Give me at least 5 good reasons... [Archive]

relaxxx

10-20-2008, 05:10 AM

Being an atheist, I figure I can convince you better than anyone:

God created man in his image, but God is everything, so the universe is man but not real man, soul man. Everything is heaven but also hell and includes nothing. God which is everything is perfect but felt the need to project souls (which are part God everything but individuals somehow) into great misery because everything is heaven and hell and you can't be a perfect bipolar schizophrenic sadist God without being part masochist. Now souls are divine unless they're demons and matter doesn't fucking matter at all especially gray matter which is only trapping your masochistic soul. So you should definitely believe in God because suffering = hell = heaven = bliss = eternal God damnation. In short, be religious, be ignorant, spread disease and rape the planet, vote republican and do your best to destroy the matter that doesn't matter and that's why evolution is an evil lie!

DonGenaro

10-20-2008, 06:40 AM

stalk

10-20-2008, 06:43 AM

develop your own philosophy.
Universal wisdom can be found in everything.

Hoatzin

10-20-2008, 06:48 PM

why i should convert to your [any] religion? if i'm convinced, maybe i'll do it. my soul is in your hands, people. haha

5. My religion is the only true one.
5. If you believe in it, good things will happen to you.
5. If you don't believe in it, bad things will happen to you.
5. If you sit on the fence and don't believe in anything, bad things will happen also to you, but they won't be quite as bad.
5. Free ice-cream?

kaminoishiki

10-20-2008, 09:12 PM

why i should convert to your [any] religion? if i'm convinced, maybe i'll do it. my soul is in your hands, people. haha

Grow up, please.

SashaK

10-20-2008, 09:16 PM

5. My religion is the only true one.
5. If you believe in it, good things will happen to you.
5. If you don't believe in it, bad things will happen to you.
5. If you sit on the fence and don't believe in anything, bad things will happen also to you, but they won't be quite as bad.
5. Free ice-cream?

WHat kind of ice cream?

Indica.Skye

10-20-2008, 09:53 PM

Grow up, please.

you know, this post is supposed to be part joke. get a sense of humor, please.

Sig

10-20-2008, 09:53 PM

why i should convert to your [any] religion? if i'm convinced, maybe i'll do it. my soul is in your hands, people. haha

I can tell you that mine doesn't want someone who can be swayed by postings on an internet forum.

Indica.Skye

10-20-2008, 11:13 PM

I can tell you that mine doesn't want someone who can be swayed by postings on an internet forum.

i've done my own studies on various religions. i just wanted some peoples' input. by the way, are you jewish?

kaminoishiki

10-21-2008, 12:03 AM

you know, this post is supposed to be part joke. get a sense of humor, please.

You seem like a troll fishing for a fight to enforce your own sense of security. People take their religion very seriously, I apologize if I am incorrect, and if you are genuinely looking for answers then the best place to look is inwards.

Hoatzin

10-21-2008, 12:25 AM

WHat kind of ice cream?

That is for your soul to decide?

Hoatzin

10-21-2008, 12:28 AM

You seem like a troll fishing for a fight to enforce your own sense of security. People take their religion very seriously, I apologize if I am incorrect, and if you are genuinely looking for answers then the best place to look is inwards.

What is unreasonable about the question being asked? If people take their religion seriously then why would they be offended by a question about why they do so? Surely someone who was serious about their religion would be able to tell you what's so great about it.

I don't think you're actually offended, by the way. I think you're just sticking up for people who might be offended. And that makes you Hitler and Mary Whitehouse's bastard lovechild.

Okiefreak

10-21-2008, 01:18 AM

Okiefreak

10-21-2008, 01:30 AM

why i should convert to your [any] religion? if i'm convinced, maybe i'll do it. my soul is in your hands, people. haha
First some definitions. Spirituality: a sense of awe and ecstasy over the wonder of the universe and our existence. Religion: a set of group-shared beliefs trying to make sense of the experience and rituals and organizational structures to celebrate it. Our pastor recently gave a sermon on the theme that we have far too much religion and not enough spirituality in the world, so he's not much help. Neither am I, since I think you should express your spirituality in a manner most in keeping with your own instincts and judgment, rather than necessarily convert to my religion or anyone else's. Open yourself to the Spirit. (S)he will guide you.

OlderWaterBrother

10-21-2008, 01:35 AM

Sorry, I can't give you five.

I can only give you one.

There is really only one reason to believe anything and that's you are what you believe. So a person should believe those things that help him be who he wants to be.

Indica.Skye

10-21-2008, 03:00 AM

You seem like a troll fishing for a fight to enforce your own sense of security. People take their religion very seriously, I apologize if I am incorrect, and if you are genuinely looking for answers then the best place to look is inwards.

and you seem like someone with nothing better to do than trying to make something plain into something offensive. That's not the way I meant it, it's just a thread on a forum. Stop posting if you don't have anything to say that pertains to my question.

Indica.Skye

10-21-2008, 03:03 AM

First some definitions. Spirituality: a sense of awe and ecstasy over the wonder of the universe and our existence. Religion: a set of group-shared beliefs trying to make sense of the experience and rituals and organizational structures to celebrate it. Our pastor recently gave a sermon on the theme that we have far too much religion and not enough spirituality in the world, so he's not much help. Neither am I, since I think you should express your spirituality in a manner most in keeping with your own instincts and judgment, rather than necessarily convert to my religion or anyone else's. Open yourself to the Spirit. (S)he will guide you.

Thank you. This is one of the answers that I was hoping to get. Personally, I can't think of any one religion that matches everything I believe. It's better to be spiritual than religious. for me anyway.

xexon

10-21-2008, 03:18 AM

Reasons are like sperm. They are produced in great numbers.

But only one is needed to change your life.

x

Sig

10-21-2008, 03:04 PM

by the way, are you jewish?

No, I am not.

Ukr-Cdn

10-21-2008, 05:35 PM

Being an athiest...

In short, be religious, be ignorant, spread disease and rape the planet, vote republican and do your best to destroy the matter that doesn't matter and that's why evolution is an evil lie!

This is quite possibly the best example of atheistic ignorance I've ever seen on these fora.

Indica.Skye

10-21-2008, 11:07 PM

Reasons are like sperm. They are produced in great numbers.

But only one is needed to change your life.

x

lol thats perfect.

Hoatzin

10-21-2008, 11:54 PM

This is quite possibly the best example of atheistic ignorance I've ever seen on these fora.

That's a rather spurious connection; it would be ignorance regardless of whether the user was an atheist.

The Instinct

10-22-2008, 12:39 AM

Ukr-Cdn

10-22-2008, 12:46 AM

This thread has wound up making me laugh! Thanks for posting it. If someone is so damn serious about their religion to get angry at someone for not believing it than obviously a religion can be wrong. Spirituality is definitely the way to go. Lol, their is a saying that "opinions are like assholes and everyone's got one"...I have a rephrase of that saying "religions are like assholes, every one stinks the other out" :D

No, I was merely pointing out that he made sweeping comments along the lines of "All Christians vote Republican and kill Iraqi babies". Not that he critiqued my religion. I critque mine all the time.

I guess I should have meant arrogance, because ignorance denotes a lack of knowledge. I am sure relaxxx knows that all religious people aren't like that, but will forget that to make his point. I used the qualifier "atheistic" there because of Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens they ususally prop themselves as either morally and intellectually equal or superior to practicioners of religions as well as possessing more reason. That attitude is prett arrogant in my opinion. Just like a Christian who hates gays is an example of Christian intolerance, relaxx can be an example of atheistic arrogance. does that mean that athiests are all arrogant, or that relaxx is always arrogant, no. He merely demonstrated an atheistic arrogance.

relaxxx

10-22-2008, 04:44 AM

This is quite possibly the best example of atheistic ignorance I've ever seen on these fora.

Thanks for the compliment but my "ignorant" parody of the religious mind couldn't possibly come close to the horrifically bone chilling ignorance contained in a real creationists delusional mind.

LOL, atheistic ignorance! Let me know when atheists start flying planes into building while screaming "praise science!".

Ukr-Cdn

10-22-2008, 06:33 PM

Thanks for the compliment but my "ignorant" parody of the religious mind couldn't possibly come close to the horrifically bone chilling ignorance contained in a real creationists delusional mind.

LOL, atheistic ignorance! Let me know when atheists start flying planes into building while screaming "praise science!".

Thanks for creating a straw man for all religious believers. My point was that your logic is flawed. You seem to believe that if you are religious, you believe in young earth creation and vote republican. That couldn't be farthr from the truth. I don't commit acts of violence in the name of my religion. I condone acts of violence in general.

Again, I wish to rephrase when I originally wrote "ignorant" I meant arrogant. you seem to believe that because you imply that religion is bad, and therefore you are good. Maybe the "creationist mind" isn't a product of religion, but a product of delusions in general. I think Dawkins is delusional to believe that if religion was wiped off the map tomorrow that all the problems in Ireland would vanish because republican and layalist are merely euphamisms for Catholic and Protestant, as he argues in The God Delusion. Atheists aren't immune to delisions either.

Bonkai

10-22-2008, 08:02 PM

Top 5 reasons to join my religion.

5. You will find that all humans are all roots of the same tree, and tolerance and understanding will envelope your soul.

4. Learning is the most important commandment to follow, as a human you will never be all knowing so you will be in a constant search of knowledge.

3. There is no church so no tides or offerings, what you earn is what you keep. However donating your money or time to the less fortunate is always encouraged.

2. All sexual orientations are accepted,we only discriminate against pedophiles.

1. You are required to have sex or masturbate at least once a week. Orgasms are a gift from god and they should be cherished just like our 5 senses.

Hoatzin

10-22-2008, 09:27 PM

No, I was merely pointing out that he made sweeping comments along the lines of "All Christians vote Republican and kill Iraqi babies". Not that he critiqued my religion. I critque mine all the time.

I guess I should have meant arrogance, because ignorance denotes a lack of knowledge. I am sure relaxxx knows that all religious people aren't like that, but will forget that to make his point. I used the qualifier "atheistic" there because of Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens they ususally prop themselves as either morally and intellectually equal or superior to practicioners of religions as well as possessing more reason. That attitude is prett arrogant in my opinion. Just like a Christian who hates gays is an example of Christian intolerance, relaxx can be an example of atheistic arrogance. does that mean that athiests are all arrogant, or that relaxx is always arrogant, no. He merely demonstrated an atheistic arrogance.

I don't think he said "Christian". I think he actually said "religious". There's a difference.

And how is a Christian who hates homosexuality any more "intolerant" than a Christian who hates murder, or theft?

Ukr-Cdn

10-22-2008, 10:03 PM

I don't think he said "Christian". I think he actually said "religious". There's a difference.

And how is a Christian who hates homosexuality any more "intolerant" than a Christian who hates murder, or theft?
True, he did only say religious, but I was using an analogy with a specific example.

Again, I am trying not to make my own belief statements here. I was analyizing another persons apparent beliefs about "religious people". The reason I used homosexuality as an example, is because that is one that is often touted in the media and on these forums as a way that Chrsitians are hypocrites (you get arguements like: Jesus hung out with prostitues, therefore he also would have hung out with homosexuals in todays society. Therefore when Christians "minister" to homosexuals by telling them that they are immoral they are being intolerant. I also could have said that a Christian who says that Hindu's worship the devil is an example of Christian intolerance). My point was that people use a religion or worldview as an adjective often. I bet I could find at least a few threads in the Christianity forum that have "christian intolerance" in the title...

Hoatzin

10-22-2008, 10:30 PM

Again, I am trying not to make my own belief statements here. I was analyizing another persons apparent beliefs about "religious people". The reason I used homosexuality as an example, is because that is one that is often touted in the media and on these forums as a way that Chrsitians are hypocrites (you get arguements like: Jesus hung out with prostitues, therefore he also would have hung out with homosexuals in todays society. Therefore when Christians "minister" to homosexuals by telling them that they are immoral they are being intolerant. I also could have said that a Christian who says that Hindu's worship the devil is an example of Christian intolerance). My point was that people use a religion or worldview as an adjective often. I bet I could find at least a few threads in the Christianity forum that have "christian intolerance" in the title...

Indeed, my point though was that there are plenty of things which Christians could be expected to be intolerant of as part of their religion - a murderer, or a homosexual, an adulterer or a usurer. It's then down to the Christian in question to decide whether to follow all the rules, or just the ones that they think "count".

Same with any religion that has degrees of observancy. There's no particular reason why any rule of a religion should be more or less important, just because it does or doesn't concur with broader societal mores.

relaxxx

10-22-2008, 10:49 PM

You give me too much credit. I have ZERO tolerance for religion.

When not one person can logically define or explain God, it becomes very easy to become atheistically arrogant. It's like being the only adult trapped in a room with preschoolers.

Faith is a conviction of ignorance.
Religion is organized ignorance.
Together, faith and religion kill millions.
They have laid waste to entire countries.
They have crippled America.
They have damaged the quality of my life and every life on this planet.

Hoatzin

10-22-2008, 11:02 PM

OlderWaterBrother

10-23-2008, 12:00 AM

Indeed, my point though was that there are plenty of things which Christians could be expected to be intolerant of as part of their religion - a murderer, or a homosexual, an adulterer or a usurer. It's then down to the Christian in question to decide whether to follow all the rules, or just the ones that they think "count".

Same with any religion that has degrees of observancy. There's no particular reason why any rule of a religion should be more or less important, just because it does or doesn't concur with broader societal mores.A Christian is to hate what is bad, not hate those who have done bad things. There is a difference.

A Christian who doesn't follow the "rules" really isn't a Christian is he? He might call himself a Christian but he is no longer a footstep follower of the Christ.

Hoatzin

10-23-2008, 12:13 AM

A Christian is to hate what is bad, not hate those who have done bad things. There is a difference.

Well maybe, but then, there seems to be far more argument over whether homosexuality is bad than over whether murder i bad.

A Christian who doesn't follow the "rules" really isn't a Christian is he? He might call himself a Christian but he is no longer a footstep follower of the Christ.

Well, that's debateable. I guess some would argue that not everything in the Bible needs to be taken as read, since none of it is the firsthand word of Christ, and some bits seem to be wholly out of character for him.

I personally have no idea. I wouldn't choose a religion to follow that couldn't sum up its ethos in a sentence. One that still has room for schism and pontification at the end of a 900-page book is clearly out of the question.

OlderWaterBrother

10-23-2008, 12:13 AM

You give me too much credit. I have ZERO tolerance for religion.It's good to see your atheism has made you so tolerant.

When not one person can logically define or explain God, it becomes very easy to become atheistically arrogant. It's like being the only adult trapped in a room with preschoolers.I’m sure many people have logically both defined and explained God to you. It sounds like you just don’t want to hear it.

There is no man so deaf as a man who won’t listen.

Faith is a conviction of ignorance.
Religion is organized ignorance.
Together, faith and religion kill millions.
They have laid waste to entire countries.
They have crippled America.
They have damaged the quality of my life and every life on this planet.
And the USSR set such a fine example of what being atheist can do for the world.

OlderWaterBrother

10-23-2008, 12:33 AM

Well maybe, but then, there seems to be far more argument over whether homosexuality is bad than over whether murder is bad. Maybe so among those who don’t read the Bible but among readers of the Bible, they are both bad acts.

Well, that's debatable. I guess some would argue that not everything in the Bible needs to be taken as read, since none of it is the firsthand word of Christ, and some bits seem to be wholly out of character for him. Yes, it is debatable and the debate rages on but for those who believe the Bible to be the word of God, there isn’t much debate on it.

I personally have no idea. I wouldn't choose a religion to follow that couldn't sum up its ethos in a sentence. One that still has room for schism and pontification at the end of a 900-page book is clearly out of the question.One sentence? How about: All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them.

And if you allow me two: You must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’

As for schism and pontification, that has more to do with thinking “that not everything in the Bible needs to be taken as read, since none of it is the firsthand word of Christ, and some bits seem to be wholly out of character for him” than what the Bible actually says

relaxxx

10-23-2008, 03:19 AM

I’m sure many people have logically both defined and explained God to you. It sounds like you just don’t want to hear it.

I've yet to here a decent explanation yet, but please be my guest! I'm dying to hear it from you or anyone.

Indica.Skye

10-23-2008, 03:28 AM

relaxxx

10-23-2008, 04:03 AM

How have they crippled America? America was founded by Europe's religious rejects, it's basically always been like that. It's not crippled unless there's something wrong with it.

You're making a pretty trite argument, relaxxx. It amazes me that it actually offends anyone.

My grandparents went to religiously segregated schools, religion and church were the hub and cornerstone of all communities. Back then If you weren't religious you were dead. Are you telling me Europe was any different 100 years ago? The world is crawling out of a religious dark age, some places faster than others. America is a pretty damn progressives corner of the world in that respect but the last 8 years of the Bush Administration slipped em' back a few notches, that and blew the kneecaps out of the economy to boot.

Okiefreak

10-23-2008, 04:25 AM

Well maybe, but then, there seems to be far more argument over whether homosexuality is bad than over whether murder i bad.
Which is odd, because Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality. Nothing about abortion either. If you look at the things he preached against, divorce, uncharitableness, and hypocrisy seem to be the big three. Are some politicians in trouble? Abusing children also ranks high.

In relative terms, same-sex relations doesn't seem to have been a major concern in the Bible. The number of references to homosexuality in the Bible is relatively small and ambiguous. In the Old Testament, the tale of Sodom and Gomorah was about gang rape and inhospitality. The "Holiness Code" of Leviticus was promulgated to ensure a clear separation between Hebrews and their Babylonian captors. Separation and clarity of roles was the central theme. So no mixing of meat and milk, sowing two different crops together, mixing different kinds of thread or yarn (no cotton polyester blends), etc. And men must be men in their sexual roles--i.e., dominant--and not use or let others assume a sexually submissive role. Hebrew sexology was also concerned about the wasting of the male seed (sin of Onan), which homosexuality would involve. In the New Testament, most of Paul's condemntaions seem to refer to temple prostitution and pederasty (sexual use of young boys by older men). Romans 1 reflects the prevailing belief in natural law, and the idea that it was "unnatural" to lust after people of the same sex. But the idea of loving, egalitarian relations among same-sex persons was not addressed because it was unknown.

OlderWaterBrother

10-23-2008, 04:51 AM

I've yet to here a decent explanation yet, but please be my guest! I'm dying to hear it from you or anyone.You see the problem isn't generally in the explaination, the problem is usually in the listener, even Jesus who was the greatest teacher that ever lived, did not convince everyone he talked to. Some people just don't want to listen.

OlderWaterBrother

10-23-2008, 05:01 AM

Which is odd, because Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality. Nothing about abortion either. If you look at the things he preached against, divorce, uncharitableness, and hypocrisy seem to be the big three. Are some politicians in trouble? Abusing children also ranks high.

In relative terms, same-sex relations doesn't seem to have been a major concern in the Bible. The number of references to homosexuality in the Bible is relatively small and ambiguous. In the Old Testament, the tale of Sodom and Gomorah was about gang rape and inhospitality. The "Holiness Code" of Leviticus was promulgated to ensure a clear separation between Hebrews and their Babylonian captors. Separation and clarity of roles was the central theme. So no mixing of meat and milk, sowing two different crops together, mixing different kinds of thread or yarn (no cotton polyester blends), etc. And men must be men in their sexual roles--i.e., dominant--and not use or let others assume a sexually submissive role. Hebrew sexology was also concerned about the wasting of the male seed (sin of Onan), which homosexuality would involve. In the New Testament, most of Paul's condemntaions seem to refer to temple prostitution and pederasty (sexual use of young boys by older men). Romans 1 reflects the prevailing belief in natural law, and the idea that it was "unnatural" to lust after people of the same sex. But the idea of loving, egalitarian relations among same-sex persons was not addressed because it was unknown.You seem to be over thinking this a bit. The Bible plainly says that Men who lie with Men will not inherit the kingdom. Simply it means those who continue to pursue homosexual acts can't consider themselves Christians. Christianty does not disquailify someone for what they've done but for what they continue to do or practice.

OlderWaterBrother

10-23-2008, 05:24 AM

My grandparents went to religiously segregated schools, religion and church were the hub and cornerstone of all communities. Back then If you weren't religious you were dead. Are you telling me Europe was any different 100 years ago? The world is crawling out of a religious dark age, some places faster than others. America is a pretty damn progressives corner of the world in that respect but the last 8 years of the Bush Administration slipped em' back a few notches, that and blew the kneecaps out of the economy to boot.A religious dark age?

Religion is responsible for the failed economy?

Well, religion is just the boogyman to you isn't it.

Do you really believe if religion was done away with all mankinds problems would be solved?

As I pointed out to you eariler, the atheistic USSR didn't seem to be a bright beacon of truth, justice and salvation for mankind.

Hoatzin

10-23-2008, 07:03 PM

Maybe so among those who don’t read the Bible but among readers of the Bible, they are both bad acts.

Yes, it is debatable and the debate rages on but for those who believe the Bible to be the word of God, there isn’t much debate on it.

And thus, millions are absolved of any responsibility for their own opinions.

One sentence? How about: All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them.

"Do as you would be done by", in other words? Well that's fine (although it doesn't actually demand the existence of a god, isn't unique to Christianity, and doesn't sum up the Christian religion in its entirety), but it doesn't explain, say, The Crusades. Were the Knights Templar only killing Muslims because they'd be totally fine with being killed right back? If so, isn't that basically suicide?

And if you allow me two: You must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

As for schism and pontification, that has more to do with thinking “that not everything in the Bible needs to be taken as read, since none of it is the firsthand word of Christ, and some bits seem to be wholly out of character for him” than what the Bible actually says

Well yes, and pretty much every political/ideological system would work just fine if everyone agreed with it, from communism to fascism. But it's not like the Bible never contradicts itself.

In relative terms, same-sex relations doesn't seem to have been a major concern in the Bible. The number of references to homosexuality in the Bible is relatively small and ambiguous. In the Old Testament, the tale of Sodom and Gomorah was about gang rape and inhospitality. The "Holiness Code" of Leviticus was promulgated to ensure a clear separation between Hebrews and their Babylonian captors. Separation and clarity of roles was the central theme. So no mixing of meat and milk, sowing two different crops together, mixing different kinds of thread or yarn (no cotton polyester blends), etc. And men must be men in their sexual roles--i.e., dominant--and not use or let others assume a sexually submissive role. Hebrew sexology was also concerned about the wasting of the male seed (sin of Onan), which homosexuality would involve. In the New Testament, most of Paul's condemntaions seem to refer to temple prostitution and pederasty (sexual use of young boys by older men). Romans 1 reflects the prevailing belief in natural law, and the idea that it was "unnatural" to lust after people of the same sex. But the idea of loving, egalitarian relations among same-sex persons was not addressed because it was unknown.

I'm well aware of this. I do wonder how much of the Bible is just reflecting the politics of the day though. Is it a sin to "waste" sperm because God anticipated a planet with 6 billion people on it in two thousand years time and thought "Fuck yeah, let's get some of that going on"?

I have to say though, I strongly doubt that "egalitarian relations among same-sex persons [...] was unknown", unless you believe that homosexuality is somehow a modern invention.

Hoatzin

10-23-2008, 07:04 PM

You seem to be over thinking this a bit. The Bible plainly says that Men who lie with Men will not inherit the kingdom. Simply it means those who continue to pursue homosexual acts can't consider themselves Christians. Christianty does not disquailify someone for what they've done but for what they continue to do or practice.

So as long as you repent on your deathbed you're okay?

relaxxx

10-24-2008, 01:20 AM

Do you really believe if religion was done away with all mankinds problems would be solved?

I never said that, don't put words in my mouth and obscure my point!

As I pointed out to you eariler, the atheistic USSR didn't seem to be a bright beacon of truth, justice and salvation for mankind.

Cults of personality are essentially religions, organized ignorance.

There's no doubt in my mind that the world would be a better place without organized ignorance. Mankind needs to wake up and drop their convictions of ignorance toward fairytales and their convictions of ignorance toward greedy assholes.

-

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too - - - - Fuck yeah!!!
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

- John Lennon, Imagine

OlderWaterBrother

10-24-2008, 02:31 AM

And thus, millions are absolved of any responsibility for their own opinions. Well, no! If someone accepts the opinions of someone else and chooses to make them his own, that does not absolve him of any responsibility for those opinions.

"Do as you would be done by", in other words? Well that's fine (although it doesn't actually demand the existence of a god, isn't unique to Christianity, and doesn't sum up the Christian religion in its entirety), but it doesn't explain, say, The Crusades. Were the Knights Templar only killing Muslims because they'd be totally fine with being killed right back? If so, isn't that basically suicide? I believe you said;” I wouldn't choose a religion to follow that couldn't sum up its ethos in a sentence” you didn’t ask for the sentence to prove God’s existence or that it be unique, just that it sum up it’s ethos in one sentence, which I believe it does!

As for the Crusades, anyone can say that they are a Christian but that doesn’t make it so, no more than someone calling himself a genius makes him a genius. The proof is in the pudding so to speak and seeing they were doing unchristian things it would seem that they weren’t Christians.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. I’m not sure what you were getting at with this quote but thanks for quoting it away.
Well yes, and pretty much every political/ideological system would work just fine if everyone agreed with it, from communism to fascism. Well, no! There are some political/ideological systems that would not work even if everybody agreed with them, because of inherent flaws in those systems.
But it's not like the Bible never contradicts itself. This old chestnut, I’ve never seen a “contradiction in the Bible” can’t be proven otherwise but people keep pulling it out of the fire.

OlderWaterBrother

10-24-2008, 02:35 AM

So as long as you repent on your deathbed you're okay?No, you must realize that I wasn't talking about that, in any case, one does not become a Christian simply by ceasing to do what is bad.

OlderWaterBrother

10-24-2008, 02:51 AM

I never said that, don't put words in my mouth and obscure my point! I was not putting words in your mouth, I merely asked you a question to see if I understood you correctly.

And your point was pretty obscure to begin with that’s why I asked the question.

Cults of personality are essentially religions, organized ignorance. Nice side step, do you do the two step as well?

There's no doubt in my mind that the world would be a better place without organized ignorance. Mankind needs to wake up and drop their convictions of ignorance toward fairytales and their convictions of ignorance toward greedy assholes. I fail to see how disorganized ignorance will be an improvement.

relaxxx

10-26-2008, 11:58 AM

OlderWaterBrother

10-26-2008, 12:41 PM

Relaxxx, You fail to see anything because you are part of the disease. When you go to vote, they might as well have two options listed; "cure" & "disease" and you will pick disease because you are a anti-religious tool. There will be no hope for humanity until your sick culture is dead and gone.

It makes about as much sense this way as it does yours!

djulian

10-26-2008, 03:36 PM

I'm laser focused on the question and not the banter:

This is for any afterlife based religion:

1. We have books written by people who witnessed amazing happenings.

2. We are most likely living in mental ignorance of a science based spirit world that we haven't discovered yet because we haven't discovered subspace or warp fields yet (I like Star Trek).

3. There are ghost sightings which indicate a spirit world. Eh?

4. I'm starting to run out of ideas, could you tell? Anyway, why would people 2000 and more years ago make up such fanciful stuff? It must be true.

5. God is most likely living further than the former planet of Pluto in a globular cluster, so believe.

I heard all of this informtion two towns over in a truth telling contest. Let me know if I win so I can collect the cash reward.

Hoatzin

10-26-2008, 05:21 PM

OWB, You fail to see anything because you are part of the disease. When you go to vote, they might as well have two options listed; "cure" & "disease" and you will pick disease because you are a religious tool. There will be no hope for humanity until your sick culture is dead and gone.

I would, at this point, like to distance myself as much as possible from your point of view. It is one thing to criticise religion, to oppose it absolutely in all forms. But it is quite another to declare someone incapable of argument purely because they do not agree with you, which you are doing. Your referring to it as a disease is profoundly arrogant.

The fact is, you live in an irrational society, just like everyone else, a society that prizes its belief in things - mercy, justice, honour, fairness - that have absolutely no basis in science or rationality. Given that, quibbling over the existence or non-existence of a god seems rather petty; while you are complicit in these greatest of lies and irrationalities, you are certainly in no position to refuse to listen to someone just because they believe one more lie than you do.

Indica.Skye

10-26-2008, 06:06 PM

You guys totally took over my thread. way to go, debate-hungry posters!

i'm going to stick to the hippie sub-forums from now on. lol

relaxxx

10-27-2008, 04:24 AM

I would, at this point, like to distance myself as much as possible from your point of view. It is one thing to criticise religion, to oppose it absolutely in all forms. But it is quite another to declare someone incapable of argument purely because they do not agree with you, which you are doing. Your referring to it as a disease is profoundly arrogant.

The fact is, you live in an irrational society, just like everyone else, a society that prizes its belief in things - mercy, justice, honour, fairness - that have absolutely no basis in science or rationality. Given that, quibbling over the existence or non-existence of a god seems rather petty; while you are complicit in these greatest of lies and irrationalities, you are certainly in no position to refuse to listen to someone just because they believe one more lie than you do.

#1 - I tell it like I see it, religion is a socially transmitted mental illness.

#2 - I didn't determine he was incapable of argument, he proudly displayed his incapacity. But then he did seem to concede on ignorance, "disorganized Ignorance" so I'll give him that. My reply to that would be that a warship could not destroy if it was reduced to scrap metal.

#3 - What other choice do I have than to comply? Jail? Death? Recluse in the mountains?

#4 - If I have to suffer economic turmoil and hardship on account of religious zombie voters I'll damn well bitch and vent about it online, as petty as it may be.

OlderWaterBrother

10-27-2008, 05:33 AM

You guys totally took over my thread. way to go, debate-hungry posters!

i'm going to stick to the hippie sub-forums from now on. lolSorry, you feel that way. The only reason I continued the discussion was for your benefit, thinking that such a debate would give you another reason for believing one way or another, which is what you asked for, reasons to believe or not.

I'm reminded of a TV show I saw once about two “angels” that came to take a man's soul but one was a demon and the other an angel. The man was to decide between the two, who was to take his soul but he couldn’t tell them apart. So he decided that a staring contest would decide, the first to break eye contact would lose and the other would get his soul. The contest went on for some time, when a young girl about 4 or 5 who was playing in the room fell and hurt herself and began to cry. At which time, one of the two “angels” broke eye contact to comfort the young girl and even though the angel had lost the staring match, the man give his soul to him.

May you sing and dance with one hand free,
OWB

Hoatzin

10-27-2008, 10:54 PM

#1 - I tell it like I see it, religion is a socially transmitted mental illness.

What a ridiculous analogy.

#2 - I didn't determine he was incapable of argument, he proudly displayed his incapacity. But then he did seem to concede on ignorance, "disorganized Ignorance" so I'll give him that. My reply to that would be that a warship could not destroy if it was reduced to scrap metal.

There's a quote from Vivian Stanshall (as Old Sir Henry), that "if I had all the money that I'd spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink". In a similar way, if you removed the organised religion from society, people would just make up a load of new ones, and there's no reason to think they'd be any better.

Disorganised ignorance isn't that appealing, believe me. That's pretty much what politics is. Ignorance won't stay organised; it'll just get organised by someone else.

#3 - What other choice do I have than to comply? Jail? Death? Recluse in the mountains?

Suicide is never the answer.

Just thought I'd remind you of that.

#4 - If I have to suffer economic turmoil and hardship on account of religious zombie voters I'll damn well bitch and vent about it online, as petty as it may be.

I really don't see the point of blaming religion for economic turmoil. I direct you to the UK. Do you think people here voted for a government that was essentially constructing financial time-bombs well within the public eye year on year for eleven years and counting because of religion? No-one in this country goes to church, no politician here is stupid enough to run on a religious platform, and we're still just as capable of fucking the place up as your lot are.

Hoatzin

10-27-2008, 10:57 PM

You guys totally took over my thread. way to go, debate-hungry posters!

i'm going to stick to the hippie sub-forums from now on. lol

Meh, you kinda took over the "is society a cult?" thread. :D

relaxxx

10-29-2008, 04:07 AM

Why do you think mental illness is a ridiculous analogy for religion?

It consumes lives, hinders progress, distorts reality, and causes the afflicted to make bad decisions sometimes to the point of destruction and death!

Are you fucking kidding me! It's one of the most popular methods used on drug addicts, it's called addiction swapping. There's a good reason drug addiction is replaceable with religion, because it's an addictive mental illness that easily accommodates addictive personality disorders.

Hoatzin

10-29-2008, 07:45 PM

Why do you think mental illness is a ridiculous analogy for religion?

It consumes lives, hinders progress, distorts reality, and causes the afflicted to make bad decisions sometimes to the point of destruction and death!

So does alcohol, emotion, literature, boredom... pretty much everything that makes humans different from animals should be regarded as a mental disorder by this definition, in fact! Still, plenty of people will tell you that they're sane, it's just everyone else that's nuts.

The truth is that you're committing the "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy - that is, implying (or in fact insisting on) a causal relationship between two things that coincide. Of course, if you had any actual evidence of a causal relationship, you'd be fine. But you haven't.

And of course, you are undeniably being selective in your analysis. Religion has been responsible for wonderful architecture, great literature and art, the unification of disparate humans towards a single aim...

And then there is a qualitative study which compared how happy people were (based on their self-assessment and the assessments of others) to various aspects of their lives - age, geographical location, affluence, class, etc. The only significant link they found was that those with a religious or spiritual conviction were happier on average.

And I'm sure you'll tell me that "ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID LOLOLOL????? MOST IDIOTS ARE HAPPY LOL SO ARE MOST LUNATICS AND MOST DRUG ADDICTS" or some other stupid shit, and I'll have to point out that so are a lot of sane, smart and unaddicted people. So, you know, just thought I'd nip that one in the bud.

Are you fucking kidding me! It's one of the most popular methods used on drug addicts, it's called addiction swapping. There's a good reason drug addiction is replaceable with religion, because it's an addictive mental illness that easily accommodates addictive personality disorders.

So? You're basically making another fallacy (unless you plan to argue that none of what I'm about to say could possibly be inferred from the above, which I'm sure you will), or at least attempting to mislead here: you're trying to imply that religion is bad because many ex-drug addicts are religious. You do not say anything about the millions of religious people who aren't ex drug addicts. You don't do this because it does not suit your desire to present religion as bad.

Regardless of whether this "addiction swapping" you describe is in any way destructive (which I'd like to see you prove), your inference that there is some similarity between drug addicts and religious people is thus far unfounded. Most people who are religious are not "addicted" by any definition, and show few if any similarities in their behaviour to drug addicts that would not be present in, say, someone who likes video games; someone might play video games a lot or a little, but that doesn't make them an addict.

You're generally making a rather pathetic attempt to confuse a preference or interest with an addiction, and to portray all addiction as negative and destructive. Your argument will only persuade the weak-willed, the easily led, and the closed-minded, which by a happy coincidence is more or less the demographic you would probably imagine are attracted to religion.

x