the comfy life because you're just doing what you're doing, no regrets.

My faith has only 10 main rules.  They're found in Exodus 20.  Who could argue that if everyone followed those, especially the last 6 which refer to how people treat each other, the world would not be a much better place? 

Humans have made religions over-complicated.  The intricate rules and ceremonies are there because the religious elite need them to keep control.  It's indoctrination.  My own religion, Seventh Day Adventist, has its own problems in some churches with people trying to indoctrinate vegetarianism.  And as I like to point out, potato chips are vegetarian but you'll die if you sit around eating those all day.

As a scientist, I seek fact.  And as someone who has a great deal of contact with other scientists, I can say quite certainly that a large number of scientists have not jumped aboard the atheist bandwagon.  Why?  Because the more we discover, the more we realize we don't understand very much. 

I find it funny that people are willing to jump aboard theories of cosmic strings and branes which even the people who come up with them say there is practically no way to test them, since the other dimensions that must exist for them to be correct can never be detected, yet they easily dismiss the idea of a god.

If the universe itself can spring from a single point, the mechanism of which is not even remotely understood itself, and no theory addresses it because that very event cannot even be minutely explained by physics, then how hard is it to perhaps accept the possibility that an intelligence as vast as the universe itself could be watching things unfold?  Many models of the universe predict that other universes must exist, and also that our universe is not the first, and that perhaps universes have been forming and fading forever forward and backward in time.  But there is no proof of that.  There will never be any proof unless someone finds a way to look outside our own dimension.

Physics itself is reaching well beyond logic and fact and delving deeply into philosophical realms.  Steven Hawkings himself, while not saying openly if he believes God (as in, the Christian God) exists, has implied that he believes there may be something out there guiding things.

The probabilities of our universe existing as it does, habitable by our type of life, are so remote that either our form of universe is overwhemingly highly favored by quantum principles (for reasons no one can even guess at), or we have had a one in a trillion lucky shot, or some vast power and intellect (or intellects) have taken a role in shaping it in deliberate fashion.

As to which religion is correct, or the most correct, that's a matter of faith. 

In any case, when we die, we'll find out once and for all who was right, won't we?  At that point, all beliefs will be moot as what happens next will be proof beyond all manner of doubt. 

My belief in God hasn't hindered my science research in the least, as I do not foolishly try to 'prove' God through it as some people have done.  I think that sort of thing is arrogant beyond description.  God will not demonstrate Himself like that, as if humans can command or trick Him into doing so with idiotic bacterial growth experiments.  Were I God, I know I would be insulted by such a display.  Those who planned the experiment obviously hadn't even taken the time to read Jesus' words.  had they, they would have known the experiment would show nothing.  That was the point of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, not to show heaven or hell, but instead to demonstrate that even if the prophets were brought back from the dead to warn certain people about the truth, they would still not believe. 

I allow my science to do the things that science does best:  improve life and discover new things about how the world works.  And my religious beliefs to do what they do best: give hope for an eternity of exploring the universe from one end to the other and knowing the Being who shaped it, as well as all the other creatures/entities/ whatnot which also share the universe on myraid unknown planets in the billions of galaxies.

Simply put, I do not limit the universe or God by any foolish arrogance or useless traditions that man invented after Jesus taught the very simple way to follow God:  Love God with all thy heart and soul and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself.  All the other things will fall into place by themselves if one truly desires to do those first two. 

And I have one final thing to say.  True, religion doesn't guarantee everyone will be good by a long shot.  But a country without any religion at all is a disaster.  That sort of thing is a very modern invention.  In the past, even the tiniest island culture had a religion.  There have been only a small number of nations that have totally rejected the idea of religion.  Communism and fascism generally place man as the center of the world.  And in nations where those social models were enacted, the worst atrocities of human history took place.  If religion doesn't guarantee the goodness of humanity, the lack of any religion practically guarantees disaster.  And that is based on the facts of history.  So too is it the case that religions with violence as their basis will fail.  I predict that in only a few years we will see the final course of events inevitable by the pattern of extremist growth in Islam. 

Simply put, both apathy and anger lead nowhere.  That's why I'll stick with the message of Jesus:  "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."

Atheism will never lead to peace.  I've seen them murder each other just as readily as those who claim to believe in a God, but whose actions speak otherwise to the belief only in greed, selfishness, lust, and a thirst for power at all costs.  When I say I believe in God, I mean that.  I do not put my faith in mankind, because mankind is unsteady and changeable as the wind.  A house built on sand will not stand the storm. 

The great leaders of modern history, remembered for their courage in the face of overwhelming adveristy, relied on their faith for their strength.  Winston Churchill was one such man.  Often he expressed his faith, even when the Nazis looked unstoppable and only a few short weeks from seizing totaly control of Europe.  Yet he endured, and the people of Britain endured, by divine grace or by merely the strength of will their faith endowed them with, we shall not know unless we have the opportunity to ask of God ourselves.  But compare Churchill now with Adolf Hitler.  Hitler's reponse to losing was the suicide of himself, Eva Braun, and their children. 

Religion promises hope; atheism promises oblivion.  Given the two choices, I'll take hope.  If death is the end for both, I'll choose the path that at least brings peace to my heart and a reason to strive for something better.  The alternative is the despair and emptiness that drove the murderous teenagers in Columbine to ask questions of the students they were shoothing "Where's your God now?".

People don't understand why things which are terrible happen in this world.  They say, "Why would God allow something like that?"  The answer is actually very simple.  Freedom of choice, which also means that the consequences of those choices must be allowed to occur.  And choices made thousands of years ago can affect life today.  If the Bible and the Q'ran are correct at all in their histories, the Abraham's choice to have a son with Hagar has led to every Mideast conflict there has ever been, for the purist Arabians trace their lineage back to Hagar and Abraham.  The actions of cause and effect must be allowed to fully play out for the universe to understand why God's law is what it is.  Lucifer made the claim that God's law was unfair, and himself believed he could do better if he were 'like the Most High'.  That is the sole basis for the great controversy, God's law vs Lucifer's anarchy; which is truly the best way?  There had never been any real choice before, not because God forbid it, but because there had never been any evil to choose before.  Once it came to be through Lucifer's rebellion, God obeyed his own law of choice by not simply exterrminating Lucifer and the rebel angels instantly.  This world then became the staging ground where the results of living outside of God's will could be seen to their utmost ends; as much as God suffers to see it, He must obey His own laws, or the laws are meaningless.

As for Lucifer himself, his purpose is not one of ruling hell, or to punish the evildoers.  No, his purpose now is personal vengeance, for when Jesus died on the cross as the pure 'Lamb of God', fulfilling that part of the law that the wages of sin is death (as was the analogy of Aslan's death in place of Edmund, for those who didn't know), Lucifer lost.  His only purpose now is to destroy as many people as possible out of pure spite.  It's literally a 'scorched Earth' mentality.  He's going to be destroyed, but he'll take as many as he can with him to cause God pain.

Well, perhaps a little long-winded, but if we're going to be discussing what we believe and why, I think it's best to get as much evidence out there as I can.  After all, what point is it to discuss the logic of one belief vs another if no one has all the evidence of either to choose between?  You can't made an educated choice until you're completely educated.

And that is a very logical manner of thinking, no?   ;)

Quote from: Damaris on May 05, 2007, 02:43:02 AMSuperluser, you completely ignored the actual question as to why it matters if you're constantly questioning your faith.  Why bother if you're not sure?

Er... I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.

Darkmoon asked about people who accept their religion, deit(y/ies), and rules.  He then implied that people who do this accept their faith unquestioningly.  I'm simply saying that some people are constantly re-evaluating their faith.  I am one of these.  That doesn't mean that I'm not sure of what I believe, just that I don't take for granted that what I have believed in the past is true, or even what I believe now.

I'll give you an example--there's a verse in Matthew that says that Herod killed all the children in Bethlehem under two years old.  There was a time when I would have accepted that unquestioningly.  From what we do know of Herod, it's in keeping with his character, and events like that happened all the time back then (heck, they happen all the (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6409699.stm) time today (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1615936,00.html)).  But outside of Matthew and one apocryphal work from AD 150, there is no mention of it--you would expect at least Josephus to comment on mass murder.  Once I heard that, I was forced to conclude that the event probably didn't happen.

So I'm constantly looking at my beliefs, re-evaluating them, and rendering opinions on them.  It shouldn't be odd that I come to the same conclusions over and over again--after all, I came to them the first time.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 02:47:00 AMOh, and for the record, I said no meat on Fridays. I didn't say no meat on Friday's during Lent. At one point, you weren't supposed to eat meat on Fridays at all.

Well, I wasn't sure if that's what you were referring to, so I chose to go with the current rule in the US.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 02:47:00 AMAnd, for that matter, why even bother with the sacrifice? Why bother with any of it. Jesus died for your sins. If you believe in him, and believe in God (which follows from believe in Jesus), and, if you're Catholic, you don't commit suicide, aren't you guaranteed into heaven, no harm no foul?

No one's guaranteed a spot in Heaven, man! (Well, Jesus, but that's about it)

If you're baptized, haven't renounced the faith, and die in a state of grace, the Catholic Church teaches that you're probably going to get into Heaven, eventually.

The point of sacrifice and discipline is to keep you active and doing something that contributes to your faith, lest you find yourself outside of that state of grace.

Quote from: King Of Hearts on May 05, 2007, 05:20:29 AMLimbus Puerorum isnt recognized by the Catholic faith anymore, I believe it was revoked sometime this year. Unbaptized babies now go to heaven.

I mentioned this before.  Every few years, the Church says something like, ``We never considered Limbo to be a valid doctrine,'' and papers print headlines like the following:

Wineke: Catholic Church abandons limbo, Wisconsin State Journal, WI - Apr 25, 2007

Life After Limbo, Time v. 167 no. 2 (January 9 2006)

Pull plug on Limbo? Pontiff will decide, The Seattle Times (Seattle, WA) (Nov 30, 2005)

Whatever happened to limbo? U.S. Catholic v. 66 no. 8 (August 2001)

Shoring Up Satan, Closing Limbo, New York Times, 01/31/99

Dumping Limbo, Free Inquiry, Winter97/98

I believe the quote is ``Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision,''

Which is radically different from what the Church said in 1992:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.  Indeed, the great mercy ... allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

See, instead of saying that there's reason to hope that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, the Church used to say that there's reason to hope that unbaptized infants go to Heaven.

PS Alondro: dr;tl Did read, still too long.

Yeah, I meant to say this earlier- but someone mentioned the purgatory thing to me, I hadn't seen the articles yet.  Obviously, they didn't realize the difference between purgatory and limbo, not being Catholic.

Alondro, I'm coming back to you, but I'm going to let your points stew for a while before I say what I personally think.

QuoteIf religion doesn't guarantee the goodness of humanity, the lack of any religion practically guarantees disaster.

I would debate that point. The US is in one of the worst states it's been in in years due to a president that has... well, too much religion for his own good. When teh US called itself an open society and we tried to take into account all religions and all walks of life (even if that was nearly 200 years ago), things in many respects were better. Not everything, and sure.

Maybe I'm idealizing, but no worse than you. Atheism isn't the evil of the world. People don't sit there going "I don't believe in god, so I can do whatever." Hell, even most satanists don't go around killing willy-nilly, and they have a religion that allows them to do anything they want so long as it makes them happy.

But that's the thing: in every religion, and in every walk of life, there are crazies that are going to go out and do stupid, crazy things. Can't control human nature through "the good book" and blind faith.

QuoteIf you're baptized, haven't renounced the faith, and die in a state of grace, the Catholic Church teaches that you're probably going to get into Heaven, eventually.

The point of sacrifice and discipline is to keep you active and doing something that contributes to your faith, lest you find yourself outside of that state of grace.

Well then I'm just screwed. Never been baptized, never going to be baptized, and I don't really see the point in it anyway. If I'm wrong, eh, I'm wrong. I personally don't see how a omnipresent, omnipotent being can just go "well, hell there, you followed the logical path for you and did what you felt was right, so I'm gonna cast you down into the fiery pits because you didn't believe."

I'll be honest: if God really is going to do that, then I will take Hell gladly. I'd rather that than believe in a shitty god like that.

I've been baptized 3 times, each of them for different reasons, none of them being really my own will. :3

Hey, apparently you're good for 3 different reason. You can be extra wrong and still be covered! Boss!

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 12:11:00 PM
. If I'm wrong, eh, I'm wrong. I personally don't see how a omnipresent, omnipotent being can just go "well, hell there, you followed the logical path for you and did what you felt was right, so I'm gonna cast you down into the fiery pits because you didn't believe."

I'll be honest: if God really is going to do that, then I will take Hell gladly. I'd rather that than believe in a shitty god like that.

This is what I've believed for the longest time
In a world thats as vast as this one is I can't see how a just and loving god would condem billions of good people to eternal punishment just because they were born on the wrong side of the world or in the wrong time.  Or because of who they love, or for any of a hundred other nitpicy little reasons that the faithful tell me I'm going to hell.

Personaly I respect athiest phillanthopists more then I do those who make faith based claims for the generousity.  For one with the faithfull there is always the stated or unstated goal of bringing in new recruits.  For example recently several faith based orginisations have started pushing to increase the number of christians who adopt children.  They have actualy stated two of the reasons for this  are 1 to keep as many kids as possible from being adopted by gays, and 2 to bring as many children into the fold as they can.   The Athiest has no book telling him to do good things, or be a good person.  They have no promise that in the end doing good will earn them any reward.  but the fact remains that your average athiest is just as good and decent as your average faithful.

Myself I belive in god,  It's not the christian god, or any other named god.  I belive that god would be something that humans simply could not adiquitly define or comprehend so any attempt threw a religion to define god or the will of god by any human is inherently flawed.  So the best thing you can do is simply try to live as good and decent a life as you can.

Quote from: superluser on May 05, 2007, 12:38:15 AM
I never thought I'd say this, but you've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

Rrrrright. Maybe I should rephrase that. Ahem...

People act with as much intelligence as they possess according to their feelings and "whims". What does matter is that there is at least some intelligence and some emotional restraint in the works, really.

I do not have any faith in the concept of humanity as a whole. However, I do have faith in that people behave as people, rather than raving lunatics or senseless imbeciles or egotistical clowns. At least not all the time. And if they do, even then they do possess some brains and all act according to what they feel, which means that there is some sense behind it all.
   There are, of course, cases where even this is incorrect, or close to. And it is there that I personally am sickened and appalled. Complete dementia, absolute apathy or "vegetability", extreme autism or the like. I cannot help it, and I most deeply understand that some people suffer quite horribly from it and cannot be blamed, but it still nauseates me.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 12:11:00 PMWhen teh US called itself an open society and we tried to take into account all religions and all walks of life (even if that was nearly 200 years ago)

Do you mean when it was founded or nearly 200 years ago?  Because nearly 200 years ago was the time of the Know-Nothing Party.

Assuming you mean the founding of the nation, I find it funny that you think we tried to take into account all religions.  That was what the founding fathers *said*.  Heck, that's probably what they meant and what official US policy was.

But imagine a Turkish Muslim trying to integrate into American society.  I've read newspaper articles from the turn of the 19th century.  Many elements of the US were extremely xenophobic.  They would make Ann Coulter sound like Walter Cronkite.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 12:11:00 PMWell then I'm just screwed. Never been baptized, never going to be baptized, and I don't really see the point in it anyway. If I'm wrong, eh, I'm wrong. I personally don't see how a omnipresent, omnipotent being can just go "well, hell there, you followed the logical path for you and did what you felt was right, so I'm gonna cast you down into the fiery pits because you didn't believe."

I'll be honest: if God really is going to do that, then I will take Hell gladly. I'd rather that than believe in a shitty god like that.

I'm not going to try to change your mind, since I don't think you're interested at this point in your life, so all I can say is that I hope that God shows His mercy to all of us.  I know I'm going to need it.

Quote from: Stygian on May 05, 2007, 01:32:10 PMHowever, I do have faith in that people behave as people, rather than raving lunatics or senseless imbeciles or egotistical clowns. At least not all the time. And if they do, even then they do possess some brains and all act according to what they feel, which means that there is some sense behind it all.

You've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

Quote from: superluser on May 05, 2007, 01:39:01 PM
You've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

You've too little faith in intelligence, superluser. Maybe you should read some LaVey? I know I always enjoy it.

Quote from: Stygian on May 05, 2007, 04:07:48 PM

Quote from: superluser on May 05, 2007, 01:39:01 PM
You've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

You've too little faith in intelligence, superluser. Maybe you should read some LaVey? I know I always enjoy it.

I have faith in intelligence, but not in man to use it.  I think LaVey proves this.

How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.
- Søren Kierkegaard

Quote from: superluser on May 05, 2007, 04:49:24 PM
How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.
- Søren Kierkegaard

That statement runs on the assumption that those two freedoms are exclusive, but in order to get the maximum yield from either of them you must use them both in unison.

After all, what good is a thought if you can't share it?  And what is the point of speech without a thought to guide it?

Quote from: thegayhare on May 05, 2007, 12:55:34 PM
but the fact remains that your average athiest is just as good and decent as your average faithful.

For what it's worth, I've actually heard an atheist on a different board say differently - "more jerks per capita" or something to that effect.

Quote from: Alondro on May 05, 2007, 11:42:15 AM
Atheism will never lead to peace.  I've seen them murder each other just as readily as those who claim to believe in a God, but whose actions speak otherwise to the belief only in greed, selfishness, lust, and a thirst for power at all costs.  When I say I believe in God, I mean that.  I do not put my faith in mankind, because mankind is unsteady and changeable as the wind.  A house built on sand will not stand the storm. 

Erm. Communism and Fascism are, to my understanding, neither of them atheists. "Thou shalt not make false idols" or words to that effect - my understanding was that the followers of both of these, in their own ways, had made gods of, respectively, Communism and Fascism...

I could well be misunderstanding the thrust of your argument, of course. It just seems to me... well, according to the statistics dept of the US of A, there are fewer Atheists in jail, per head of Atheist population, than there are religious sorts. I believe ~10% of the population is Atheist, and ~2% of the jail population is Atheist - stats are passed to me via an Atheist's blog, but, since he linked, and links, to the stats at every opportunity, I presume the numbers are reasonably provable...

Quote from: Alondro on May 05, 2007, 11:42:15 AM
Religion promises hope; atheism promises oblivion.  Given the two choices, I'll take hope.  If death is the end for both, I'll choose the path that at least brings peace to my heart and a reason to strive for something better.  The alternative is the despair and emptiness that drove the murderous teenagers in Columbine to ask questions of the students they were shoothing "Where's your God now?".

Atheism doesn't engender despair. Nihilism engenders despair, but that's a different state of mind. Atheism merely states, I don't believe there is a god, and I think we should make the best of what we have here.

I can't see where that would lead, definitively, to the emptiness and despair you remark upon. Stupidity, now, I can see that leading all too well to the end result. Atheism itself, however... nah. Atheists tend not to attract the fundamentalist mindset that other places do. Although you get all sorts in all walks...

Quote from: Stygian on May 05, 2007, 01:32:10 PM
I do not have any faith in the concept of humanity as a whole. However, I do have faith in that people behave as people, rather than raving lunatics or senseless imbeciles or egotistical clowns.

Erm. I believe, strongly, that the vast majority of humanity -is- raving lunatics, senseless imbeciles, or egotistical clowns. (FWIW, I believe I'm in the third category)

Quote from: Caswin on May 05, 2007, 06:17:00 PM
For what it's worth, I've actually heard an atheist on a different board say differently - "more jerks per capita" or something to that effect.

You get what you bring to yourself.

I'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 05, 2007, 07:10:24 PMI'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

Who says he (let's assume "he") does?

Quote from: Caswin on May 05, 2007, 07:19:57 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 05, 2007, 07:10:24 PMI'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

Who says he (let's assume "he") does?

I did. Immediately above the line you quoted.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 05, 2007, 07:36:24 PM

Quote from: Caswin on May 05, 2007, 07:19:57 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 05, 2007, 07:10:24 PMI'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

Who says he (let's assume "he") does?

I did. Immediately above the line you quoted.

Yeah, yeah.  But why are you assuming that he does?

It's odd, most of the atheists I met have been very friendly and good-natured people. I didnt even know they were atheists until times later when religion became a subject.  Most of them when I talked to them don't even say they want the world to become atheists, but rather figure religion is something various people need to cope with themselves and society.  Granted a good deal of them think its stupid, but most that I've talked to acknowledge what they feel is a purpose for it.

When it comes to religion, I find myself in the "Stats and surveys are always a plus, but never underestimate your personal experiences" department.  I've met plenty of of good natured people from all beliefs and standpoints..and I've met BATSHIT INSANE versions as well.  I guess for me, what it all boils down to is if people use their belief or lack of one as an excuse for themselves and their behavior.  Be it through looking down at other groups, making judgements that infringe on the freedoms and happiness of others, or just generally being an assmunch.

Quote from: Caswin on May 05, 2007, 07:39:06 PM
Yeah, yeah.  But why are you assuming that he does?

Well, it's my opinion.

It's been borne out in the various things I've seen, not to mention at least two people I know swear by it - in fact, they usually grumble at me bringing problems into my life by concentrating on them.... But that's a different story.

Suffice it to say: I believe it does. I've seen it happen. *shrug* Certainly for negative effects. I try to focus on the positive ones, though...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 05, 2007, 08:03:06 PM

Quote from: Caswin on May 05, 2007, 07:39:06 PM
Yeah, yeah.  But why are you assuming that he does?

Suffice it to say: I believe it does. I've seen it happen. *shrug* Certainly for negative effects. I try to focus on the positive ones, though...

...wait, what?

Quote from: Valynth on May 05, 2007, 05:37:43 PMThat statement runs on the assumption that those two freedoms are exclusive, but in order to get the maximum yield from either of them you must use them both in unison.

You fail at trolling.

The point that Kierkegaard is making is that men demand freedom of speech, but they're not even using their freedom to think.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 05, 2007, 07:10:24 PMI could well be misunderstanding the thrust of your argument, of course. It just seems to me... well, according to the statistics dept of the US of A, there are fewer Atheists in jail, per head of Atheist population, than there are religious sorts. I believe ~10% of the population is Atheist, and ~2% of the jail population is Atheist - stats are passed to me via an Atheist's blog, but, since he linked, and links, to the stats at every opportunity, I presume the numbers are reasonably provable...

There's also the problem that the US uses prison to keep certain people oppressed.  One in 20 US citizens will spend over a year in state or federal prison (not jail) at some point in his or her life.

For black males, it's one in three.

So these numbers may not be indicative of the actual moral quality of those incarcerated.

Quote from: superluser on May 05, 2007, 01:39:01 PM

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 12:11:00 PMWell then I'm just screwed. Never been baptized, never going to be baptized, and I don't really see the point in it anyway. If I'm wrong, eh, I'm wrong. I personally don't see how a omnipresent, omnipotent being can just go "well, hell there, you followed the logical path for you and did what you felt was right, so I'm gonna cast you down into the fiery pits because you didn't believe."

I'll be honest: if God really is going to do that, then I will take Hell gladly. I'd rather that than believe in a shitty god like that.

I'm not going to try to change your mind, since I don't think you're interested at this point in your life, so all I can say is that I hope that God shows His mercy to all of us.

See that's the attitude that gets me, though. It really comes across as a holier than thou attitude. Maybe you didn't mean it as such, but it just sounds like "I know I'm right, I know you're wrong, and I hope you come to see the light, as otherwise, you're really screwed."

I don't know that I'm right, I just simply know that your "right way" isn't the right way for me, and I'm pretty darn certain at this point never will be either. I don't feel that "click" when I read about Christianity. People have told me that when you feel it, and when the religion really gets you and you really get it, you can feel the spirit of God fill you. I've gone to church on a few occasions. You know what I felt? Bored. I go in with an open mind, because I feel it's right to do so, but I just get bored.

It's no my answer, and likely never will be.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 11:29:35 PMSee that's the attitude that gets me, though. It really comes across as a holier than thou attitude. Maybe you didn't mean it as such, but it just sounds like "I know I'm right, I know you're wrong, and I hope you come to see the light, as otherwise, you're really screwed."

What's the alternative?  Should I simply say, ``It's not a problem for me that you're not religious, because I'm not the one going to Hell,'' like in that Seinfeld episode?

I'm trying to say that I want everybody to get to Heaven, and that at some level, I do want the best for you.  I understand and respect your decision to believe in what you want to believe, and I really don't want to try to change your mind, since I know that religion is a deeply personal matter, and one that should not be entered into lightly.

And I don't know that I'm right, either.  None of us will know for sure until we die.  I just have a firm belief.

For crying out loud... it really isn't complicated.  I've seen a lot of people making the error in this thread that it's up to the Atheist to prove there's no God.  It's been said before... to prove there is no God, one would have to look in all the places God might be, and show that he's not there.  Because we can't do that, it still doesn't mean God exists.

However, the assumption of a God to begin with can be traced back to unreliable, ancient, unverifiable, and altogether biased sources.  Being reasonable people, we could conclude that they are BS without further concrete evidence.  (As much as we don't, which just goes to say something about human stubborness)  The more extraordinary the claim (and there really isn't a claim more extraordinary), the more extraordinary the evidence must be.  If I went back 2000 years in time and did a few "card magic" tricks and said I was the son of someone's God, or God him/her self, they'd probably believe me too, and you would have grown up worshipping me.  Especially if I claimed I would lead you to victory against your enemies.  That doesn't mean it's true.  Nor does it mean there's a Philosopher's Stone, Holy Grail, etc, just because someone two millienia ago REALLY REALLY "knew" there was.  In short, I don't have to disprove a thing that was pulled out of someone's ass.  Arguing over wordplay and inane points like "BUT... this is a text based forum/you used the wrong word/used the word in the wrong way" etc just proves you don't have anything to offer to the conversation. 

To put it on the easiest level, consider your workplace.  If a coworker ran up to you and proclaimed "I am not a God!", would you have any reason to doubt them?  If one ran up to you and proclaimed himself God, you'd probably raise an eyebrow without seeing some SERIOUS proof.  Sadly, people long ago were much more gullible, and you know, it's not cool to question shit that everyone else believes and has believed for generations.  Basic psychology will tell you that no one will thank you for showing them that their worldview is incorrect.  That's why it was considered heresy to believe the Earth was not flat regardless of no proof that it indeed was.  Cause you know... you couldn't prove that it WASN'T.  (eyeroll)

That lingering "but there are some things that can't be explained" should have a yet on the end of it.  To succeed in critical thinking, you must accept the uncertain until you know.  We have no reason and no excuse to be uncertain that there is NOT a godman/whatever in the sky in this day and age, watching over us, and you know, being generally unhelpful.

It's a reasonable stance.  But you know, keep accepting religion as a social necessity when it legitimates flying planes into towers for Allah and excommunicating lesbians if that's what makes you guys happy.  If your religion is a personal thing and helps you live life, great.  But that's not what most religion revolves around, which is why I work against it.  I've seen so many lives and personalities destroyed or damaged by religion, both through reading about it and seeing it firsthand.  It's just sad.

Addressing the "if there was no religion, no one would be good" argument... what, if you weren't religious, you'd risk jail, or an act that would make you an outcast?  Maybe you just like people, and want to help because it makes YOU feel good?  Isn't that more noble than "God told me to do it"?

It's like forcing starving people to learn Christianity before helping them... if that's good, our perspective is fucked.

Really there is no "good", and "evil", when it comes down to it.  There's what socially acceptable and what's not.  Society would not quit functioning without religion.  In fact, I think it would thrive, if handled right.  Atheism does not necessarily equal nihilism.  And I certainly can't see any self respecting Atheist using it as an excuse for war and mass murder like a religious leader might.

(http://members.cox.net/bluegargoyle/Mythology/Knights-for-atheism.jpg)
(http://members.cox.net/bluegargoyle/Mythology/soldiers-for-atheism.jpg)

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMI've seen a lot of people making the error in this thread that it's up to the Atheist to prove there's no God.

Name one.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMHowever, the assumption of a God to begin with can be traced back to unreliable, ancient, unverifiable, and altogether biased sources.  Being reasonable people, we could conclude that they are BS without further concrete evidence.

I can name a lot of other unreliable, ancient, unverifiable, and altogether biased sources.  Take, for example, Caesar's Gallic Wars or Cicero's Orations against Catiline.  Many of them are accepted as historical with very little criticism.  Why should we reject some for that reason, but not others?

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMThe more extraordinary the claim (and there really isn't a claim more extraordinary), the more extraordinary the evidence must be.

...must be *for what*?  You left out the predicate.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMjust proves you don't have anything to offer to the conversation.

I didn't know that I was expected to do something.  I'm sorry.  Tell me what I'm expected to do, and then I'll see about doing it.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMThat's why it was considered heresy to believe the Earth was not flat regardless of no proof that it indeed was.  Cause you know... you couldn't prove that it WASN'T.  (eyeroll)

Er...they *did* prove that it wasn't.  Around 200 BC, Eratosthenes proved that it was round.  And I'm not familiar with any religion since 1 AD that has made a flat earth part of its teachings.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMBut that's not what most religion revolves around, which is why I work against it.

OK.  What does most religion revolve around?

 :rolleyes

I've said all that needs to be said, really.  Use your imagination if you can't figure these things out, or you know, don't.  It's obvious you can't be convinced, so why bother to continue trying?

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 02:18:28 AMI've said all that needs to be said, really.  Use your imagination if you can't figure these things out, or you know, don't.  It's obvious you can't be convinced, so why bother to continue trying?

All right.  I just have one final request.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMI've seen a lot of people making the error in this thread that it's up to the Atheist to prove there's no God.

Name one.

No. :)

I think you need to be banned from this forum. You know, for being a complete asshole who complains when someone finds something out of place in your theory, and who refuses to back up even the simplest of claims. Or maybe, just get out of the goddamn thread instead. You're pissing me, and no doubt others, off.

Go Forum Police.  Jesus, lighten up, guy.  I never made a single personal attack against you.  So much anger over shit you don't even have to care about.  If you don't like my opinion, or whatever, don't adopt it.  But try to learn to treat others with at least a little respect, mmkay?

As far as "refusing to back things up", I already mentioned that I said what I wanted to say.  Throw out EVERYthing I've said if I made a mistake (which is possible, I'm not a God :)), if that's the way you do things.  Even I get tired of going back and forth.  Or, should we just have 8 pages over semantics and get all pissed off, like you?

It's a good thing my religion promotes tolerance and patience :3

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 05:46:24 AMOr, should we just have 8 pages over semantics and get all pissed off, like you?

Uh... question.  How is asking for one instance out of "A lot of people" quibbling over semantics?

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 05:46:24 AMtry to learn to treat others with at least a little respect, mmkay?

You first bucko.

Quote from: Not-so-good Richter on May 06, 2007, 02:18:28 AMI've said all that needs to be said, really.  Use your imagination if you can't figure these things out, or you know, don't.  It's obvious you can't be convinced, so why bother to continue trying?

Good bye, Aridas. Go enjoy your week to consider yourself.

BTW, at this point the thread has devolved into attacks and ignorance, so I'm closing it.

:drama

awww.  You guys always kill the good threads just as they're getting interesting. 

That was what I was thinking. Other than Aridas, most everyone else was being polite. :-(

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 06, 2007, 06:24:34 PM
That was what I was thinking. Other than Aridas, most everyone else was being polite. :-(

I am inclined to disagree, seeing as you're posting here.

I -did- say "everyone else" - that excludes me, because I'm the one talking.

Or, at least, that's what I thought...

If you wanna reopen it, you are more than welcome to.

whee!  *moves back to Off Topic*

I'm leaving the converstation the way it is, so that people remember to stay nice.

Quote

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 01:26:52 AMThat's why it was considered heresy to believe the Earth was not flat regardless of no proof that it indeed was.  Cause you know... you couldn't prove that it WASN'T.  (eyeroll)

Er...they *did* prove that it wasn't.  Around 200 BC, Eratosthenes proved that it was round.  And I'm not familiar with any religion since 1 AD that has made a flat earth part of its teachings.

Did you miss that whole part in your history lessons where the church made Galileo into a heretic for trying to prove the Earth was round. Just because the Greeks did it once didn't mean anyone botherd to listen to them years down the line...

That was kinda what I meant, yeah...  :januscat

That is, the period of history before it was -accepted- that the Earth was not indeed flat, you could get burned for saying otherwise because you couldn't prove that it wasn't.

At least, you know, generally accepted the Earth wasn't flat.  I'll bet you a nickel right now there's someone out there that believes it is.  :p

Oh god, another forum I'm on, someone honestly believes the earth is flat. They also believe, along with 25% of the board, that 9/11 was faked.

You sir, owe me a nickel!   (or at least had you bet me you would)  :zombiekun2

That's hilarious mang.   :mwaha

Seriously? They think the world is flat?

I guess that's no worse than the people that honestly believe that the dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to make people believe the world really isn't 6,000 years old... all evidence to the contrary on all points there...

One of their argument for the world being flat, and I shit you not, was that if the world was round, all the water would flow to the bottom side.  :banghead

QuoteSeriously? They think the world is flat?

I guess that's no worse than the people that honestly believe that the dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to make people believe the world really isn't 6,000 years old... all evidence to the contrary on all points there...

No sir!  It's due to the Flying Spaghetti Monster altering the measurement instruments with his noodly appendages!

QuoteOne of their argument for the world being flat, and I shit you not, was that if the world was round, all the water would flow to the bottom side.

Haha!  I wonder what they'd say if you told them it kept spinning because of a gigantic invisible Harlem Globetrotter.

lmfao, I like that, ER.

Quote from: BillBuckner on May 06, 2007, 09:51:47 PM
One of their argument for the world being flat, and I shit you not, was that if the world was round, all the water would flow to the bottom side.  :banghead

I'd ask them where the center and edges are, then point out something (a flight route or train or ferry) that is physically impossible without a spheroidal earth, and ask how it's accomplished. :3

I realize that someone like that will tell me it's fake, but I'd wanna see if they'd squirm before they come up with that "answer." :mwaha

also, just as an off hand comment, there's an entire flat earth society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society) that supposedly beleives the earth is flat.

Wow, they made a society... At least we know that if another ethnic cleansing happens along the order of the Holocaust during world war two, we have a group we can sell out to stay alive.

And this (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) would be their home page.

...Holy crap, that website makes me want to kill... something! D:<

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 06, 2007, 09:24:43 PMDid you miss that whole part in your history lessons where the church made Galileo into a heretic for trying to prove the Earth was round.

No, but I think you did.

Galileo was born in 1564.  Ferdinand Magellan had circumnavigated the world by 1521.

The spherical earth seems to have been the majority position since the first century AD, and no one but nutters have believed that the world was flat since around the seventh century.

Galileo proved many things, but chief among them were that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that other planets had moons.

The dominant position had been the Ptolemaic system, which hypothesized that everything revolved around the Earth, and the fact that the orbits weren't circular could be explained by epicycles.

These were thoughts that were considered very dangerous by the corrupt people that were in the hierarchy of the church at the time (remember--this was about the time of the Reformation--people were selling indulgences and all sorts of nasty stuff.  The church was very sensitive to criticism at the time).  Copernicus had come along and suggested that the Earth wasn't at the center, but they didn't excommunicate him because he paid his dues.

Yes, bad stuff happened.  We're really sorry for it.  The Catholic Church has even taken steps to make amends.  In fact, Stephen Jay Gould was pretty impressed (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html) by the Catholic Church's embrace of science.

It also turns out that the Copernican system was flawed because he had presumed that the orbits were determined by perfect circles, and in fact, sometimes the Ptolemaic system was actually more accurate than the Copernican system--I think that some of Galileo's observations were the ones that led to the rejection of the Copernican system.  Kepler and Brahe came up with the first system that was a consistent improvement over the Ptolemaic system.  And then came ones based on the many-body problem and General Relativity.

Also: You people are only now finding out about the Flat Earth Society?  You know about the Birchers, right?

You know, the whole idea of thinking that you can choose what to believe is a bit absurd. It's one of those things (actually, this has been proven through several independent studies, and it really does make sense) that you're basically dispositioned for or not. Everyone has a sense of spirituality, or so it would seem, but just how strong it is or what triggers it really depends on your person. So, again, we come to the point of fatalism and human limitation here...

Of course you can be indoctrinated or have religion forced upon you. That's basically how religion seems to prevail in some cases. But if one can choose to follow a religion and its rules, but can't possibly feel that sense of spirituality, then what's the damn point of it? Isn't it better then to use guidlines like common sense and ethics? Philosophy and science? And who really believes that it depends on your individual belief whether you go to Heaven or Hell or Nirvana or just fade into darkness when you die? It doesn't go together. Either, there is logic to it all and some form of order, or there isn't, and all is just materium.

I'm not a fatalist. I believe that the universe in itself is a marvel and that it through its sheer complexity and power is more glorious than any lowly, simplified doctrine or code or human idea of any kind can explain. And trying to frame it in and denote all those moments of revelation, all that brilliant existence and all the small things to something that the human mind can put together into a whole image is folley to me.

Well, superluser, it appears that you're right, (and that was informative), but we were mainly centering around the point that new information could be considered heretical, simply because the current doctrine or whatnot couldn't be disproven, at least not to the point of acceptance.  Even in the updated situation, it's kinda the same thing...

As far as fatalism and whatnot... genetics only account for a certain percentage... and I'm not one to believe in fate, personally.  I mean, sure we're all dispositioned to a caliber, but that's what makes us all individuals.  People can still go one way or the other.

QuoteEither, there is logic to it all and some form of order, or there isn't, and all is just materium.

(http://www.sublimerage.com/obi-wan.jpg)

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  :P

Agreed. Thanks for the history, though.

Although, in the 1400s, no one wanted to front a certain Mr. Columbus because popular opinion was that he would fall off the edge of the earth with all of their money.  Here be dragons and all that.

http://www.xkcd.com/

QuoteAlthough, in the 1400s, no one wanted to front a certain Mr. Columbus because popular opinion was that he would fall off the edge of the earth with all of their money.  Here be dragons and all that.

Something that brings to mind is the lack of a 13th floor on about 90 percent of USA buildings, and the amount of money lost every Friday the 13th because no one leaves the house.  Just goes to show how much we've lost our superstition.

Quotehttp://www.xkcd.com/

Hehe, he makes fun of young Earth creationists, and then he prays.  :p

If you hover over the picture, it has commentary.

D'OH!

Quote from: Damaris on May 06, 2007, 11:59:50 PMAlthough, in the 1400s, no one wanted to front a certain Mr. Columbus because popular opinion was that he would fall off the edge of the earth with all of their money.  Here be dragons and all that.

I know that's the popular perception, but is that actually true?

The ``Columbus v. Flat Earthers'' story appears to have been invented in the 19th century by Washington Irving for his semi-fictionalized biography of Columbus.  Or so says Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5861677-3254556), written by a professor emeritus of History at UC Santa Barbara.  Professors emeriti can be kinda kooky (see Alexander Abian), but this guy is working within his field and quite a few reviews in peer-reviewed journals on JSTOR agree with him.

I'm having people (OK, one person) tell me that I'm taking my faith unquestioningly, and yet I'm the one pointing out that people are taking popularized versions of history unquestioningly.

As to the concept of religion being at loggerheads with scientific progress, I'd like to know what you think religion has to say about genetics or the scientific method.

QuoteI know that's the popular perception, but is that actually true?

Mayyyybe.  Mayyyybe not.

QuoteI'm having people (OK, one person) tell me that I'm taking my faith unquestioningly, and yet I'm the one pointing out that people are taking popularized versions of history unquestioningly.

I'll be honest, that's kind of a completely different subject.

QuoteI'm having people (OK, one person) tell me that I'm taking my faith unquestioningly, and yet I'm the one pointing out that people are taking popularized versions of history unquestioningly.

As to the concept of religion being at loggerheads with scientific progress, I'd like to know what you think religion has to say about genetics or the scientific method.

I'm not aware, and don't really think it matters, unless:

A) It comes to odds with common sense and ends up a dictation to people that they'll burn in Hell for believing something other than what they do, or

B) Pressures them to feel miserable about themselves unless they conform (being told that you're destined to burn in an eternal fire and knowing that your friends, family, and coworkers actually believe this tends do this by default, to be fair)

C) Incites their own congregation to lash out against others of a different mindset, or,

D) Encourages them to blow themselves up for a dead dude and the promise of fourty (apparantly also dead) virgins or something relatively as blatanly insane and dangerous. 

At that point, yeah, I'd probably pay attention to their personal opinion on genetics and scientific method.  Otherwise I'd rather hear about it from scientists.

But, I am aware of and concerned about things like this:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1465326.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1465326.stm)

And, to be fair, I'm sure the Catholic Church has made great progress and reform towards the goal of telling it's millions of adherants that they don't have to be afraid of a giant goat that will singe them after their death if they use a little rubbery device that keeps Africa from bursting apart at the seams with AIDS victims and unwanted, unsustainable children, but that progress just doesn't match my expectations.  Maybe I'm picky.

By the way, I never accused you (especially personally) of taking it unquestionably.  I don't even know your religious preference, so how would I know the process that you came to it by?  All I can say is that if decided to be [insert big ass religion here], the questions and answers you went through when deciding obviously weren't enough to dissuade you from conforming to it. 

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 07, 2007, 01:27:42 AMBy the way, I never accused you (especially personally) of taking it unquestionably.

Not you.  This guy:

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 05, 2007, 02:47:00 AMBut, for the record, it seems less like you're questioning the rules and more like you're simply following them.

As to condom use, I've gotta say, if you're going to have casual sex anyways, you're already sinning, so use a condom.

But condom use is not going to stop AIDS.  Condom use will most certainly slow it down, but it will not stop it.  Given that the average number of sexual encounters per year is 103 globally, (and that I can't find statistics for Africa) and 800 million people in Africa, and assuming that every one of those encounters is using a condom properly, there are still approximately 50 people per second that are effectively having unprotected sex on the African continent.

How does one measure the number of sexual encouters, globally?  Just curious, as I would like to participate in this field of research.   ;)

QuoteAs to condom use, I've gotta say, if you're going to have casual sex anyways, you're already sinning, so use a condom.

Hm... I would say something more along the lines of, if you're going to have casual sex anyways, you're already sinning in the eyes of your church, so you may as well invite her friend over.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 07, 2007, 02:05:39 AMHow does one measure the number of sexual encouters, globally?  Just curious, as I would like to participate in this field of research.   ;)

http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=398&intMenuOpen=9

Ahhh.  Sadly, that's probably based on what honesty people give on surveys, and not hot, hot voyeurism.

Normally, I don't enter religious threads because these debates usually turn into shouting matches between atheists and fundamentalists brandishing their respecive swords of evangelism.  Meanwhile, agnostics, pantheists, and other practioners of religion get yelled at by both sides for neither declaring there's no God or for not accepting relgious dogma.

The way I see it is this.  I'm a Christian of the Protestant variety.  I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and that he rose fro the grave.  I don't believe you need to follow a whole bunch of rules to get to heaven, as long as you are sincere in your belief in Christ.  I will also be the first person to admit that I believe there are some things religion cannot explain, and that some things have to be accepted on the basis of faith.

At the same time, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you.  Why should I?  I have too much I have to work on myself before I could even lead someone else to Christ.   Instead, I read the Bible as though it applies to me and me alone.  Besides, I'm not going to waste time on people who have already made up their minds about God.  You know where the church is if you change your mind.

I mean in the end, one of the following three things will happen at the end of life:

1.  Heaven is going to be so nice I'm not going to care who's not there.
2.  Oblivion/end of consciousness awaits us all and thus nothing I or ayone else does matters.
3.  I chose the wrong path and am going to be punished for it (be it hell or the reincarnation into a life of suffering), in which case I deserve what I get anyway.

So why argue about it?

I'm not sure what unnerves me more, the fact that Destina just appeared out of nowhere, or that she just made some sense.  However, I will point out that most Christians, and the bible itself, don't seem to me to convey this as Christianity, sadly.  The "accept Jesus and that's it" argument is made by a lot of Christians (makes a great selling point, doesn't it?).  Is that really Christian, though?  Isn't this more like "neochristian" or something?

AFAIK, it's a general (over)simplification of Protestantism. It's like Cliff's Notes Christianity.

I like being Catholic, mostly because I'm still finding it hard to find a better fundamental philosohpy than "Treat other people the way you'd like to be treated."

Even if someone laid down conclusive proof in front of me and said "Haha, there, no god, proved," I'd still say "That's ok. I'm still Catholic." I don't think religion is about what you believe in, I think it's about how you live your life and what standards you adhere to. It's a very personal thing for me and while there are people out there who'd cheerfully call me a miserable failure as a Catholic, or tell me that I'm standing in defiance of rationalism, I don't mind.

Quote from: rabid_fox on May 07, 2007, 12:23:09 PM
It's a very personal thing for me and while there are people out there who'd cheerfully call me a miserable failure as a Catholic, or tell me that I'm standing in defiance of rationalism, I don't mind.

YOU ARE A FAILURE OF A CATHOLIC! :U

...But you are awsome so I forgive you. :3

I guess in a way religion to me is like ones sexuality.  I don't mind or care what a person's is, everyone likely has some varient version and possible views regarding other versions.  It's never a big deal if its something that is brought up in a conversation with friends or respected peers...but I never feel cool when either are sort of launched from the gun.  Or when its done in such a way that its like "I R PROUD THAT I ______"  I mean, I'd hope that anyone in their life is happy with their standings, be it orientation or religious belief.  But when either become a springboard to launch  your soapbox, then it goes into annoying-land for me.

what I find Ironic is the Cult who started the rumor that we never landed on the moon, is the same group who is trying to prove the earth is flat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings_hoax 

Quote from: Amber Williams on May 07, 2007, 12:31:30 PMIt's never a big deal if its something that is brought up in a conversation with friends or respected peers...but I never feel cool when either are sort of launched from the gun.  Or when its done in such a way that its like "I R PROUD THAT I ______"  I mean, I'd hope that anyone in their life is happy with their standings, be it orientation or religious belief.  But when either become a springboard to launch  your soapbox, then it goes into annoying-land for me.

You think that's annoying enough, then try explaining to your (also-Jewish) mom why some nutjob who's on TV about her 5-month-old son is bragging about him being not just breast-fed, but 'intact'.

... like I really needed (or wanted) to know that about her baby's penis, honestly.  :erk

Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on May 07, 2007, 03:06:40 PMwhat I find Ironic is the Cult who started the rumor that we never landed on the moon, is the same group who is trying to prove the earth is flat.

Ironic?  I find that appropriate.

Anyways, nutter theories are always fun.

One of my favorites (and it involves religion!) is that the King James Version of the Bible is the only true version of the Bible that is accurate.

Yeah, yeah.  Another one of those ``my translation has a bigger dick than yours'' debates, right?  Not when you insist that you need to learn English to truly understand the Bible, and that no one had a true version of the Bible before 1611.

I once came across a website that claimed that the Great Vowel Shift occurred so that we could properly pronounce God's Word as revealed in the King James Version.

It took me a while to realize that they were joking.

My ESV is better than your NKJV.  >:3

The first translation by Luther PWNs all. not that sissy Latin/Greek/Hebrew version that cam before it.

Martin Luther is pretty much the shit.

Quote from: Destina Faroda on May 07, 2007, 02:34:57 AM
Normally, I don't enter religious threads because these debates usually turn into shouting matches between atheists and fundamentalists brandishing their respecive swords of evangelism.  Meanwhile, agnostics, pantheists, and other practioners of religion get yelled at by both sides for neither declaring there's no God or for not accepting relgious dogma.

The way I see it is this.  I'm a Christian of the Protestant variety.  I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and that he rose fro the grave.  I don't believe you need to follow a whole bunch of rules to get to heaven, as long as you are sincere in your belief in Christ.  I will also be the first person to admit that I believe there are some things religion cannot explain, and that some things have to be accepted on the basis of faith.

At the same time, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you.  Why should I?  I have too much I have to work on myself before I could even lead someone else to Christ.   Instead, I read the Bible as though it applies to me and me alone.  Besides, I'm not going to waste time on people who have already made up their minds about God.  You know where the church is if you change your mind.

I mean in the end, one of the following three things will happen at the end of life:

1.  Heaven is going to be so nice I'm not going to care who's not there.
2.  Oblivion/end of consciousness awaits us all and thus nothing I or ayone else does matters.
3.  I chose the wrong path and am going to be punished for it (be it hell or the reincarnation into a life of suffering), in which case I deserve what I get anyway.

So why argue about it?

This is pretty much my stance, except for the firm belief in Christ part. Whether or not I believe it isn't the point I am making, but whether or not it applies to people who either have never heard of Jesus or people who simply do not believe. If Jesus died for all sins, it shouldn't matter whether or not you believe in him or that occurrence. If Jesus died then and there for ALL sins by ALL people, then ALL people are forgiven no matter what. Let their realization of this fact be postmortem , I just think that anyone who condemns others for their evil acts forgets that, by their own standards: 1. All sin is equal and 2. All sin is forgiven. People often preach about how the holy system works in mysterious ways, beyond mortal comprehension... Is ultimate mercy, even in the face of horrible atrocities, not fitting of that description? In my mind, Hell isn't a very well populated place at all.

Quote from: Netami on May 07, 2007, 07:50:57 PM

Quote from: Destina Faroda on May 07, 2007, 02:34:57 AM
Normally, I don't enter religious threads because these debates usually turn into shouting matches between atheists and fundamentalists brandishing their respecive swords of evangelism.  Meanwhile, agnostics, pantheists, and other practioners of religion get yelled at by both sides for neither declaring there's no God or for not accepting relgious dogma.

The way I see it is this.  I'm a Christian of the Protestant variety.  I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and that he rose fro the grave.  I don't believe you need to follow a whole bunch of rules to get to heaven, as long as you are sincere in your belief in Christ.  I will also be the first person to admit that I believe there are some things religion cannot explain, and that some things have to be accepted on the basis of faith.

At the same time, I'm not going to foist my beliefs on you.  Why should I?  I have too much I have to work on myself before I could even lead someone else to Christ.   Instead, I read the Bible as though it applies to me and me alone.  Besides, I'm not going to waste time on people who have already made up their minds about God.  You know where the church is if you change your mind.

I mean in the end, one of the following three things will happen at the end of life:

1.  Heaven is going to be so nice I'm not going to care who's not there.
2.  Oblivion/end of consciousness awaits us all and thus nothing I or ayone else does matters.
3.  I chose the wrong path and am going to be punished for it (be it hell or the reincarnation into a life of suffering), in which case I deserve what I get anyway.

So why argue about it?

This is pretty much my stance, except for the firm belief in Christ part. Whether or not I believe it isn't the point I am making, but whether or not it applies to people who either have never heard of Jesus or people who simply do not believe. If Jesus died for all sins, it shouldn't matter whether or not you believe in him or that occurrence. If Jesus died then and there for ALL sins by ALL people, then ALL people are forgiven no matter what. Let their realization of this fact be postmortem , I just think that anyone who condemns others for their evil acts forgets that, by their own standards: 1. All sin is equal and 2. All sin is forgiven. People often preach about how the holy system works in mysterious ways, beyond mortal comprehension... Is ultimate mercy, even in the face of horrible atrocities, not fitting of that description? In my mind, Hell isn't a very well populated place at all.

I never thought I'd say this, but Netami makes a good point.

I can't say I agree with EVERYTHING he said above, but most of it is very reasoned, open-minded, and well thought out.

Props to Netami.

now this will probably  get me in trouble but

I know what we need in order to settle the religion debate once and for all

I declare a Bible Fight (http://www.adultswim.com/games/biblefight/index.html)

2 religous figures enter only one leaves

I got hosed by satan.

You know, from what I understand, the Catholic Church claims the bible came from the church, not the other way around.  Regardless of the factuality, that just brings up another laundry list of questions.

I think all conversions should come with complementary ibuprofen.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 07, 2007, 11:46:28 PM
I got hosed by satan.

Oddly so did I

Who were you playing?  I was Mary

Eve. She doesn't have a lot of range. Her Adam attack is too directed to be much use against Satan.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 07, 2007, 11:46:52 PMYou know, from what I understand, the Catholic Church claims the bible came from the church, not the other way around.

As the resident Catholic, I guess I'm obligated to respond.

That's pretty much right.  The Catholic Church says that the Bible is basically a collection of memoirs and other writings written by holy men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I'd say that the Bible and the Church come as a package, though.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 08, 2007, 12:02:50 AM
Eve. She doesn't have a lot of range. Her Adam attack is too directed to be much use against Satan.

Eh it's still better then Mary's assending ambush technique it's not even an attack

I didn't try to use it. Eve's apples were okay, if weak, but her snake punch was all but useless against Satan's range. I ended up tying to nail him with Adam when possible, then just button mashing punches on him until he raped me.

Ohh man I just beat it.. 

in the end you get to go up against god...

who was suprisingly easy

Wow, that's fascinating...

heh, just played it using noah...

I cant get used to the block button.

I basically just go for one hit then spam the animals... the enemy cannot get up and I just force a time over.

Huh.  Didn't expect to see this around again.

My question stands.

Quote from: Caswin on May 06, 2007, 09:09:05 AM

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 06, 2007, 05:46:24 AMOr, should we just have 8 pages over semantics and get all pissed off, like you?

Uh... question.  How is asking for one instance out of "A lot of people" quibbling over semantics?

Haha, I just cheezed my way through the game with Noah's tablet attack.  Fun.

QuoteI cant get used to the block button.

What, the down arrow?  :p

QuoteMy question stands.

I already mentioned I could have been mistaken.  There seemed to be a lot of quibbling over choice of words going on instead of meaty debate, at least to me.  What irritates me is when I make 1000 points and someone picks the mistake to point out at an attempt to discredit me completely... it's cheezy.  Like Noah's tablet attack.  :)

Anyway, since it's apparantly so important, take this quote from the first page, for instance.

QuotePerhaps I am missing posts from the thread this was snipped from.  would you care to elaborate as to why, exactly, you beleive that debating the existence of Satan equates to nonsense?

Nothing against the poster or anything, but this very sentiment alludes to the fact that Satan is already accepted as an established being, something that needs to be talked about, proven or disproven, scaled down, or elaborated on, etc.  He's just already there, for no real good reason aside from the fact people just believe he is, and that alone is just taken as "he exists".  This in turn, leaves it up to the Atheist to disprove Satan, or talk himself blue trying.  Incidentally, in response to the poster, this is why I believe debating his existence is nonsense.

While no one EXPLICITLY said "I think it's up to the Atheist to disprove these things", this type of mentality can be gathered by such sentiment.

You can let them know it was I who said that, it won't hurt my feelings.  I certainly didn't mean to make it sound like satan is a real (or not real) individual.  Myself, I don't believe in him at all either, I just wanted to see your reasoning.

In other words, I was challenging you to reveal the reasoning behind the position you've adopted, not challenging the position itself, and I appologize if my question sounded otherwise to you.

Oh, naw.  Well, maybe a little.  It's all good.

And I didn't mention your name because I wasn't sure if you wanted to be dragged back into this.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 08, 2007, 07:03:16 PMThere seemed to be a lot of quibbling over choice of words going on instead of meaty debate, at least to me.

I've found that it helps a lot to make a point of using accurate words from the beginning.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 08, 2007, 07:03:16 PMWhat irritates me is when I make 1000 points and someone picks the mistake to point out at an attempt to discredit me completely... it's cheezy.  Like Noah's tablet attack.  :)

In his defense, there were like half a dozen responses that then got narrowed down to one.

Random Biblical Fact: Noah throwing the tablets at the calf and blowing it up was a movie invention... not that it wasn't cool.

Im just not used to Block buttons in a keyboard setting.


Why do people keep calling Moses as Noah?

Whoops.  Has someone else done that?

I suck at that game. My tactics involve using Satan's long reach and just walking forward and hitting my opponents into the corner, being careful not to actually knock them down. I jab fifty or so times and they die. Harsh.

I think that this game allows people to express their spirituality in the various characters and techniques they use.

QuoteI think that this game allows people to express their spirituality in the various characters and techniques they use.

...This upsets me, as my first choice was Satan.  ...I just... assumed he'd have the most powerful moves.   :januscat

I picked him first because he was red.

We picked Eve because she was nekkid. ;)

Quote from: Damaris on May 09, 2007, 09:54:14 AM
We picked Eve because she was nekkid. ;)

Oddly that was my logic too

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 06, 2007, 12:06:20 PM
Good bye, Aridas. Go enjoy your week to consider yourself.

If I may be so bold...

are over teh week now? :blink

Yes, but Aridas hasn't tried to log in since the 11th.

Give him a couple days. Or send him an email, if you want.

Okay, so the question I have at this point is how many of the people posting in this thread would say they have an open mind?

Oddly enough, I would say I do.  I mean maybe, just maybe there could be a god-thing out there.

I could also have Winona Ryder's children, though.

With respect to religion?

Not massively. I'm open minded, but you'd have to persuade me fairly well to override the things I've already considered and decided upon.

I'm willing to listen, of course.

I guess I'd consider me broad-minded, rather than open-minded....

My mind is like someone left a door open on a windy day and it just keeps opening and closing. Sometimes it slams shut very quickly and with great force, only to be swung wide open to get twigs and leaves and shit stuck on it.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 15, 2007, 04:30:36 PM
Okay, so the question I have at this point is how many of the people posting in this thread would say they have an open mind?

Why, yes.  I have a pretty open mind.  I'm not likely to change it without something to back up a claim, but I'll listen and think about what's said.

Quote from: Terry PratchettThe trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

My reason for asking, and ER touched upon this, is that anyone that SAYS they have an open mind have to be willing to admit that the other side (or ANY other side) could be right. I will admit, just like ER did, that I could be wrong. There could be a God, and he could be a spiteful bugger. That doesn't mean I'm going to really change the way I live, but I can say I'm willing to admit it's a possibility.

However, those that can't admit the other side could be right, as in those with a religion being unable to state that the "atheists" could be right, really shouldn't be taking part in a religious debate. They can't debate the issue at hand, they can only regurgitate their beliefs.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 15, 2007, 09:23:46 PMMy reason for asking, and ER touched upon this, is that anyone that SAYS they have an open mind have to be willing to admit that the other side (or ANY other side) could be right.

What if I admit that you could be right, and that by definition I can't be sure about what happens after I die, but feel very strongly that there is a god, and that it would be virtually impossible to change my mind?

If I could be sure that there was a god, then I'd probably be out there making with the forced conversions, but I understand that all of this is based on personal experience and private revelation, and that certainty isn't something that we have the luxury of in this life.

I'm constantly looking and reevaluating my beliefs, but I know in my heart of hearts that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Does that make me open minded or not?

I gotta say my mind is pretty closed.  Cause really...I respect individual opinions but I just can't honestly consider the world being flat.  With all the technological breakthroughs and various bits of evidence (that extends thousands of years in some cases), the concept of the world being flat is just too much for me to take seriously.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 15, 2007, 09:23:46 PM
My reason for asking, and ER touched upon this, is that anyone that SAYS they have an open mind have to be willing to admit that the other side (or ANY other side) could be right. I will admit, just like ER did, that I could be wrong. There could be a God, and he could be a spiteful bugger. That doesn't mean I'm going to really change the way I live, but I can say I'm willing to admit it's a possibility.

However, those that can't admit the other side could be right, as in those with a religion being unable to state that the "atheists" could be right, really shouldn't be taking part in a religious debate. They can't debate the issue at hand, they can only regurgitate their beliefs.

Of course. That might seem logical... However, more usefully, actually comparing and using the others' beliefs, or opinion, to further one's own point is of course a very good rhetorical tactic...

There are certain things that you simply cannot agree with, or compare to. The only thing that really matters, to me, is that you understand. Because once you do, you can begin to break down, analyze, and use what you understand. Now, whether that is the nature of existence or religious people...

It is possible and probable that people, and not natural phenomena or causality or the (non)existence of God, will be what ultimately baffles one most in the end. Other things just tend to be, while some people (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php?topic=2744.120)...

Quote from: Stygian on May 15, 2007, 10:23:01 PM

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 15, 2007, 09:23:46 PM
My reason for asking, and ER touched upon this, is that anyone that SAYS they have an open mind have to be willing to admit that the other side (or ANY other side) could be right. I will admit, just like ER did, that I could be wrong. There could be a God, and he could be a spiteful bugger. That doesn't mean I'm going to really change the way I live, but I can say I'm willing to admit it's a possibility.

However, those that can't admit the other side could be right, as in those with a religion being unable to state that the "atheists" could be right, really shouldn't be taking part in a religious debate. They can't debate the issue at hand, they can only regurgitate their beliefs.

Of course. That might seem logical... However, more usefully, actually comparing and using the others' beliefs, or opinion, to further one's own point is of course a very good rhetorical tactic...

There are certain things that you simply cannot agree with, or compare to. The only thing that really matters, to me, is that you understand. Because once you do, you can begin to break down, analyze, and use what you understand. Now, whether that is the nature of existence or religious people...

It is possible and probable that people, and not natural phenomena or causality or the (non)existence of God, will be what ultimately baffles one most in the end. Other things just tend to be, while some people (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php?topic=2744.120)...

I debate your point. I like to think of myself as an open-minded person. Do I think the Christians could be right about the afterlife? Sure. I'm willing to state that they could be, as could the Jews about the afterlife, the Hindu, Taoists, even the crazy suicidal Muslims with the 99 naked virgins waiting for them at the end of the road.

I doubt they're right, but for all I know, I can't prove it. There's no empirical evidence to say they're wrong, so my mind stays open on the matter... and hell, if I'm gonna be wrong on any count, let it be about 99 naked virgins.

Things I can say I don't agree with:

The world being flat - I seriously can't believe any one would believe this, because there's proof it's wrong.

Creationism - The world is more than 6000 years old, dinosaurs were not planted in the soil by the Devil, and humans came from monkeys. There's proof on most all of this, and before we get into a debate about evolution, it's called the "Theory of Evolution" in scinetific circles because it's got enough scientific proof behind it to be acknowledged as a scientific. If there was no science to back it up, it wouldn't be a theory, it'd just be a crazy idea some dud had when he got stoned.

The religion matters - It's not what you believe, but simply that you exploer the world, learn, and in the end, take what you've learned and let your soul grow.

If you lock yourself into one set of beliefs and can't think outside that set, where's the growth? Where's the ability to let you soul become more than it is?

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 15, 2007, 11:13:04 PMThings I can say I don't agree with:

...

Creationism

Ooh!  Do you lump Intelligent Design into that?

Because I think that needs to be taken out and ridiculed separately.  Because then we have two nutter theories to laugh at, not just one.

I usually lump them together. However, if you want to take on each separately, that's your right.

Personally, I don't see where all these intelegent design and creationism people get the idea that evolution and thier beliefs are incompatable.

The Theory of Evolution says things adapt so as to better survive, more efficiently function, that's it.

Intelegent design and creationism say that god (or a god) willfullt created life, the universe, and everything.

Nowhere does it say specifically how god created everything (except the whole rib thing with Eve), and everything in the bible can be interpreted within the structure of what science currently believes.

*completely random thought... will various religeous entities speak out against Spore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_%28video_game%29), claiming that it "unfairly" supports evolution, or praise it as an example of intelegently guided evolution, supporting Intelegent design?*

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 15, 2007, 11:49:03 PMI usually lump them together. However, if you want to take on each separately, that's your right.

Well, Creationism is internally consistent, and merely requires denying all evidence to the contrary.

Intelligent Design requires suspending all logic and declaring that whatever disproves your theory actually proves it.

Earlier, you said that it's possible that the other side is right.  By extension, it's entirely possible that Creationism is right and the dinosaur bones were placed there by the devil.

But based on the evidence that we have so far, it's not possible that Intelligent Design is right.

(Actually, modern Creationists don't claim that the dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by the devil.  They claim that Adam and Eve were in Eden with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago.)

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/superluser/dinosaurs_of_eden.jpg)

Quote from: Reese Tora on May 16, 2007, 12:19:32 AM

*completely random thought... will various religeous entities speak out against Spore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_%28video_game%29), claiming that it "unfairly" supports evolution, or praise it as an example of intelegently guided evolution, supporting Intelegent design?*

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=199

i am still upset that most people cannot tell the diffrence between evolution and evolutionisim.

evolution states that living things change over time. its proven, can be described as either 'survival of the fittest' or simply anything that can survive to breed passes its traits to its young and those that don't die,  and can be demonstrated in laboratory settings reliably. evolution is compatible with any deity and any faith other then 'bloody stupid and don't wanna listen'

evolutionisim states that man evolved from apes and all life can be traced back to single celled organisms. this usually contradicts the creation stories of most known religions. Darwin himself was appalled at this idea, and was a strong believer of creationism.

which one you believe is a matter of choice, but please keep your mind open before snapping at either. a growing number of scientists are reaching the conclusion that some form of divine entity exists, and that it exists in harmony with the science instead of in conflict.

QuoteDry clean only

Quotewhich one you believe is a matter of choice, but please keep your mind open before snapping at either. a growing number of scientists are reaching the conclusion that some form of divine entity exists, and that it exists in harmony with the science instead of in conflict.

How many of them are simply trying to justify their science to their religion?

QuoteActually, modern Creationists don't claim that the dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by the devil.  They claim that Adam and Eve were in Eden with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

That requires to suppositions that fly in the face of current scientific evidence:

1) That the earth is only 6000 year old.
2) That dinosaurs existed on this planet at the same time man did.

Unless you (not superluser specifically, just people that think this) really have the wool pulled over your eyes, you have to realize that science has disproved that

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on May 16, 2007, 02:17:58 AMi am still upset that most people cannot tell the diffrence between evolution and evolutionisim.

I usually hear that distinction as microevolution vs macroevolution.

Microevolution is the theory (like plate tectonics is a theory) that a single species can evolve over time and turn itself into something radically different.  For example, giraffes probably originally had shorter necks, but through natural selection, they now have extremely long necks.  There is an enormous amount of evidence backing up microevolution, and I walk away from debates with those who would deny it, since they probably couldn't be convinced that Stephen Jay Gould wasn't the antichrist.

Macroevolution is the theory (like General Relativity is a theory) that one species can evolve into one or more completely different species, incapable of interbreeding with the ancestor.  For example, Australopithecus afarensis evolving into Homo habilis, and then eventually Homo sapiens.  Until recently, there was very little evidence to support this (mainly H. habilis fossils end where H. erectus fossils begin, and that could be coincidence), but in the past 20 or so years, we have found significant evidence for it.  I can deal with people who don't believe in macroevolution because a lot of the evidence is new and just being evaluated.

And then there's gradualism/punctuated equilibrium.  I'll save that for another day.

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 16, 2007, 07:32:51 AMThat requires to suppositions that fly in the face of current scientific evidence:

1) That the earth is only 6000 year old.
2) That dinosaurs existed on this planet at the same time man did.

It's most common to see them claim that carbon dating is wrong.  After all, if the Earth must be 6000 years old, then carbon dating must be wrong, and the dinosaurs had to live with Adam and Eve--they were created on the same day.

(By the way, in case I haven't made myself clear, I believe that the universe is about 13B years old, the Earth is about 4B years old, life on Earth is about 2B years old, and that man descended from A. afarensis about 2M years ago, and evolved into H. s. sapiens about 50,000 years ago)

I think that if there really is a god-thing (I use that for lack of a better description) out there, it's so unfathomable and unlogical by our limited standards that even a hint of it's purpose couldn't be put in an instruction manual used by jews, then raped and pimped by the catholic, then protestant church.

In other words, if it's out there, as unlikely as that is to me, it's even more unlikely in my eyes it's something we ever touched upon.

I compare this to an example I use to myself in a way to keep my mind peaceful of "Trying my hardest to determine the furthest star from Earth". 

In other words, the further it is from us, and the harder we try to determine it's distance with insufficient abilities when we don't even really need to; the more we waste our time and screw up our minds and lives, which can be used for better, already discernable, recognitions and learnings.

When I walk out and look up at the sky and see three deities booming down three different messages (monty python style) directly at me, I'll stop and think it over, but I'm not going to try to figure it out with nothing but anecdotes.  The only conclusion I reach from what we have now is Atheism, and that's satisfactory to me.

My mind is pretty closed on what I've been brought up on, but it still doesn't mean I can't be nice to people :)

I knew a girl that stringently claimed to be Baha'i once, even though she didn't really understand it, simply because her parents raised her up on it.  She even tried to celebrate the holidays and shit by abstaining from meat/socks/whatever, and when asked why she was bothering she got real defensive even though she couldn't explain it.

I made her cry a few times. :(

in the olden days a child was baptized when they were about 12 or so, NOT at birth. this is better because you first taught the child about the religion and gave them the option of joining of their own free will when they were informed about the choice. however they were given only one choice and inevitably everyone chose baptism because the alternative was being labeled as a pagan, but the philosophy still stands.

FYI- the practice of baptizing infants started because people were afraid that the fey would steal the child or lay a curse on them. baptism would stop this apperantly and parents kept vigil all night to make sure the baby never left their sight before baptism for fear of little men.

my daughter is two and a half years old, she is not baptized despite my mother insisting we do so. we shall make sure our daughter learns about pretty much all the religions (i hate to say 'except the stupid ones' but if you get around enough you find there are some reaaaaaly dumb ones out there) and it shall be her own choice as to what religion she is. this is largely because a great many atheists are created when their parents force them onto religion, or rather forcing their kids into THEIR version of it instead of letting the child find it for themselves. its shocking how different individuals think the same religion is, many is the person who does evil and stupidity with the bible as an excuse and many is the person who finds love and enlightenment.

my wife strongly hopes our daughter decides to worship the Aesir, and i think thats pretty cool.

QuoteThere is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening, that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and will be lost.

Quote from: superluser on May 16, 2007, 11:06:47 AM
It's most common to see them claim that carbon dating is wrong.  After all, if the Earth must be 6000 years old, then carbon dating must be wrong, and the dinosaurs had to live with Adam and Eve--they were created on the same day.

(By the way, in case I haven't made myself clear, I believe that the universe is about 13B years old, the Earth is about 4B years old, life on Earth is about 2B years old, and that man descended from A. afarensis about 2M years ago, and evolved into H. s. sapiens about 50,000 years ago)

Never mind that 'day' is a minor mistranslation of a more general term that means 'time period.'

I think the only bible I'd ever trust to be literally correct would be an original copy in the original language... which I can't speak or read, so i'll never know.

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on May 16, 2007, 12:33:10 PMFYI- the practice of baptizing infants started because people were afraid that the fey would steal the child or lay a curse on them. baptism would stop this apperantly and parents kept vigil all night to make sure the baby never left their sight before baptism for fear of little men.

We do, however, find reference to infant baptism in Origen (185-254), Cyprian (?-258) and there are a few references to baptising a person and all in the household in Acts and one of Paul's letters, which was going on before 67 AD.

Mmm, baby in water... a little gralic, some onions... peppers, mushrooms, a little bacon for flavor...

Baby stew. Nummies.

why else would the fey want them so badly?

QuoteIt's an explosion of flavor. I'm working with some very unstable herbs.

Darkmoon has my mouth watering with just the mere mention of it. I think I'll have some tonight. >:3

Holy water, however, tastes horrid. and the chrism flavor never goes away- blehk!

QuoteI shall hug you and squeeze you and call you George.

Quote from: Reese Tora on May 16, 2007, 12:19:32 AM
Personally, I don't see where all these intelegent design and creationism people get the idea that evolution and thier beliefs are incompatable.

The Theory of Evolution says things adapt so as to better survive, more efficiently function, that's it.

Intelegent design and creationism say that god (or a god) willfullt created life, the universe, and everything.

Nowhere does it say specifically how god created everything (except the whole rib thing with Eve), and everything in the bible can be interpreted within the structure of what science currently believes.

Thank you.

They just kept repeating it over and over in that Simpsons episode as though it were something to take for granted.  Grah.

Just think how uneducated and uninteligent the early humans were when they first experienced anything resembling religon, it would probably go something like this.

God- Lo, mortal, bask in my glory for I bring you goodness and light!

Mortal- hiya!

God- Do you like the bananas? they took freaking forever to make.

Mortal- Really? they don't look all that complicated. I bet you could make, like, fifty of them in a minute.

God- Not really, I had to start with some plankton and keep tweaking it for a few centuries until it got advanced enough to support itself and provide some tasty extra matter. Its got phosphorous.

Mortal- huh?

God- You don't think I just go *snap* and make something new do you? I mean, I CAN but it doesn't work very well. it takes a long time of revisions and upgrades to make sure everything works in its surroundings and fits well in its designated role. Take you for example, primates weren't smart enough to be given a soul until two months ago, but I've been upgrading you sinse you were pretty much a chipmunk. I had high hopes for the dolphins, but they're too fixated on fish.

Mortal- err...I should worship the monkey?

God- How about I just say I made you out of dirt, does that work?

Mortal- makes sense to me!

God- Hoy! these little buggers give me a headache.... I'll send people down every now and again to make sure you guys figure stuff out for yourselves, okay?

Mortal- *sacrifices goat*

God- Stop that! Its annoying and a waste of good gyro meat.

QuoteLove is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.

You know..You should do stand up Muse...Your killing me...It will be your fault I laughed to death by your dry jokes

When creationists get all riled up over theory of evolution, pointing to the "made in my image" part of the bible, I just ask them how they know God isn't a monkey.

It doesn't usually calm them.

the 'created in my image' is always a tricky statement, because most likely it means having the light of reason instead of how you look...cause lets face it, people look nothing like each other.

i believe any supreme being will only look like a person if we will it to, otherwise any divine being is just a floating manifestation, think 'the force' in the way it permeates all things and is everywhere.

QuotePractice and thought might gradually forge many an art.

here's my question, what difference does it make how we got here?

Weather we evolved, were created by God,  or if some omnipotent alien lifeform grew us in a test tube and dropped us off on this planet, how does it change our view of humanity, humans are humans, if our entire species were to die off tomorrow or a hundred  thousand years from now we'd still be human only our bodies would be adapted to whatever environment we were placed in.

for instance, a dog remains a dog regardless of what breed it is. A Chihuahua is a dog and so is a Great Dane, I could also make the argument that wolves are canines therefore not a different species. 

Dolphins have populated the globe hand have many different varieties ranging from bottlenose, to pink, and beyond, and yet they remain dolphins.

All living things die, people are forgotten, and and the wages of all sin is death.

There is a school of thought that states it is irrelavent which happened, it goes like this.

1-either god or evolution creates humans, man exists for a time as an incredibly dumb creature afraid of lightning.

2- humans believe in god, the act of believing in god creates god. regardless of whether humans were originally created by god, due to gods current existence he always was.

3- humans disbelieve in god, thus god dwindles. regardless of whether god originally created man history changes itself to conform to the incredible power of the belief of 3 or 4 trillion humans

4- repeat steps 2, 3, and every few apocalypses repeat step 1

QuoteThe problem with political jokes is they get elected.

Quotehumans believe in god, the act of believing in god creates god

(http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/1087/1004/400/116917/tableeaters.jpg)

KILL THE WISE ONE!

Quote from: GabrielsThoughts on May 18, 2007, 03:16:22 PM
All living things die, people are forgotten, and and the wages of all sin is death.

The wages of sin is death, but so is the salary of virtue, and at least the wicked get to go home early on fridays...

My mind is open and things have tried to walk in only to be devoured by my mind. If something enters when i do not will it i will use extent of my being to force regret unto it's being. I will always listen but there is nothing in my mind and memory for them to see.

What?

Alot of people talk to me about thier problems and i will listen but if they try to butt into my buisness they pay for it.

:tmyk

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 18, 2007, 02:22:56 PMWhen creationists get all riled up over theory of evolution, pointing to the "made in my image" part of the bible, I just ask them how they know God isn't a monkey.

It doesn't usually calm them.

Heh.  That reminds me of Red Meat.  The priest asks God if we were really created in His image, and He says, ``Yes, but not how you think.  Picture a 20-billion-ton amphibious rodent...''

(Another good Red Meat about Creationism (http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/2006-02-21/index.html))

OMG superluser I used to love this comic back in the 18-20 year old days when I was working at Sega during the dreamcast era.  I had completely, totally, forgotten about it.

I FREAKING LOVE U

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 20, 2007, 09:23:48 AMI was working at Sega during the dreamcast era.

I LOVE YOU, MAN.

Why?  I just read comics all day.  :)

I guess you didn't go through my list, then. Red Meat is on there...

Didn't remember that's what it was called.  I associated it mostly with Milkman Dan.  :p

This has to be my favorite:

(http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/1997-09-22/index-1.gif)

agnostic- the belief that 'god is unknowable'. by definition any divine being and any plans or actions of such are so complex and profound that a human brain would both implode and explode simultaneously should they be informed. agnostic does not mean you disbelieve in god, merely that people who think they know what any given divine being wants or means should shove it.

why is it that only the truly stupid seem to believe that ONLY their views and opinions are valid? even among the Christians, so commonly globbed together in one pile, you have so many different little interpretations. for example one specific sect does not believe in medicine for it was not mentioned in the bible, another sect does not believe in twins claiming god would never split one person into two. yet these are extreme cases, the vast majority of Christians you have no idea they ARE Christians, they're just generic people going about their daily business and never once in thiner lives scream moronic phrases in protest or picket a soldiers funeral.

QuoteThere are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

I see unfortunately that you are familiar with Fred Phelps.

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on May 23, 2007, 12:28:15 PM
why is it that only the truly stupid seem to believe that ONLY their views and opinions are valid? even among the Christians, so commonly globbed together in one pile, you have so many different little interpretations. for example one specific sect does not believe in medicine for it was not mentioned in the bible, another sect does not believe in twins claiming god would never split one person into two. yet these are extreme cases, the vast majority of Christians you have no idea they ARE Christians, they're just generic people going about their daily business and never once in thiner lives scream moronic phrases in protest or picket a soldiers funeral.

There are people like that in just about every religion, the kind of people who go about their daily lives and not bother anyone.  I would think that they've got a healthier relationship with their respective deities than the ones who get up on soap boxes and scream out those moronic phrases.  I mean, IMHO, if you're comfortable with your god, then you'd think that you're more likely to keep your views to yourself and just be happy.  Some people just aren't comfortable until everyone around them agrees with them, and then the shouting starts when you have those who disagree.

Quote from: Ryudo Lee on May 23, 2007, 04:25:19 PMSome people just aren't comfortable until everyone around them agrees with them, and then the shouting starts when you have those who disagree.

Not necessarily.  If someone's trying to convince someone else of their beliefs, religious or otherwise, by shouting and not bothering to listen... well, I'm convinced that they have no idea what they're doing.

It's kind of self defeating to try to "convince" someone of a "belief" to begin with.  Something almost everyone is guilty of, though.

Religiosity has high heritability, however... and open mindedness... low.  They just need to stop wasting time on the open minded people.

Quote from: Evil Richter on May 29, 2007, 10:01:20 AM
It's kind of self defeating to try to "convince" someone of a "belief" to begin with.  Something almost everyone is guilty of, though.

i find this to be the big flaw with Islam. you hold a gun to someones head and say "convert or we will shoot you", i highly doubt that any of your converts will understand the religion and will only believe it so long as someone has a gun. During the time of mohammed he had only a handful of followers, in a few months time he controlled half the known world.

on the other hand i highly favor the Aesir, and they ran screaming at people swinging an axe wildly, but to give them credit they understood their religion was a choice and never cohered anyone to convert. they did however cohere people to hand over the good stuff, which is almost a bigoted remark too because most vikings spent the vast majority of thier time farming, fishing, and making bitchin pancakes.

QuoteScience knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.

Well, if you hold a gun to someone's head, and give them a choice, they are usually going to choose the one that (they think) involves them not getting shot, unless their resolve is stronger than their fear of death.  This brings to mind the Columbine situation.  I tell you, that had to be a brave fucker that was the first to say he or she didn't believe in God without first observing that people that said they did were getting whacked, as you might infer from such a question that the gunholder is a religious freak.  Strangely, you migh infer from such a situation that the shooters had a big problem with organized religion, instead of inferring that Doom told them to kill people; yet no one even really put much focus on this.

Anyway, thinking they are now Islamic because they made the choice of you not shooting them and identifying that as their free will to choose Islam is disregard for other people to the point of mental illness.

The average atheist is the same as any other religious nut-job, except they don't worship anything, don't go to Church, they've turned in their Bible for a copy of The Origin of Species, and think that Christianity and Islam are the only religions to exist, ever.(which is remarkably similar to Christians and Muslims)  The only reason we don't hear about how evil they are is that there were never enough of them in one place to justify the genocide of another group.

Most of them a nice, but the loud, annoying ones ruin it for the rest of us. 

Quote from: Axis on May 29, 2007, 04:34:29 PM
The average atheist is the same as any other religious nut-job, except they don't worship anything, don't go to Church, they've turned in their Bible for a copy of The Origin of Species, and think that Christianity and Islam are the only religions to exist, ever.(which is remarkably similar to Christians and Muslims)  The only reason we don't hear about how evil they are is that there were never enough of them in one place to justify the genocide of another group.

Most of them a nice, but the loud, annoying ones ruin it for the rest of us. 

Seriously, I think you need to get your facts straight on much of that, kid.

Yeah, reading that, 3 thoughts came into my mind.

1)  The poster is very young.
2)  The poster is inexperienced in religious diversity.
3)  The poster comes from a fundamentalist background.

What an impression you'd want to make, huh?

let me try to remember all of the current big religons left out of that brief list....without breaking into the 'every sperm is sacred' number


there are roughly the following numbers of the following religions
- Christianity: 2.1 billion
- Islam: 1.3 billion
- Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion, but this number is largely Agnostics
- Hinduism: 900 million
- Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
- Buddhism: 376 million
- primal-indigenous: 300 million
- African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
- Sikhism: 23 million
- Juche: 19 million
- Spiritism: 15 million
- Judaism: 14 million
- Baha'i: 7 million
- Jainism: 4.2 million
- Shinto: 4 million
- Cao Dai: 4 million
- Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
- Tenrikyo: 2 million
- Wicca: 1 million
- Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
- Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
- Scientology: 500 thousand

the following religions are large enough to be on the list but no number of followers can be found due to them pretending to be other religions for fear of being set on fire.

- Satanisim
- Aesir
- the cult of the beast
- Greko/roman pantheon
- Egyptian pantheon
- druids


and last and probably least i have no idea where Hari Krishna fits into the list, and recently 'jedi' was made a legal religion in the UK.

QuoteJust because someone's a member of an ethnic minority doesn't mean they're not a nasty small-minded little jerk

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 29, 2007, 10:23:46 PM

Quote from: Axis on May 29, 2007, 04:34:29 PM
The average atheist is the same as any other religious nut-job, except they don't worship anything, don't go to Church, they've turned in their Bible for a copy of The Origin of Species, and think that Christianity and Islam are the only religions to exist, ever.(which is remarkably similar to Christians and Muslims)  The only reason we don't hear about how evil they are is that there were never enough of them in one place to justify the genocide of another group.

Most of them a nice, but the loud, annoying ones ruin it for the rest of us. 

Seriously, I think you need to get your facts straight on much of that, kid.

Really?  So when I grossly generalize one group I need to check my facts, but when if I were to say that religion was a cancer on the human race and that all who put stock in it are crack-pots, I'm right?

Brunhidden da Muse:  That's funny that they included atheists into a larger group.  On top of that, note that I said "in one place".  Show me a map of the world and point to me the historical atheist belt.  Stalin was a very nice man, wasn't he?

Evil Richter:  Really, I'm not surprised at your answer from your attitude earlier in this very thread..

I got the kind of answers I expected. 

Pope Urban II was also a very nice man. Starting the Crusades and such. What an incredibly good idea.


Also, you're dead wrong. The average atheist is like the average theist, only without church. It's asinine to make generalizations like that. I'd expect that many atheists were afraid of religious people for a long while. It would have been the same as going into a church full of people and saying that you hate God...only you wouldn't have law to defend you quite so much.

Anyway, your superiority is showing and should be covered up. Oh, the indecency.

So, what you're saying is that we can both find examples of bad people from all groups in History?  Get out.  Belief doesn't mean anything on how people act? No way, I can't believe it.    It's like you just said what I did.

(blinks)

The idiocy is astounding...

Quote from: Axis on May 31, 2007, 04:27:20 PM
So, what you're saying is that we can both find examples of bad people from all groups in History?  Get out.  Belief doesn't mean anything on how people act? No way, I can't believe it.    It's like you just said what I did.

For all intensive purposes, I was refuting the commonly held notion that religion means instant moral perfection. Ergo, if the same notion were to be held for atheists, then that would imply that they have no morals. You having stated that the only reason they're not considered evil is because they were never in a group large enough (in one place, of course) to commit genocide. This is, to me, a prime example of that notion. Next question...

If you put an atheist and a theist next to each other in everyday life, will the atheist go around kicking puppies and punching babies while the theist gives money to the homeless? They obviously must, because it takes religion to have morals. Tell me, how many friends do you have that have been lynched by atheists? About as many as have been lynched by theists I'm betting.

QuoteThe idiocy is astounding...

You mean mine?

I've always had some very strong views about religion however I was trying to avoid this thread for fear of offending someone (everyone) as I often tend to when I start going off. But it's too tempting to pass up when it's the only thread in the GD being posted in at the moment so I'll go off on my usual tangent and should I offend someone (everyone) I'll just appologize profusely and delete the post.

*cracks knuckles*

First and foremost. I think organized religion as a whole, regardless of which one it is, is the most retarded thing to EVER grace this earth. A room full of dodo birds and lemmings would have more sense then the average church. Now don't get me wrong it's not religion that I have the problem with it's ORGANIZED religion. I have no problem with people having a faith, and idea, a dream for the afterlife and origins of our species. It's when these fuckers get organized that we start having problems. Everything from the douche bags in the middle east who seem to think that their god wants them to kill all his creations for god knows what reason or another, to the bible thumping little retards over here who take it to a whole new level and litterally thump a wiccan to death with bibles.

Where the hell do these miserable pricks get off thinking that saying 'lords work' means you're allowed to do whatever the hell you want wherever you want and by any means. Honestly every single freaking person who goes to church is insane. Even if you don't take part in the same shenanigans as the previously listed, you're still adding to their numbers and giving them even more justification. As far as I'm concerned, and you can call me conceited for this, the only religion on earth that makes sense to me is Agnosticism. Not just because it's the one I follow, but because it's the ONLY one that I have yet to hear any stories of it's followers going out and inflicting some form of suffering on another living thing in it's name. That and buddism. So yeah two religions but I haven't learned much about buddism, they seem alright in my books but I found agnosticism first and stuck with it. All the other ones seem completely off the wall retarded the further into them I get. Specifically the big ones though. Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and whatever the hell the Jehovah's follow.

Now truth be told I have a crack pot idea of my own. Keep in mind I said idea. I don't believe this is 100% true, just something I think seems plausible. Before I go on a further tirade lemme illuminate. I think creationism and evolution both happend. I think their is a god or some higher thing out there (hoping for the triple fish god) but regardless. My posturing is that the diety created all this wonderful stuff we call existance. Then sometime later decided to reach down and bless some of his playthings. In my opinion Adam and Eve were a couple of primates that 'he' blessed with a slightly more advanced learning capability, causing a branch off of evolution that over time resulted in man as we are now. I've got a bunch of other stuff involving this but like I said it's all ideas and such. The equivalent of Amber going on about story ideas, because I have NO FREAKING PROOF of it.

Which brings me back to the others. That's one of the things that really get's my goat. They all have NO FREAKING PROOF. Just a goddam book written BY MEN who CLAIM to have been guided in it's writing by some higher power. Y'know what if I drink enough you'd be surprised what higher powers will have me write. These 'saints' of the past are exactly the same as the homeless guy who stands up on the street corner and says god came to him and told him stuff. The only difference is we lock the homeless guy up and call him crazy, and these other douche bags go down in history as world changing thinkers. HELL even today, the freaking pope said he had a sitdown with god and together they freaking decided that all babies get into heaven. Oh well gee how nice, the two of them had a chat and decided babies get into heaven. HOW THE HELL DO YOU JUST PENCIL IN A FREAKING SITDOWN WITH GOD. What the hell?? Does his day planner just say '8am breakfast, 10am sanctify pool, 12pm tea and cookies with god' dammit! The worst part is people freaking believe him, JUST BECAUSE HE'S THE POPE. No other reason other then that. He's a guy, elected by popular vote, given a really big hat and control of several million people. The only difference between him and the president of the USA is the president get's a big house instead of the hat!

I haven't looked much into islam. Considering I keep hearing about it's followers blowing themselves up in the name of their version of god leads me to believe I don't WANT to know about islam. I don't want to know how you justify blowing yourself and many other people up in the name of something that, you believe does but, might not exist. Honestly, if you gave me undeniable proof that say my family and every member of it after that through out time would live happy, healthy, and well off if I blew myself up right now. If you gave me a crack team of lawyers who went over every detail in quadruplicate and found without a shadow of a doubt it was one hundred percent true and there was a plethora of hard evidence to back it up. I'd consider doing it, heck I might even wind up doing it though somewhat reluctanctly. I do like living after all.

If you told me 'Jebus said to' I'd tell you to fuck yourself faster then the human eye can blink.

*cracks knuckles again*

Anyways my major gripe still stands with these retards who feel the need to harm others in the name of yon big cheese in the sky. I don't care how bad ass and awesome your god is. You do NOT have the right to hurt others for it. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all about harming my fellow man, when they deserve it. But not for retarded reasons that have no merrit in society. Unless god drops down and stands over us all PHYSICALLY 'he' has no merrit on this plane.

I'm done for now. If I write too much it'll take too long for people to go over and disect the hell outta my post. I'll write more after everyone's griped about parts of what I said, gonna go get some soda and air for now.

whatthafuck

Sorry?


Umm should i just delete that post. The fact that the board has gone completely silent is making me paranoid >.<

You're fine. Fear not...

And the idiocy comment was directed at Axis.

*resumes breathing*

Quote from: Netrogo on May 31, 2007, 05:07:50 PM
Umm should i just delete that post. The fact that the board has gone completely silent is making me paranoid >.<

Damaris doesn't like it when people delete things. It makes her angry. You won't like her when she's angry.

... she also turns green. Darkmoon doesn't like that, either. So, uh, don't delete stuff, k? ;-]

Quote from: Netrogo on May 31, 2007, 04:54:56 PM
I've always had some very strong views about religion however I was trying to avoid this thread for fear of offending someone (everyone) as I often tend to when I start going off. But it's too tempting to pass up when it's the only thread in the GD being posted in at the moment so I'll go off on my usual tangent and should I offend someone (everyone) I'll just appologize profusely and delete the post.

I don't think you'll offend anyone. We're all reasonable people, more or less. As long as it's "this is my opinion" and not "you should believe me because I'm smarter" - everyone knows I'm the smartest one on this forum, so I win all those arguments. :-]

Quote from: Netrogo on May 31, 2007, 04:54:56 PM
First and foremost. I think organized religion as a whole, regardless of which one it is, is the most retarded thing to EVER grace this earth.

No, go on. Tell us what you -really- think. :-]

Did they really beat some poor Wiccan to death with bibles? The world has a new low... :-/

Quote from: Netrogo on May 31, 2007, 04:54:56 PM
HELL even today, the freaking pope said he had a sitdown with god and together they freaking decided that all babies get into heaven.

Actually, the Pope is not infallible, if you look closely. Many people believe he is, but it's only when he speaks "ex cathedra" that he's supposed to be infallible.

According to Wikipedia, that's been used once, in 1950, in the time since it was confirmed, back in 1870.

I'm not sure if his current outpouring of sympathy counts as ex cathedra or not, though.

Quote from: Netrogo on May 31, 2007, 04:54:56 PM
I'm done for now. If I write too much it'll take too long for people to go over and disect the hell outta my post. I'll write more after everyone's griped about parts of what I said, gonna go get some soda and air for now.

Heh. Let me reiterate - you're among friends. Of sorts. :-]


By the way, do you read Russell's Teapot?

Can't say that I do. What might it be, and is it full of ranting goodness?

Sorry about seeming a might paranoid, guess I'm still testing the waters a bit here :<

http://russellsteapot.com/

It's a webcomic, by an atheist, taking the piss out of organised catholicism.

Enjoy.

QuoteReally?  So when I grossly generalize one group I need to check my facts, but when if I were to say that religion was a cancer on the human race and that all who put stock in it are crack-pots, I'm right?

Your cunning attempt at "turning the tables", fails miserably.  The situation doesn't allow for it to be reversed without sounding a bit silly.

QuoteEvil Richter:  Really, I'm not surprised at your answer from your attitude earlier in this very thread..

You read all that shit?  Man, jokes on you.

QuoteI got the kind of answers I expected.

If you expected them, why bother baiting for them?  Did our replies somehow win you a new car? 

Netrogo:  I rather like your take on things, and wasn't offended at all.

He's not someone you can even talk to He is so locked in on his point of view, the idea of any other point of view only angers him.

Probably because he's really, deep down, afraid of anything that contradicts is narrow, shaky world.

With that in mind, I doubt there's anything to be gained from trying to have a religious debate with him. I think we all know exactly where he stands.

*stamps feet*

AWWW!  Don't ruin my schadenfreude!

Hey man, if you want to go beat your head against a wall, be my guest. I am just doing my small part to make sure you know the truth before you do it anyway.

:tmyk

Some people just like beating the dead horse :mwaha

I prefer to beat... other things...

:meat

Like Aria?

Quote from: Darkmoon on May 31, 2007, 08:36:43 PMHe's not someone you can even talk to He is so locked in on his point of view, the idea of any other point of view only angers him.

I somehow missed both of his most recent posts, until ER quoted them.

Then I went back to read them. :redrum

The comments are like those from a mind without any intellectual rigor at all.

P.S. I wanted to comment on this before, but my desire to not comment was stronger.

Quote from: Axis on May 29, 2007, 04:34:29 PMMost of them a nice, but the loud, annoying ones ruin it for the rest of us.

I agree.  Most of us Christians are nice, but the loud, annoying ones ruin it for the rest of us.

No, I firmly believe that Axis can be saved with the power of Satan.   :bunny

The power of Christ compels you to beat off. The power of Christ compels you to beat off.

Holy shit, the top 3 threads are religion threads. FORUM RUINED IMO

I'll fix it... two seconds...

Jesus is coming... someone grab a towel.

I really should post the lyrics to "Revelation 22:20" by Puscifer. It's appropriate, all things considered.

Just to help the process of slowly ridding the forum of religious threads....

*ahem* Bill blows goats!


*bows* Thank you, that is all.