Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: DarkFang on 2011-05-01 23:46:25
-
What are your views?
No flaming.
-
I see no logical reason to believe in a god in today's day and age, and while I dislike religion as a whole, I fully respect the right of others to believe in a god/follow a religion. That being said, I do rather like the idea of the laws of physics that allow our universe to exist being called god.
-
^ That basically just summed everything up for me. I don't judge other people, unless they start something first.
-
Everything was said I think for now. But unlike Cupcake, I hate people that believe in god(s). Don't even start me on it, it is like FFs or political vision, once I start I can't stop.
-
Everything was said I think for now. But unlike Cupcake, I hate people that believe in god(s). Don't even start me on it, it is like FFs or political vision, once I start I can't stop.
Believe me, the moment someone starts talking about god to me, I rip them a new asshole. Don't think for a second I just let it go. I won't talk to you about how I don't have an invisible man in the sky who sees everything everybody does, and if you do a few wrong things, will put you in a lake of fire for all eternity, if you don't talk to me about how you do. If you do talk to me about yours, believe me, I will fucking DESTROY you. Not to mention point out the various logical fallacies within your holy book of choice (I mean... COME ON, The bible contradicts itself within the first two fucking chapters
-
Religion. Once served a purpose, now serves none. Creates far too many problems, especially Islam, which is an ideology from a war-lord.
All of them are outdated (with exception of Buddhism which is strictly not in the same league).
All religions are man made and any that claim to be divine are lying. I personally believe in some form of higher power, however that does not mean I believe in fairy tales or after life or the man made deities in a few books. It is all man made rubbish.
We do not need telling what is right and wrong. Anybody who uses religion as a moral guide has a problem, not least because they are only behaving the way they do because they are being told to or are being offered some sort of reward.
The sooner religion dies out the better, however a large amount of people are stupid/naive and believe in Aliens visiting earth, 9/11 conspiracy theories and religion. It may take a very long time before we finally shed the last shackle.
-
Religion is fucking shit. If there was a god, then there were not wars, hungry people and so on... at vitam eternam...
DLPB, I hate you! Why? Because you said everything I wanted to say, and, moreover, you stayed calm!!!
Ok, I'm gonna say what I loooooove to say :
RELIGION IS FUCKIN SHIT AND SHITIN FUCK WITH SHIT FUCK AND FUCK SHIT!!!!!
Ok, lets stop it now...
-
Maybe this was a bad idea, lol.
My thoughts are, if there was a higher power or a God, they have since then deceased. If you view the world today, there's absolutely no chance there is a God that wants peace and all the evil to be vanquished.
-
Chuck Norris > All
-
Maybe this was a bad idea, lol.
My thoughts are, if there was a higher power or a God, they have since then deceased. If you view the world today, there's absolutely no chance there is a God that wants peace and all the evil to be vanquished.
That does not go against the idea. In fact, if a god were to intervene it would fundamentally affect free will. For good to exist, bad also has to exist. If a god was to be fair, it would not be allowed to intervene.
Unfortunately, this also means that if a higher power created the universe etc, it didn't care that there would be a lot of suffering in its world. But this is assuming that thought is the same for a higher power as it is for us.
Certainly, whatever the truth is, it is way beyond what a human can comprehend. On that I can be completely sure.
-
Completely Unrelated is littered with posts of my views. Actually, its better if I don't say anything.
-
Something created the universe. Why? Because the laws as we know them and have experienced expressly declare that something can't just form from nothing. It is impossible.
I think that for any religion to be taken seriously, it needs to understand God, not as a being of pure good, but rather one who is completely just. One who did create both good and bad, but also bestowed reason and logic for us to differentiate between the two. If there is an after life, it only makes sense that we would be judge based on our actions here. And given that we know the difference between good and bad, would somehow be held accountable. I have yet to decide how I feel about an afterlife though.
A lake of fire? I doubt it. An eternal paradise? Also doubtful. But to think EVERYTHING in the universe was all by chance is completely ludicrous at this point in our understanding.
-
I myself am Wicca/Wiccan whatever you wanna call it.
Though the religions that believe in "God" don't deserve to be flamed on etc, it's just what they believe but there is one religion that should burn in the deepest pit of hell. Scientology NEVER understood that religion -.-
If there is any proof of a higher being or anything as such, like say one day say there's a God-On-Earth scenario, I'll HAPPILY start believing in God.
-
I myself am Wicca/Wiccan whatever you wanna call it.
Scientology NEVER understood that religion -.-
Got it, so a religion formed because someone saw pagan religions and went "OH COOL" and formed one on a power trip in England in the early 20th century, is more valid than one that was formed in the mid 20th century for money.
-
Agnostic. Intellectually, I cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a monotheistic God.
-
What are your views?
The world's favourite mental illness. The stronger the religious belief, the sicker the mind.
To see it in its purest form, watch some of the videos made by a certain man who has just died. Remember that suicide bombers are the most devout people on the planet.
Agnostic. Intellectually, I cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a monotheistic God.
ohboyherewegoagain.jpg
-
As far as I know, modern Wicca is a different animal than centuries old paganism. I actually wrote a research paper on it like 7 years ago.
There is a thick grey line between mental illness and religious belief. Your everyday believer does not qualify for any mental illness based on those beliefs alone.
As far as afterlife is concerned, maybe our conciousness/soul is absorbed into the infinite conciousness/divine energy of "God". The question is whether we retain our individuality in any afterlife - it would be nice, but probably doesn't happen that way.
-
As far as I know, modern Wicca is a different animal than centuries old paganism. I actually wrote a research paper on it like 7 years ago.
Yes it is.
Wicca takes bits from the various old European religions (which had very little in common) and keeps the bits it likes whilst ignoring the bits it doesn't like.
There is a thick grey line between mental illness and religious belief. Your everyday believer does not qualify for any mental illness based on those beliefs alone.
The fact that religion gets off so lightly is due only to political correctness and the unwarranted respect that religion is given in religious and recently religious societies.
-
The fact that religion gets off so lightly is largely due only to political correctness and the unwarranted respect that religion is given in religious and recently religious societies.
If you mean in general, then I would say pretty much the same thing, except not quite as strongly. If you mean in regards to mental illness, most diagnostic models require that beliefs/behaviors/symptoms be responsible for some clinically significant impairment of functioning. This is why someone can be a narcissist without having Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Religious beliefs can be categorized as 'bizarre' or 'magical' beliefs from a diagnostic perspective, but only the Westborough Baptist's, suicide bombers, and the like would be considered to have a Mental Illness based on their *religious beliefs. But you must admit there is a distinction between what religion means to these people, and what religion means to non-psychotic/secularized believer.
Given that I agree with a lot of your projection of human development in the coming decades/centuries, I imagine that there will be a time in the future where religious beliefs will be considered mental illness, but realize that the label of "mentally ill" is, and has been constantly transforming for thousands of years.
-
say one day say there's a God-On-Earth scenario, I'll HAPPILY start believing in God.
you might wanna be careful with that.
it could end up being an elaborate rouse using holographic techonology to make you think god has returned when it fact its nothing more than a sattelite projection
Project Blue Beam for example
not that I necissarily believe such a plot exists, but I wouldn't put it past the idiotic American admin
as for religion, well I have a very unique belief system, but after observing numerous photos from the hubble telescope and seeing all the majestic shapes and paterns of the stars and galaxies. I wouldn't be suprised if natural structures have some form of consciousness of their own, such as a galaxy or galactic cluster. I came to this conclusion after realizing that the galaxies align very similarly to how the inside of our bodies aligns. Our bodies are made up of trillions of life forms, I wouldn't be shocked if all these epic star systems collectively form some kind of supreme universal consciousness, or God if you will just as the cells of our bodies come together to form us. However this is about as far I can go into the matter without sounding terribly insulting to religious institutions the world over.
In short I don't like it, its an outdated concept and it ruins lives, justifies wars, encourages ignorance etc. I believe we will either abandon these old story book concepts of religion and replace them with our own investigative objectivism (science) at some time in the near future, or we will face the destruction of the human race, or the return of the stone age at best. Just my opinion
-
Religion is fucking shit. If there was a god, then there were not wars, hungry people and so on... at vitam eternam...
DLPB, I hate you! Why? Because you said everything I wanted to say, and, moreover, you stayed calm!!!
Ok, I'm gonna say what I loooooove to say :
RELIGION IS FUCKIN SHIT AND SHITIN FUCK WITH SHIT FUCK AND FUCK SHIT!!!!!
Ok, lets stop it now...
No flaming.
lol.
One thing I've seen time and time again is the general attitude of "fuck you, you're intolerant". To say that religion is the cause of hate and bigotry, all while acting hateful and bigoted, some of the most hypocritical behavior I've seen.
Religion. Once served a purpose, now serves none. Creates far too many problems, especially Islam, which is an ideology from a war-lord.
All of them are outdated (with exception of Buddhism which is strictly not in the same league).
To act as if religion is "outdated" is to act as though human nature has changed in the past 2000 years. The thing is, it hasn't. Humanity is still as dimwitted, selfish, and most of all, arrogant as ever. Scientific achievements have brought the world a long way, but that's a reflection on knowledge and its way of building on itself, not on mankind's behavior or attitudes.
The world's favourite mental illness. The stronger the religious belief, the sicker the mind.
To see it in its purest form, watch some of the videos made by a certain man who has just died. Remember that suicide bombers are the most devout people on the planet.
I have no doubt that Mother Theresa was stronger in her religious belief than Osama Bin Laden, but few would say her mind was sick, and no reasonable person would say she was sicker than Osama.
it ruins lives, justifies wars, encourages ignorance etc.
People who want a war will justify it one way or another, with or without religion. This is a fault of human nature. What's more, the vast majority of religious wars are either not actually about religion (the Crusades, for example, were about restoring stolen land to its rightful owners), or about some horribly bastardized misrepresentation of the religion they claim to be fighting for (the Qur'an, for all its problems and violence, doesn't say anything about suicide bombing and killing thousands of innocents, and most Sunni Muslims do not even support Al-Qaeda's cause).
I strongly suspect that the most adamantly anti-religion crusaders are in fact not atheistic at all like they claim, but rather DO believe in a God and are angry at Him. No logically-behaving person could be that passionately hateful towards a being that they don't even believe exists. (please note I am only referring to militant atheists here, the ones for whom it is not enough merely not to believe in a higher power, but feel the need to be assholes about it, such as Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais)
-
I understand that a there are a million justifications for warfare, but religion has allowed this to become a standard way of thinking. An ultimatum if you will, either you go to war or you endure the shame of casting aside your religions beliefs in the heat of the moment.
I believe that War, like all things, serves a purpose, but I also believe, like all behaviors, that it can become pathological and harmful where it should be helpful to the contruction of new societies and the spreading of new ideas.
-
If you mean in general, then I would say pretty much the same thing, except not quite as strongly. If you mean in regards to mental illness, most diagnostic models require that beliefs/behaviors/symptoms be responsible for some clinically significant impairment of functioning. This is why someone can be a narcissist without having Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Religious beliefs can be categorized as 'bizarre' or 'magical' beliefs from a diagnostic perspective, but only the Westborough Baptist's, suicide bombers, and the like would be considered to have a Mental Illness based on their *religious beliefs. But you must admit there is a distinction between what religion means to these people, and what religion means to non-psychotic/secularized believer.
That last bit is an oxymoron.
A lot of people like to argue that the extremists should not be taken as the standard for religious people. This is another mistake that political correctness causes; we seek the friendliest people to be the archetype for their religion because we want to say that "x is the religion or peace" or that the extremists (i.e. the people who go against secular Western morals) are perverting the faith. This is very bad. The moderates are people who do not take their religion seriously. They believe in some vague, watered-down version of the religion they were brought up in, and their morals are nearly always humanist ones mixed with the meekest and least repulsive of the old religious commandments. Moderates are half-believers. They might not be classifiable as insane, but that does not mean that religion is not a mental illness, since they're not really very religious. They have a mild religion that comes with a comparatively mild amount of irrationality.
The most sincere believers are the most extreme ones. The extreme ones are the people who honestly believe in heaven and hell and everlasting life*, the extreme ones are the ones who faithfully believe every word of their holy books and who follow all their religion's commandments as long as they don't contradict each other. These people are also mentally ill.
*Have you ever noticed that it's only the crazies who are willing to become martyrs? If good, faithful people go to heaven, why are so many believers so scared of death? Could it be because they're secretly sceptical about heaven? And that only the crazies are sure that it exists? Surely not! They say that there are no atheists in foxholes, but I say that there are no believers when the Nazis are at the door of the church and demanding that Bishop Kollaborateur tell his congregation to render all unto the worst Caesar in history. (yes, I read Hitchens' book recently :-P)
Given that I agree with a lot of your projection of human development in the coming decades/centuries, I imagine that there will be a time in the future where religious beliefs will be considered mental illness, but realize that the label of "mentally ill" is, and has been constantly transforming for thousands of years
Pfft, if it's considered a mental illness one day, I'll consider myself vindicated. Of course, I'll probably be a head in a jar by then :-(
I have no doubt that Mother Theresa was stronger in her religious belief than Osama Bin Laden, but few would say her mind was sick, and no reasonable person would say she was sicker than Osama.
It's a general trend, not an absolute correlation.
And mother Theresa wasn't as saintly as she was portrayed to be
I strongly suspect that the most adamantly anti-religion crusaders are in fact not atheistic at all like they claim, but rather DO believe in a God and are angry at Him.
And I strongly suspect that the "hurr all atheists are angry teenagers" argument is one of the worst in history.
No logically-behaving person could be that passionately hateful towards a being that they don't even believe exists.
Learn the difference between "God" and "the concept of God". The former hasn't killed anyone. The latter has killed millions.
(please note I am only referring to militant atheists here, the ones for whom it is not enough merely not to believe in a higher power, but feel the need to be assholes about it, such as Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais)
Can someone explain to me why atheists are considered militant if they tell people that they're stupid, whereas religious people are considered militant when they murder hundreds of civilians or command others to do so? Could it be that you're trying to equate these two things? To imply that they have anything in common at all? Or could it be that you consider questioning religion to be as bad as killing someone?
When I see Richard Dawkins hijack a plane and fly it into a building, I'll take seriously your argument that he's a "militant atheist". Until then, I'll accuse you of using hyperbole to the point of dishonesty.
-
Chuck Norris > All
I'm surprised you'd say that since CN's a huge bible humper...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pnFg0Sp2Xw
-
I'm surprised you'd say that since CN's a huge bible humper...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pnFg0Sp2Xw
I wanna roundhouse kick him in the nuts.
-
And I strongly suspect that the "hurr all atheists are angry teenagers" argument is one of the worst in history.
I never said ALL atheists. I SPECIFICALLY targeted the angry ones.
Learn the difference between "God" and "the concept of God". The former hasn't killed anyone. The latter has killed millions.
It hasn't killed a single person. As I said before, it is a combination of mankind's propensity to fight for damn near anything it can think of, and horrible bastardizations and misinterpretations of religions that have killed people.
Can someone explain to me why atheists are considered militant if they tell people that they're stupid, whereas religious people are considered militant when they murder hundreds of civilians or command others to do so? Could it be that you're trying to equate these two things? To imply that they have anything in common at all? Or could it be that you consider questioning religion to be as bad as killing someone?
When I see Richard Dawkins hijack a plane and fly it into a building, I'll take seriously your argument that he's a "militant atheist". Until then, I'll accuse you of using hyperbole to the point of dishonesty.
You have a decent point here, "militant" is an exaggeration. Nonetheless, people like Richard Dawkins aren't simply calling people stupid. He is smug, mean-spirited, self-righteous, and constantly looking to cause trouble. He has pretty much devoted his whole life to insulting people.
Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with atheism. I mean, I think it's wrong, but I've known plenty of kind atheists who don't resort to namecalling when anybody disagrees with them. Honestly, I'm chiefly concerned with people behaving civilly, and I tend to get along with people can do that, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. It's all a matter of who's looking for a fight and who isn't. You'll notice that I tend to get along quite well with DLPB and Mako (off the top of my head, but there's more than just them I'm sure), even though they have far different beliefs than me, it's because they know how to act like decent human beings.
But then, you ignored or misrepresented almost every point I said anyway. I'm not sure if this is poor reading skills, or just intentional baiting/borderline-trolling, but either way I'm too tired to argue right now.
-
It hasn't killed a single person.
Lies! That bible came out with a knife and started chasing me down the street!
Just remember folks gun's don't kill people...people kill people.
-
I never said ALL atheists. I SPECIFICALLY targeted the angry ones.
It remains the worst argument in history.
It hasn't killed a single person. As I said before, it is a combination of mankind's propensity to fight for damn near anything it can think of, and horrible bastardizations and misinterpretations of religions that have killed people.
No, the bastardisations and "creative" interpretations of religions have been comparatively harmless. It's the true believers who kill. The people who take every word of the Bible or the Koran to heart and don't pretend the parts they don't like are metaphors.
BTW, what do you think about the Aztecs? They sacrificed tens of thousands of people every year because of their religious faith. Was this a bastardisation of their religion, or were they true believers?
Nonetheless, people like Richard Dawkins aren't simply calling people stupid. He is smug, mean-spirited, self-righteous, and constantly looking to cause trouble.
Compared to most political commentators, he's remarkably polite.
It's only because "faith" is given special protection and religious people expect special respect that he seems to be insulting.
He has pretty much devoted his whole life to insulting people.
No, he has devoted his life to science. Activism against religion is a *very* small part of his work.
Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with atheism. I mean, I think it's wrong, but I've known plenty of kind atheists who don't resort to namecalling when anybody disagrees with them.
I call a spade a spade.
Honestly, I'm chiefly concerned with people behaving civilly, and I tend to get along with people can do that, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. It's all a matter of who's looking for a fight and who isn't. You'll notice that I tend to get along quite well with DLPB and Mako (off the top of my head, but there's more than just them I'm sure), even though they have far different beliefs than me, it's because they know how to act like decent human beings.
DLPB isn't an atheist. He has been quite clear about that.
And the "behaving civilly" and "looking for a fight" parts are hilarious.
But then, you ignored or misrepresented almost every point I said anyway. I'm not sure if this is poor reading skills, or just intentional baiting, but either way I'm too tired to argue right now.
I took your points at face value. Should I perhaps have consulted a Biblical scholar to tell me the "correct" interpretation of your words?
And perhaps you could tell me exactly what I misinterpreted and what the correct interpretation was? Because at the moment you're being extremely vague and I can't help but get the impression that you're using this whole "misinterpretation" thing as a way of weaseling out of any criticism. Just as certain people conveniently dismiss creationists and suicide bombers as "misinterpreting" their religion, without taking the time to tell us what the "correct" interpretation is.
-
Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with atheism. I mean, I think it's wrong, but I've known plenty of kind atheists who don't resort to namecalling when anybody disagrees with them. Honestly, I'm chiefly concerned with people behaving civilly, and I tend to get along with people can do that, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. It's all a matter of who's looking for a fight and who isn't. You'll notice that I tend to get along quite well with DLPB and Mako (off the top of my head, but there's more than just them I'm sure), even though they have far different beliefs than me, it's because they know how to act like decent human beings.
This is why I'll continue to say I'm an agnostic IRL, even though I'm actually an atheist. It's hypocritical, yes, but I think it's needed hypocrisy in your everyday life. What I learned in the past is, no matter the quality of your argumentation, you can never convince a theist or atheist to change his ways. And since you can't get rid of them, might as well live in harmony with both (and as fun as it is, this topic ultimately is useless, as was the first one).
-
This is why I'll continue to say I'm an agnostic IRL, even though I'm actually an atheist. It's hypocritical, yes, but I think it's needed hypocrisy in your everyday life.
When you say you are something you are not or deny that you are something than you are "hypocrite" is not the right word. The right word is a much shorter one.
What I learned in the past is, no matter the quality of your argumentation, you can never convince a theist or atheist to change his ways. And since you can't get rid of them, might as well live in harmony with both (and as fun as it is, this topic ultimately is useless, as was the first one).
And not upsetting people is more important than saying what you honestly believe?
What a pity that so many atheists think that way (to the point of being dishonest), but so few theists do.
-
Kudi: You seem to be implying that if religion had not existed there would have been no deaths? or killing? I think WITHOUT religion more people would have died! Yup you heard it here first.
Think all that time they spend worshiping there god! just stewing thinking of way to kill one another...The only thing religion is guilty of is being the scapegoat.
-
When you say you are something you are not or deny that you are something than you are "hypocrite" is not the right word. The right word is a much shorter one.
It's funny how most of your posts are the ones I agree with, but because of that aggressiveness of yours, it's you I end up arguing with, KM ;D
So tell me, what is this shorter word ?
And not upsetting people is more important than saying what you honestly believe?
Sometimes, yes. If there were more people like me, the world would be a much better place.
-
Kudi: You seem to be implying that if religion had not existed there would have been no deaths? or killing?
That's an astonishing interpretation.
Religion is one of many things that cause people to kill. There wouldn't be world peace if it disappeared, but certain parts of the world would be much more peaceful.
I think WITHOUT religion more people would have died! Yup you heard it here first.
We can never say for certain what would have happened in alternate histories, but I find this hard to believe. The only way it would be true is if we argue that people would have fewer children if they were less religious (and birth rates in the modern world support this theory) and therefore fewer people who could possibly die.
Think all that time they spend worshiping there god! just stewing thinking of way to kill one another...The only thing religion is guilty of is being the scapegoat.
A lot of the time people spend in places of worship is spent thinking of ways to kill people. Or demonise people in a way that makes killing them much easier. People are much more ready to kill when they believe that the death of the infidels is the will of God.
This might not be the case in Oxford or New Jersey, but it's certainly the case in Gaza and Abbottabad (or was the case ;D)
It's funny how most of your posts are the ones I agree with, but it's you I end up arguing with, KM ;D
So tell me, what is this shorter word ?
Oh, surely you know what it is. ;D It's the word you use when someone is saying something that they know to be untrue, with the intent of causing the other person to believe something that is untrue.
Sometimes, yes. If there were more people like me, the world would be a much better place.
HAHAHA, OH WOW!
If no-one ever robustly challenged anyone else, I think we'd still be hunting bears and foraging for nuts.
And any psychopaths who did come along would have a very easy ride.
-
HAHAHA, OH WOW!
If no-one ever robustly challenged anyone else, I think we'd still be hunting bears and foraging for nuts.
And any psychopaths who did come along would have a very easy ride.
You know, talking with you is some hard exercice for me, since English isn't my natural language. But I'll say this : you mix up everything. On the subject of religions, you yourself have no power whatsoever. You're fighting something that is much bigger than you, and you're wasting your time. This isn't convincing people that driving is useful, nor is it defending yourself from a psychopath. The only thing a speech like yours would produce IRL, is making enemies. You're just a warmonger, and a warmonger that will fail. You hold your ideals high, you think you can change the world - but many tried in the exact same aggressive way, and all failed.
Don't go and compare your little crusade against religions, to the advances in our society or fights against totalitarism and dictatorships. They are nothing alike.
-
This might not be the case in Oxford or New Jersey, but it's certainly the case in Gaza and Abbottabad (or was the case (http://forums.qhimm.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif))
Or Three quarters of the population of the planet, but feel free to mention one the most dangerous places...ohh wait.... :lol:
There wouldn't be world peace if it disappeared, but certain parts of the world would be much more peaceful.
Nah :-(
We can never say for certain what would have happened in alternate histories
But you just said...
A lot of the time people spend in places of worship is spent thinking of ways to kill people.
Thinking isn't doing good sir.
People are much more ready to kill when they believe that the death of the infidels is the will of God.
And if it isn't god, it sumthin' else HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray! People die everyday in NY for nothing, most cases random acts of violence. No god needed, though perhaps it would have been nice to blame someone. I blame poverty! LOL
-
You know, talking with you is some hard exercice for me, since English isn't my natural language. But I'll say this : you mix up everything. On the religion subject, you yourself have no power whatsoever. You're fighting something that is much bigger than you, and you're wasting your time. This isn't convincing people that driving is useful, nor is it defending yourself from a psychopath. The only thing a speech like yours would produce IRL, is making enemies. You're just a warmonger, and a warmonger that will fail. You hold your ideals high, you think you can change the world - but many tried in the exact same way, and all failed.
Such grandiose language!
And you clearly misunderstand my intention. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just saying what's on my mind. It is you who seems to think that your beliefs will make the world a better place. You say just that!
If there were more people like me, the world would be a much better place.
I didn't know that such egos existed. Even in France.
But history has shown that appeasement only brings temporary peace. By tip-toeing around crazy beliefs, you only encourage them. Si vis pacem, para bellum!
Don't go and compare your little crusade against religions, to the advances in our society or fights against totalitarism and dictatorships. They are nothing alike.
Oh but they are! At least in one way. They both involve challenging ideas that were once seen as beyond reproach.
Nah :-(
Really? But what is the most violent, hate-filled part of the world, and what are they fighting over?
Thinking isn't doing good sir.
They wait until they're outside the church/mosque/whatever before they start doing the killing. Most of the time.
And if it isn't god, it sumthin' else HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray! People die everyday in NY for nothing, most cases random acts of violence. No god needed, though perhaps it would have been nice to blame someone. I blame poverty! LOL
As I said, getting rid of religion won't stop all the murder. You'll still have New York. Who knows why those people act the way they do? ;D
-
Really? But what is the most violent, hate-filled part of the world, and what are they fighting over?
GAZA, But this is a very small percentage of the globe. Also the recent fighting is been about land.
They wait until they're outside the church/mosque/whatever before they start doing the killing. Most of the time.
Ah so there is a time of peace :) Also have you seen a muslims prayer regime? Frekin' thing takes up most of the day.
As I said, getting rid of religion won't stop all the murder. You'll still have New York. Who knows why those people act the way they do? (http://forums.qhimm.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
This will be the above excuse had religion been removed completely from the globe.
-
GAZA, But this is a very small percentage of the globe. Also the recent fighting is been about land.
The whole of the region is angry about it. Hell, the whole of the Islamic world is angry about it.
The fighting isn't just about land (Hamas, and presumably the people who voted for them as well, believe it's God's will for the Muslims to kill all the Jews), but even if it were, that land is only important because of its religious significance. Why else would you fight over the part of the middle east with no oil? 8)
If I were one of the early Zionists, I would have "found" evidence that the ancient Hebrews actually lived around the Gulf. :P
Ah so there is a time of peace :) Also have you seen a muslims prayer regime? Frekin' thing takes up most of the day.
I can't say that I've had that pleasure.
This will be the above excuse had religion been removed completely from the globe.
Except when religion has been removed from the globe, the violence will only be in New York, with people killing each other over bagel taxes. ;D
-
Such grandiose language!
And you clearly misunderstand my intention. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just saying what's on my mind. It is you who seems to think that your beliefs will make the world a better place. You say just that!
I didn't know that such egos existed. Even in France.
For someone who just says what's on his mind, you sure do say things virulently. And yes, I stand by my words. When people accept each other's differences, their different beliefs, things do not evolve into violence. Meanwhile, it's people who want to force their beliefs into others, that lead to massacres. Because after all the talking, if the person you're arguing with still doesn't agree that his religion is "bull", what happens ? A kick in the groin ?
But history has shown that appeasement only brings temporary peace. By tip-toeing around crazy beliefs, you only encourage them. Si vis pacem, para bellum!
It's still peace. On the other hand, the behavior you preconise encourages an even stronger response of the believers. "Let's settle this. In blood".
-
I meant secularized believer like a Yellow-Green crayon, not Freezerburn. By head in a jar, do you mean in an awesome way like Futurama, or in a shitty way like in a mad scientist's lab. I'd say both are equally likely.
-
Now, I really want any moderator or admin to close that thread. This discussion is going nowhere and, moreover, it will result in massive re-re-re-re-re-re-re (etc) posting, endlessly and so on. We all have our own opinions, and it is good to share them. Now, we don't share them, we try to defend them because we think this is the only good one. I'm sorry I started that way. It's my fault...
-
Now, I really want any moderator or admin to close that thread. This discussion is going nowhere and, moreover, it will result in massive re-re-re-re-re-re-re (etc) posting, endlessly and so on. We all have our own opinions, and it is good to share them. Now, we don't share them, we try to defend them because we think this is the only good one. I'm sorry I started that way. It's my fault...
WHAT!? I agree with Kudi Bagel Tax comment! Why you gotta ruin it! :3
I officially removed Vgr from my ecard mailing list :P
-
For someone who just says what's on his mind, you sure do say things virulently. And yes, I stand by my words. When people accept each other's differences, their different beliefs, things do not evolve into violence. Meanwhile, it's people who want to force their beliefs into others, that lead to massacres.
Which is one of the reasons why religion is bad. The two biggest religions in the world are all about forcing their beliefs upon others, and many people have died because of it.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to force my beliefs on others. Could this interpretation of my actions be the result of your guilty conscience?
Because after all the talking, if the person you're arguing with still doesn't agree that his religion is "bull", what happens ?
Then I have a good laugh at him.
Will you bring him to the nearest annihilation camp just to get rid of the problem ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
Nope, public humiliation will suffice.
It's still peace.
It's a peace that precedes a much bloodier war, Mr Chamberlain
On the other hand, the behavior you preconise encourages an even stronger response of the believers. "Let's settle this. In blood".
I'm of the opinion that insulating people from criticism causes them to overreact when some criticism finally comes this way.
I said before that religion gets protected, but you can still insult it. However, there is one exception, especially in north-western Europe. There is one religion that can't be criticised, because of colonial guilt and because many of its followers have an "explosive" temper (I made a funneh!)
I think that one of the reasons that members of this religion get so buttfrustrated when someone writes a crappy novel or draws a cartoon is because they receive so little criticism and so don't learn to deal with it. Instead, the world confirms their belief that their religion is sacred. There was once a time when blasphemy against Christianity would lead to getting sodomised with a red-hot poker, but that is no longer the case. One of the reasons for this is because Christians have just had to get used to some degree of criticism. They're thin-skinned, certainly, but you won't see leaders of Western countries ordering all Christians to kill people who defame the religion.
Islam has not had to learn to deal with criticism in the same way, so should we be surprised when Ayatollah Assaholah gets buttmad and orders fatwas on blesphemers?
I am rather of the opinion that giving offence is good in itself. It teaches people to toughen up. Theo van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)) would still be alive if his film had not been the only one of its kind.
Now, I really want any moderator or admin to close that thread.
In that case, I have screencapped the thread. This is all too lulzy, and the current modus operandi at these forums is to remove and censor all evidence of anyone saying anything silly (see the situation with all of Hermoor's posts), so I must archive it!
-
Kudi you could supply a whole website! Called The "Qhimm Archives" uncencred and un-abridged! :)
-
Yeah I know of Godwin's law, so I edited my post just after posting it. But not fast enough, I guess :P
Which is one of the reasons why religion is bad. The two biggest religions in the world are all about forcing their beliefs upon others, and many people have died because of it.
I agree.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to force my beliefs on others. Could this interpretation of my actions be the result of your guilty conscience?
Oh lawlz. My conscience is perfectly clean, thank you.
especially in north-western Europe
That makes me think that many people in the US thought France was an islamic country, or that it was in North Africa. It's not an islamic country... ...yet *shivers*
Somehow, my views of the future are pretty grim.
Anyway, continue KM. Like Mako, I enjoy reading you (you write nice English and make good points).
-
Kudi you could supply a whole website! Called The "Qhimm Archives" uncencred and un-abridged! :)
I could join forces with Mirenheart. He made an achive of the lulzopedia somewhere. ;D
That makes me think that many people in the US thought France was an islamic country, or that it was in North Africa.
Africa is anything that's both south of the English Channel and either west or south of the Rhine.
It's not an islamic country... ...yet *shivers*
Somehow, my views of the future are pretty grim.
Good. For a second I was worried that you were one of those people who criticises Christianity but goes all multicultural about Islam and calls it a beautiful faith.
Anyway, continue KM. Like Mako, I enjoy reading you (you write nice English and make good points).
If you're using my posts to help you with your English, I'm going to have to charge! £25 per hour, or whatever the equivalent is in that doomed currency you use down there in north Algeria.
-
I have no doubt that Mother Theresa was stronger in her religious belief than Osama Bin Laden, but few would say her mind was sick
Had she been Islamic she would have been a suicide bomber. Don't let em read the Koran, they may learn too much. Mein kampf has some serious competition!
-
More people are killed daily by mindless murder and greed than ANY religious beliefs. People are going to kill each other no matter the reason.
But even if we play make-believe and say religion is the main cause of deaths, well good. Maybe no one else has noticed but the worldwide population is absolutely out of control. We cure diseases constantly and are always finding new ways to prolong life. We NEED something to kill us, and unfortunately natural disasters just aren't happening quickly enough.
-
YaaaY Obesebear is on my side! Were is my gold star? Also I believe I collected enough to get a tee shirt or somthin'
*Cough* size 5 *Cough*
-
i was raised to be christian, but i never fully could go along with it.
i believe almost everything in the bible is a medaphor, and also that some of it was not originally there, the bibles been around for a looooong time, long enough for some greedy leader of a peoples to decide "fuck this, i wanna change that".
for instance, can you honestly tell me that a man who does evil all his life but believes in god and on his death bed makes a little prayer for forgiveness goes to heaven... but a man who has spent his entire life doing every thing he could to help people, is probably the greatest person on earth but has difficulty believing in a being he cannot see or speak to is going to hell. i don't.
i believe that it is our actions that define where we end up, not our beliefs.
i also believe if you go around in the wee hours of the morning knocking on peoples doors and trying to convert them, you should be strung up and forced to watch a thousand ultimate warrior promo's.
-
But even if we play make-believe and say religion is the main cause of deaths, well good. Maybe no one else has noticed but the worldwide population is absolutely out of control. We cure diseases constantly and are always finding new ways to prolong life. We NEED something to kill us, and unfortunately natural disasters just aren't happening quickly enough.
I like where this is going. Let's discuss. So what are we gonna do about it? Find the Black Materia? ;D
-
Birth control works better....
-
Does it? Maybe for like...idk, 800,000,000 of us. But what about the billions without access to birth control? While I agree with the idea that the earth is becoing overpopulated, I don't think going on a "diet" is going to make it better. We need to hit the Reset button. It is funny though...any one of us could just have easily come into existence as a fucking beetle, or an aboriginee (sp?). The industrialized human perspective is in the minority on this planet.
-
Had she been Islamic she would have been a suicide bomber. Don't let em read the Koran, they may learn too much. Mein kampf has some serious competition!
I read somewhere that someone did a survey of the two books and found that the Koran had more antisemitism than Mein Kampf, so it's possible that Mein Kampf has lost the battle.
Mind you, it was the kind of study that one has to take with a pinch of salt.
More people are killed daily by mindless murder and greed than ANY religious beliefs. People are going to kill each other no matter the reason.
It doesn't matter if religion is not the only or even the biggest cause of the killing around the world. It's one of the major ones, and that's enough reason to oppose it.
But even if we play make-believe and say religion is the main cause of deaths, well good. Maybe no one else has noticed but the worldwide population is absolutely out of control. We cure diseases constantly and are always finding new ways to prolong life. We NEED something to kill us, and unfortunately natural disasters just aren't happening quickly enough.
As other people have said, condoms can do something about overpopulation too. In Russia, abortions have also had a big effect on birth rate (too big, actually).
Now then, a lot of people in the poorest, most overpopulated parts of the world don't use condoms. I can't really think of why they wouldn't...oh wait! Their priests and pastors and imams tell them not to!
If you look around the world, there's a startling correlation between a country's birthrate and its religiosity. Europe and east Asia have the lowest birth rates, and these places tend not to be very religious. Africa and south Asia have the highest birth rates, and they're possibly the most religious places. Obviously there are probably of lot of factors causing this*, but religious edicts against condoms and in favour of big families must be an influence. And it isn't just Catholicism that forbids it; lots of religious leaders around the world have a problem with birth control.
Don't you think its profoundly evil to tell impoverishes, scared, illiterate people who believe your every word and who live in countries where AIDS and starvation are rife, that birth control is a sin and that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV? And isn't it profoundly hypocritical to make patently absurd claims about HIV and then preach about "thou shalt not bear false witness"?
*I'm saying this for insurance, since experience in these debates tells me that someone is going to accuse me of saying that religion is the only factor affecting birth rate. One of the most amusing things about religious debates is that you can tell someone until you're blue in the face that you don't believe that x, but they'll still say that you believe x and try to build a counter-argument around this claim. It's impossible to stop people from doing this, but you can have a good laugh when they do.
-
i agree overpopulation is a serious issue that needs to be adressed, but that gives no one, be it a man, a god, or animal, the right to take anothers life.
-
I read somewhere that someone did a survey of the two books and found that the Koran had more antisemitism than Mein Kampf, so it's possible that Mein Kampf has lost the battle.
Mind you, it was the kind of study that one has to take with a pinch of salt.
No that's the laugh, it almost certainly IS true :P
But history has shown that appeasement only brings temporary peace. By tip-toeing around crazy beliefs, you only encourage them.
This is also sadly true... The more you appease the worse it gets until one day it is too late to do something with minimal casualties. Many before WW2, including Churchill said to attack Hitler long before he was able to amass a huge army and had the planning for war. But few listened. The public didn't want another war, and the politicians decided instead to appease.
All that did was cost us 50 million lives. Well done to the appeasers. Today Islam is the main issue, and is not too different to Nazism (hate, war mongering, antisemitism, world dominance) ... everyone is running around appeasing it. Despite insurmountable evidence that it creates death and war and intolerance and that most Islamic countries are far from democracies, people bury their heads in the sand.
Now we have the "religion of peace" propaganda, "you are racist", "every religion has a few nutters".
And when push comes to shove, we will have to confront this ideology head on and it will be too late to do it relatively peacefully I am afraid. Appeasement is the language of a fool.
-
It doesn't matter if religion is not the only or even the biggest cause of the killing around the world. It's one of the major ones, and that's enough reason to oppose it.
What we are trying to get through to you Kudistos is that, it does not matter. If religion was wiped out people would still kill,
in-fact I can say this with certainty. It is my belief that killing would actually go up by record breaking amounts.
You are also looking at the glass half empty. Here open door missions and the salvation army feed millions of people everyday. They also contribute to humanitarian need's around the globe. Most volunteer hospitals (were people get the medicine they need) are funded by some religion or another. Even the largest blood donation group Brandix (http://brandixgroup.blogspot.com/2011/01/brandix-applauded-for-largest-blood.html) is from [/size]Sri Lanka and they are mainly [/size]Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).
I know I will never change your mind Kudi, thats just who you are. But please think of ALL the repercussions of removing religion good and bad.
-
What we are trying to get through to you Kudistos is that, it does not matter. If religion was wiped out people would still kill,
in-fact I can say this with certainty. It is my belief that killing would actually go up by record breaking amounts.
You are also looking at the glass half empty. Here open door missions and the salvation army feed millions of people everyday. They also contribute to humanitarian need's around the globe. Most volunteer hospitals (were people get the medicine they need) are funded by some religion or another. Even the largest blood donation group Brandix (http://brandixgroup.blogspot.com/2011/01/brandix-applauded-for-largest-blood.html) is from [/size]Sri Lanka and they are mainly [/size]Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).
I know I will never change your mind Kudi, thats just who you are. But please think of ALL the repercussions of removing religion good and bad.
But you shouldn't need religion to tell you to help those in need. That should be something one is willing to do on their own, without the threat of a lake of fire. I also thought we established that Buddhism was a different situation, as it is more of a philosophy than a religion.
-
in-fact I can say this with certainty. It is my belief that killing would actually go up by record breaking amounts.
You can indeed say with certainty that you believe that.
It still won't be true.
You are also looking at the glass half empty. Here open door missions and the salvation army feed millions of people everyday. They also contribute to humanitarian need's around the globe. Most volunteer hospitals (were people get the medicine they need) are funded by some religion or another. Even the largest blood donation group Brandix (http://brandixgroup.blogspot.com/2011/01/brandix-applauded-for-largest-blood.html) is from [/size]Sri Lanka and they are mainly [/size]Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).
I know I will never change your mind Kudi, thats just who you are. But please think of ALL the repercussions of removing religion good and bad.
The claim that religious people are more charitable comes up very often, but I have a hard time believing it. I haven't personally noticed religious people being any more charitable than non-religious people, and it must be noted that atheists tend not to organise themselves around atheist causes in the same way that religious people do.
Christians who set up a charity will generally be very keen to point out that their religious belief is what caused them to set up a charity and will often declare their charity to be a religious one. Atheists, for obvious reasons, will not generally assert that their charitability is motivated by their stance of whether or not God exists and will rarely organise a charity around their lack of religion. You won't see any atheist charities because few atheists see charity as an atheist thing; they see it as something that should be open to all.
Actually I can't help but wonder whether atheists (or rather, secularists) are better charity workers. It's certainly the case that most of the biggest charitable or humanitarian organisations around the world are secular. Even the Red Cross, despite its name, is a secular organisation. Furthermore, secular charities tend not to have ulterior, proselytising, motives. They also tend to be more equal in their distribution of aid; even the Salvation Army, an otherwise highly admirable organisation, has had controversies regarding discrimination against homosexuals.
There might be an argument, although there are many counter-arguments, that a small amount of charity workers and donors might be motivated by some religious belief (although, as I said, the biggest organisations tend to be secular and America's biggest philanthropist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie), though not an atheist, disliked organised religion), but people without religious motives might just do a better job of it.
EDIT:
I just remembered: there seems to be an astonishing correlation in the Western world between the amount of aid given relative to a country's population and the irreligion of its population. Although Americans tend to be at least as wealthy, if not wealthier, Western Europeans seem to give more aid money, especially the ones from the least religious countries.
-
Many facts. There could be millions of them shot back and forth. Clearly the answer is we don't know what the world would be like without religion because it is such a major influence. If minor events can change the world in drastic ways, surely something as major as religion is responsible for so much that we can't create any hypothetical reigion-free world with any accuracy. *edit, It's not like it would be the same world we live in, simply without religion.
Without religion what other reasons would arrise to murder each other. In the absence of religion, many people who would otherwise not murder, would start to. Too many factors to accurately predict. Maybe, as some seem to believe, we would have a wonderful world full of happy, disease-free, fed people. Or, we could have a world with more powerful and more oppressive empires than ever. Maybe everything would be pretty much the same.
-
Many facts. There could be millions of them shot back and forth. Clearly the answer is we don't know
That's a very "high school history essay" answer.
We can't know the answer to certain questions (at least not without some kind of Laplace's demon device), but some answers to these questions are more firmly supported by the evidence than others.
Without religion what other reasons would arrise to murder each other.
Bagels
They will be the motive and the weapon in all murders once religion has been eliminated.
In the absence of religion, many people who would otherwise not murder, would start to.
How many? And why do you believe this? A positive correlation between religiosity and violence can be seen across the world, even when you account for income.
Maybe it's a co-incidence that the most religious countries within various income brackets tend to have the most psychopathic killers running around, whereas the most secular ones have the lowest murder rates? (this is a general correlation, I hope no-one accuses me of saying that it's a perfect one).
Maybe, as some seem to believe, we would have a wonderful world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.
Can you tell me who has said that? I have never, in my whole life, heard anyone say that or anything approaching it.
Am I supposed to have said it?
Should I stop bothering to respond to what people actually say and instead respond to what I wish they had said?
-
You can indeed say with certainty that you believe that.
It still won't be true.
How could you decrypt such an amazing twist of words! But I think you are incorrect.
The claim that religious people are more charitable comes up very often
That's cause it's highly debatable.
I haven't personally noticed religious people being any more charitable than non-religious people
This is highly irregular :/.
as I said, the biggest organisations tend to be secular
This is not the case here in America (were everything matters) St.Jude,United Christians Fund (all various forms),salvation army,and red cross... Just to name a few would't be around (in any meaningful capacity) had people removed religion out of the equation. I am in a position personally IRL to see that these people rely on funding from religions organizations to function, every year.
Funding from outside sources (non religious groups) although very much appreciated, is insignificant sadly. Actually here and the two other places I've lived and worked public and private donations a very superficial. I've been to these "charity dinners" and even participated in some, needless to say at the end of the night the amount donated from non-religious groups is/are is disappointing.
Take this group giftofhope (http://www.giftofhope.org/our-public-outreach/clergy.htm) even though the mainly deal with bible belt states, they are still one the greatest organ donation clubs around! more than any other group found in these parts. We don't receive anything from them (are to far away) but we here about how many peepz they save everyday.
But anyway I/we are debating semantics, It really doesn't matter who is the "largest" group. It matters that their religion compelled them to donate and volunteer. Sure you could point out the bad all day I could even help. But you must take the good with the bad.
-
How could you decrypt such an amazing twist of words! But I think you are incorrect.
That's cause it's highly debatable.
This is highly irregular :/.
This is not the case here in America (were everything matters) St.Jude,United Christians Fund (all various forms),salvation army,and red cross... Just to name a few would't be around (in any meaningful capacity) had people removed religion out of the equation. I am in a position personally IRL to see that these people rely on funding from religions organizations to function, every year.
Funding from outside sources (non religious groups) although very much appreciated, is insignificant sadly. Actually here and the two other places I've lived and worked public and private donations a very superficial. I've been to these "charity dinners" and even participated in some, needless to say at the end of the night the amount donated from non-religious groups is/are is disappointing.
Take this group giftofhope (http://www.giftofhope.org/our-public-outreach/clergy.htm) even though the mainly deal with bible belt states, they are still one the greatest organ donation clubs around! more than any other group found in these parts. We don't receive anything from them (are to far away) but we here about how many peepz they save everyday.
But anyway I/we are debating semantics, It really doesn't matter who is the "largest" group. It matters that their religion compelled them to donate and volunteer. Sure you could point out the bad all day I could even help. But you must take the good with the bad.
Yes, but there's one thing you've forgotten.
America is crazy!
Really, you can't assume that what happens in the US is of any relevance to a debate about a global issue :P. I sometimes think that the US doesn't exist and that the concept of it was created by the government and the media to troll us. A place like that can't exist, surely? Where you have schoolchildren driving around in cars but you can't drink until you're 21? Where little kids are trusted with guns but adults aren't even allowed to play poker? Where Two And A Half Men is classified as "comedy"? Such a place can't exist; it must be a bad joke! ;D
But seriously, the situation you described is very unusual and, I suspect, unique to the US.
People from other developed countries seem to be fully capable of helping their fellow man without being motivated by the reward of heaven.
-
Bah, what is this "other" you speak of? Everybody knows there is nothing beyond the great wall :-D
-
Jim: The ocean contains one kind of sand.
Bob: How do you know?
Jim: Well I've collected sand from this beach, it is all the same.
Bob: I don't believe that there is only one kind of sand.
Jim: The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.
---------------------------
Yeah, why do you think those correlations exist? Correlation does not indicate causation. Especially out of context from any other correlations involved.
Bagels. Why not? Maybe without religion, we wouldn't have spread wheat across certain areas of the world. Bagels, being delicious and rare would be worth the life of a man. Look at the things people kill for. The point is you don't know wtf would be going on in the world had religion not existed. Why would you pretend like you do/could?
Yes, I know you didn't say ''world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.'' But thus far, you've argued that religion has caused the spread of disease and is responsible for misery 'round the world. That was probably one of the less important things I wrote, no need to debate if you've said it or think it.
I mean, I don't really care what people think about religion or the effects of it. I just can't understand why you Know that the world would be a better place without it. You can't say that. If you do, it doesn't mean anything.
-
Jim: The ocean contains one kind of sand.
Bob: How do you know?
Jim: Well I've collected sand from this beach, it is all the same.
Bob: I don't believe that there is only one kind of sand.
Jim: The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise.
And, by Occam's razor, Jim's assumption would be quite reasonable. It would be for Bob to prove that there are other kinds of sand.
Yeah, why do you think those correlations exist? Correlation does not indicate causation. Especially out of context from any other correlations involved.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing "look over there".
Bagels. Why not? Maybe without religion, we wouldn't have spread wheat across certain areas of the world. Bagels, being delicious and rare would be worth the life of a man. Look at the things people kill for. The point is you don't know wtf would be going on in the world had religion not existed. Why would you pretend like you do/could?
The mistake you make, and you're not the first one to make it (in fact, I think I've picked you up on this before) is that you create a false dichotomy between things that are known and things that are just wild guesses with no evidence at all. This is absurd. There are crazy conjectures, and there are things that, whilst not proven, are sensible to assume. If we can't be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, does that mean the assumption that it will is just as baseless as the assumption that it won't?
If you think that both assumptions are equally baseless, then you have just reduced your argument to absurdity.
Yes, I know you didn't say ''world full of happy, disease-free, fed people.'' But thus far, you've argued that religion has caused the spread of disease and is responsible for misery 'round the world.
And do you disagree with this?
Would you like to argue that AIDS would be as rampant if pastors had not told their sheep that condoms are useless, or that they actually cause AIDS? Do you think that The elimination of polio would have been so fraught with trouble if imams hadn't told their followers that the vaccines were part of a Western plot and forbidden their use?
And would you disagree that the hundreds of millions of women who have had their clitorises cut off were made miserable? What about those who are made subservient to and property of their husbands, because that is God's will? Do you think gay people in countries where the Abrahamic religions still drive lawmaking are happy? And what about people who live in countries that have been torn apart by religious conflict? In Iraq, in Sudan, in Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka and in the former Yugoslav states? In all the other countries that I can't think of at the moment? Do you think the families of the millions of people who died in the partition of India, a partition designed to create separate Hindu and Muslim states?
If you don't disagree, then why are you questioning my statement?
That was probably one of the less important things I wrote, no need to debate if you've said it or think it.
You must take responsibility for your actions.
I mean, I don't really care what people think about religion or the effects of it. I just can't understand why you Know that the world would be a better place without it. You can't say that. If you do, it doesn't mean anything.
When did I say that I "know"? There you go again, accusing me of saying things that I have not said and that I have repeatedly and explicitly denied.
Srsly, why do you think you can get away with that? Do you think that I won't remember what I've said and that I'm unable to look back on my own posts? It's incredibly insulting to accuse me of saying things I haven't said and think I won't notice.
-
do remember there are other places that matter other then your native country.
where i live, i find there are charitable people that aren't religious just as much as there are religious charitables, especially the legion in my town.
-
I am not disagreeing with the negetive influence that religion has had on the world. I am saying two things.
1. It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.
2. If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.
If we didn't create guns, we would probably use more explosives, chemicals, and microorganisms to kill people with.
You isolate the bad things that religion has done, and it is likely that those things may not happen without religion. But you can't say what would be happening. I remove a cyst from someone's body, no more cyst, but now they have an infection and are unhealthy anyway. Before I hear anymore about false dichotmies, these are analogies, they are not perfect representations of what we are talking about, obviously. Propose a true dichotomy that we can work with. You may say there isn't one, fine. I know you didn't say "I know" but your language wiggles its eyebrows and gestures furtively that you believe you do. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, at least not anymore, I just wanted to know why you think this way. Now I do. I didn't mean to insult you, but you make enough use of assumptions and implications of my words, so I thought I was permitted to do the same.
-
1. It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.
2. If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.
1. your absolutely right, but to even pretend like things are going to get better while it remains a dominant economic force is absolute insanity. The literal definition of insanity is to try the same thing multiple times while expecting a different result to happen. Nothing I can think of embodies this better than religion. The obvious answer in this case would be to try something else, perhaps science which requires that something have a series of vigorous tests to prove its legitmacy before being widely accepted. Maybe it won't help, but its better than remaining stagnant.
2.Yes right again, hopefully that thing is science 8-)
I don't think people will ever stop killing each other. This is not my best quality, but let me try to paint a picture. To me war is as natural and as beneficial as breathing, but any natural thing can be manipulated, by intelligent entities, to become very unatural occurences. For example imagine all you did all day was sit at your computer yet your breathing was as rapid as if you were running a marathon constantly. This kind of breathing is not healthy or by any means natural. Similarly, the way we express our natural inclanation of warfare has become pathological and extremely unhealthy. I don't know if any of you have ever heard of an economic hitman, but this is one very good example of what I am talking about. It has begun to degrade the quality of life for people on every continent and only for the sake of spreading more blind hatred fueled by ignorance, ultimately resulting in unneeded and unwanted death, over something as simple; as meaningless as a piece of paper with fancy symbols on it. I know its not the best example but hopefully you get the idea. I am not saying do away with the monitary system necissarily, but I am saying that we need to shift focus as a society (because I believe that on an individual basis most people already know but are forced into this inefficient way of doing things) and realize that what truly matters is what we spend our money on, and not the money itself. This balls to the wall rambo approach of making money at any and all costs has got to at least be slowed. Right now it is actually growing.
I think that what we really need right now as a global society, is to emphasize the importance of education at a young age. And I don't mean this plus/minus pledge of allegiance bullshit. I'm talking calculus, computer science and programming, physics, chemistry, uncensored history, political science; the works.
It won't make the world a perfect place, but at least it will help to stop the mass manipulation that mascarades as politics for the last couple decades. It is much more difficult to manipulate a mind that is fully aware of the dynamics of causality and logical progression.
At least then a lot more of the wars that are fought will have a logically sound reasoning behind them.
-
1. It is not sensible to assume that in the absense of religion, that the world would be any better.
If religion causes bad things and the bad outweighs the good, then yes, it is sensible to believe we would be better off without it.
2. If religion simply did not exist, something else would take its place.
Like what? Give a specific example and a reason why you think it would happen. Don't say absolutist politics: religion and absolutist politics are perfectly capable of co-existing, and there has been no difference between the barbarism in secular totalitarian states and the barbarism in religious ones.
What new thing would take its place? And why do you assert this with such confidence? Do you have any reason to believe that there is something specific that will replace religion, or is it a matter of faith?
Until you can give a an example of something that will replace religion and a reason why you think it will replace it, your argument holds no weight.
If we didn't create guns, we would probably use more explosives, chemicals, and microorganisms to kill people with.
Even as an analogy, this fails.
Or rather, it proves my point.
If there were no guns, there would still be means of killing people, but these means of killing people would be either less effective (such as knives) or harder to obtain (such as explosives and non-conventional weapons). There would still be killing, but probably quite a bit less of it.
You isolate the bad things that religion has done, and it is likely that those things may not happen without religion. But you can't say what would be happening. I remove a cyst from someone's body, no more cyst, but now they have an infection and are unhealthy anyway.
If we followed your logic, we wouldn't be able to discuss anything and we wouldn't be able to say there is anything that we should get rid of.
Some people might say that the world would be a better place if people didn't murder children, but by your logic, we'd have to say that we might be better off with a few child murders because one of those murdered children might have grown up to be the next Hitler.
I wonder how you manage to plan for the future. I mean, you seem incapable of discussing hypothetical scenarios due to an excessive and debilitating scepticism and an inability to distinguish between educated guesses and wild guesses. Do you abstain from planning anything because you don't know for certain what the future will bring? Do you abstain from buying food because there's a small chance that you might develop an allergy overnight? Do you abstain from putting money into the bank because the currency might collapse tomorrow?
You say that we can't even make educated guesses about the future, but you seem to believe as a matter of faith that something will replace religion and it will keep the balance of good things and bad things exactly the same as it was. You don't know what this is and you don't give any reasons why this should happen, but you're certain that something will come along.
This belief is almost religious. Are you one of those people who believes in some pseudo-oriental "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" philosophies? Do you think that there's some law of history that asserts that when a bad thing is eliminated, something will come to take its place and restore the balance? And if so, why should be take you seriously?
I know you didn't say "I know" but your language wiggles its eyebrows and gestures furtively that you believe you do.
Even when I say that I don't?
Be careful, you might end up with a rape charge if you keep on like that:
Yes, I know that she said "Ew! I'd rather stick a wolverine in my vagina than have sex with you!" but her language wiggled its eyebrows and gestures furtively to suggest that she did want the lostwing cock.
I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, at least not anymore, I just wanted to know why you think this way.
Yes you are trying to convince me. Don't pretend that you're not. If you weren't, you wouldn't still be arguing.
Now I do.
MR SCEPTIC KNOWS SOMETHING!
That's amusing. You claim that we can't even make guesses about the future, but you think you know what goes on in my mind? When the problem of other minds is one of the biggest in philosophy? And you claim to know why I think the way I do even though you've consistently shown that you don't even know what I think? This is most intriguing. Tell me how you know why I think the way I do. And tell me why I think the way I do.
I ask this because your interpretation will tell me something hilarious about you.
I didn't mean to insult you, but you make enough use of assumptions and implications of my words, so I thought I was permitted to do the same.
Give examples.
Until you do, I'm going to dismiss this as trying to make excuses for your intellectually dishonest behaviour.
-
If you kill a spider, you've saved the lives of whatever bugs that spider would have ate. If you eliminate religion, what else do you do? You call me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical about the assertion that the world would be better off with or without something that is a major piece of humanity. If you say we would be worse off without eyes, then if all other things remained equal, you would be right. But all things are not equal, had eyes not ever existed, then the other senses would have evolved differently. Without religion, humanity would have developed differently. If you mean everyone, right now, would be better off if religion vanished completely, that is something entirely different than a scenario in which religion never existed to begin with.
Maybe nothng would "take religion's place" but the priorities of everything else in the world would be shifted.
No, supply and demand. If there were no guns, then the demand for the other killing devices would be higher. Maybe we would have extraordinarily complex crossbows or laser beams. It is not as if warfare regresses because gun's don't get invented.
You can make wild guesses appear educated. Lawyers do it all the time.
So far you've said or implied that I'm an idiot rapist that is comparable to Osama Bin Laden. And you say that I insult you.
You see "convincing" because you don't seem to have the capacity to even attempt to understand certain points of view. As I sat, trying to understand your perspective and communicate mine, the only thing try to do is refute my ideas. I do the same for your main idea, but I don't pick your shit apart and say, "Well because he used this word, or said it in this way, he's fuckin retarded and wrong."
Give me a few months worth of therapy sessions and fill out some forms for me and I will happily make an educated guess, which are valid guesses of course, of what you think and why you think it.
-
xLostWingx, I don't think you get it. Here's how things work.
You make an assertion without proof. Until you can prove it, you are wrong.
Kudi makes an assertion without proof. Until you can prove him wrong, he is right.
He doesn't believe in the existence of a higher being, because it hasn't been proven, yet is positive that a lack of religion would be good for the world, because it hasn't been disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest, and the assumption that the burden of proof always lies on whoever has the audacity not to be him.
You were right on the money in calling him out for claiming the entirety of your post wrong based on a single part of what you said. This is a form of fallacy of relevance, very similar to the fallacist's fallacy, by calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of your post. He did the same to me when I used the term "militant atheist", which is a WELL-KNOWN AND COMMONLY USED EXPRESSION. All I was getting at with that term is that people like Richard Dawkins are assholes, and it was obvious to anybody what I meant, but he intentionally misinterpreted, and suggested that I was a liar and that my whole post should therefore be disregarded.
He was also guilty of the straw man fallacy, when I said a very specific subset of atheists were unnaturally angry, by paraphrasing what I said to include ALL ATHEISTS, and then tearing that down instead of what I actually said.
While none of this proves anyone who argued against him correct, it does show that he's a terrible debater, and makes a strong case that he's either remarkably stupid or INTENTIONALLY using horribly faulty logic for the sake of causing commotion (or both). Whatever the case may be, attempting to debate with someone who uses such thoroughly irrational arguments is a waste of time, as you will not convince him of anything, and are more likely to simply put yourself in a foul mood.
tl;dr - Kudi is an idiot, a troll, or both. Just let it go.
-
1) Can we assume religion primarily exists because people are born with the strong inclination to believe in the supernatural and superstitions? So if religion didn't exist, then that would mean humans weren't hard-wired to have such tendencies. How would we be in that condition? There are plenty of examples of
creatures on the planet that don't have such tendencies, and all those creatures are far less intelligent. So without religion, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.
2) Natural selection made us this way, therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait. So evolution clearly shows religious belief does indeed save more lives (or at least the lives that matter for the propagation of our species).
-
xLostWingx, I don't think you get it. Here's how things work.
You make an assertion without proof. Until you can prove it, you are wrong.
Kudi makes an assertion without proof. Until you can prove him wrong, he is right.
No here's how it works:
I make an assertion with evidence. Until you can prove that my evidence is irrelevant, that the conclusion can't follow from it or that there is better evidence supporting the opposing argument, I am right.
Someone else makes an assertion not only without proof, but without evidence. Until he finds something to back it up, I dismiss it.
Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
He doesn't believe in the existence of a higher being, because it hasn't been proven, yet is positive that a lack of religion would be good for the world, because it hasn't been disproven. Hypocrisy at its finest, and the assumption that the burden of proof always lies on whoever has the audacity not to be him.
No, I don't believe in the existence of a higher being because there is no evidence for it and because it massively contradicts what we already know.
I believe the world would be better off without religion because I have evidence: religion causes greater harm around the world than good. Like priests raping little boys and popes covering up for them.
You were right on the money in calling him out for claiming the entirety of your post wrong based on a single part of what you said. This is a form of fallacy of relevance, very similar to the fallacist's fallacy, by calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of your post. He did the same to me when I used the term "militant atheist", which is a WELL-KNOWN AND COMMONLY USED EXPRESSION. All I was getting at with that term is that people like Richard Dawkins are assholes, and it was obvious to anybody what I meant, but he intentionally misinterpreted, and suggested that I was a liar and that my whole post should therefore be disregarded.
I know it's a commonly-used expression, but I don't like it. "Nigger" is also a commonly used expression, but some people don't like it.
And I didn't label either of your posts wrong based on one thing. I respond to every relevant point. Your assertion is absolutely baseless and absolutely wrong.
He was also guilty of the straw man fallacy, when I said a very specific subset of atheists were unnaturally angry, by paraphrasing what I said to include ALL ATHEISTS, and then tearing that down instead of what I actually said.
I was hasty in saying "all", but it doesn't matter. Your argument would still have been nonsense even if only limited to angry atheists. I actually responded to you when you first made this complaint. You seem to have ignored what I said and concentrated on one miswording, as if it negated everything else I said.
What was it that you were saying about calling out a single exaggeration (or even an expression) and acting as though that debunks the entirety of someone's post? And what did you say about hypocrisy?
While none of this proves anyone who argued against him correct, it does show that he's a terrible debater, and makes a strong case that he's either remarkably stupid or INTENTIONALLY using horribly faulty logic for the sake of causing commotion (or both). Whatever the case may be, attempting to debate with someone who uses such thoroughly irrational arguments is a waste of time, as you will not convince him of anything, and are more likely to simply put yourself in a foul mood.
tl;dr - Kudi is an idiot, a troll, or both. Just let it go.
If I'd said this, the mods would have been all over me for making personal attacks.
Incidentally, this quote proves my point about the malign influence of religion. Just look how upset people get when you insult their imaginary friend.
1) Can we assume religion primarily exists because people are born with the strong inclination to believe in the supernatural and superstitions? So if religion didn't exist, then that would mean humans weren't hard-wired to have such tendencies. How would we be in that condition? There are plenty of examples of
creatures on the planet that don't have such tendencies, and all those creatures are far less intelligent. So without religion, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.
We could also say that there are plenty of creatures that don't like Justin Bieber, and that they're less intelligent than we are. So without Bieber fandom, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.
2) Natural selection made us this way, therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait. So evolution clearly shows religious belief does indeed save more lives (or at least the lives that matter for the propagation of our species).
Not every evolved trait is useful, or still useful. Some of them are just leftovers that were useful at one time (just goes to show that our design is not "intelligent").
If you kill a spider, you've saved the lives of whatever bugs that spider would have ate. If you eliminate religion, what else do you do?
And therefore I don't advocate the killing of spiders. In fact, I've always liked them.
But religion is not analogous.
You call me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical about the assertion that the world would be better off with or without something that is a major piece of humanity.
Oh yes, I forgot, you're not a sceptic about everything. You apply higher epistemic standard to some questions than to others. Try being more consistent with your scepticism in future.
If you say we would be worse off without eyes, then if all other things remained equal, you would be right. But all things are not equal, had eyes not ever existed, then the other senses would have evolved differently.
And would we have evolved as well?
The eye is something that has evolved separately in many different creatures. It's a remarkably useful adaptation and it therefore does not follow that we'd do just as well without it. There appears to be something uniquely useful about the eye for creatures in the animal kingdom.
No, supply and demand. If there were no guns, then the demand for the other killing devices would be higher. Maybe we would have extraordinarily complex crossbows or laser beams.
It would have taken a lot longer for them to reach the same level. Without guns, weaponry would always have been one step behind what it currently is.
You can make wild guesses appear educated. Lawyers do it all the time.
How do I do so? At the moment, it just looks like you're complaining because you can't refute me.
So far you've said or implied that I'm an idiot rapist that is comparable to Osama Bin Laden. And you say that I insult you.
I don't remember comparing you to Osama bin Laden, but you're reminding me of him now.
The rapist bit was a joke about what might happen if the logic you used when debating with me were used during your everyday life.
You see "convincing" because you don't seem to have the capacity to even attempt to understand certain points of view.
As a great man once said, one should try not to be so open minded that one's brains fall out.
As I sat, trying to understand your perspective and communicate mine, the only thing try to do is refute my ideas. I do the same for your main idea, but I don't pick your shit apart and say, "Well because he used this word, or said it in this way, he's fuckin retarded and wrong."
I don't either. I say "because he used all of these words in this combination, he's wrong".
I can't refute your ideas for the simple reason that they're so vague that they can't be engaged with. Fortunately, another great man said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
Give me a few months worth of therapy sessions and fill out some forms for me and I will happily make an educated guess, which are valid guesses of course, of what you think and why you think it.
But you said that you already know why I think the way I do? Are you admitting that you were wrong?
Anyway, I shouldn't bother you any more. If you feel that you need to have a few months of therapy, I shouldn't get in your way. Give my regards to your therapist.
-
I agree that a world without religion would be a better place, simply because I see how the middle east and most of africa is wrecked by it (and how 1 particular religion is crippling Britain and incompatible with sane just laws).. In africa even catholic dogma is causing severe death by instructing them not to wear condoms or have any birth control. But Islamic countries fare far worse since they are blowing each other up, mutiliating little girls, brainwashing people, and generally have awful degraded culture because it is based on that religion.
I think logically there can be no doubt that a world without religion would be a fairer and nicer place. A world without any creative force or purpose however, might not, since a lot of people would lose hope and have no care for their actions. But on religion, the evidence as it is suggests it has caused or contributed or prolonged far too much death and destruction through the ages and continues to.
Will all war and all trouble stop without religion? Of course not. It is our nature. The reason religion exists in such a controlling and bigoted way is because Human's made it up. Religion is flawed because we are. But the world without religion would be a far better place. You can count 3000 people alive in the 1 attack on sep 11th ALONE.
The problem with religion is that it can seem to REWARD people with AFTERLIFE. So people do not take their LIFE seriously. They think "Well my book tells me if I do right I go heaven" and "right" depends on interpretation sometimes. In Islam's case, Muslims are told to conquer the earth and drive out the non believers/christians/jews. Jihad is a means to heaven.
So, religion is the worst thing in these circumstances because it can reward and give people something no other ideology can: Eternal life.
therefore believing in the supernatural is very likely a good survival trait
It was. But when you reach a certain stage, things like this become a burden on society. jealousy is a survival trait but it doesn't help us... in many ways it dooms us. Same way many negative emotions do.
-
We could also say that there are plenty of creatures that don't like Justin Bieber, and that they're less intelligent than we are. So without Bieber fandom, we could be far less intelligent than we are today.
You are trying to imagine a world with humans having a fundamental difference in traits. Why try guessing based on various examples in human history (which are already tainted by their religious traits) when we can simply examine similar creatures that we *know* exist? And trying to compare liking Justin Bieber to a fundamental difference in evolutionary paths is laughable.
Not every evolved trait is useful, or still useful. Some of them are just leftovers that were useful at one time (just goes to show that our design is not "intelligent").
What makes you think superstitious belief is no longer a good survival trait? When do you think it became obsolete? Just saying it might be obsolete is a pretty weak argument against the reality of millions of years of humanoids dying because they failed to have the trait.
Come on Kudistos, you can do better than that.
-
I've stated exactly what would happen. You ignored it or called it vague. The shifting of priorities and tens of thousands of years of cultural evoltion and genetic evolution would undoubtedly produce a different human than we have today. You keep saying "These bad things wouldn't happen without religion" you may be right, but that really has nothing to do with my point. Taking the same epistemic stance towards every question sounds pretty dumb to me, but I understand that you see the world in superficial terms, so it makes sense why you think that.
Based on your responses, it seems you simply can't comprehend what it is that I am saying. You speak about topic as if you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all. I mention it, and all I hear is, "Examples! Where are the examples!" You know exactly where the examples are, you pretend like I don't. By your rules, every post would include every post made before it, but it doesn't matter anyway because you have your "Idiot's Guide to Debate" beside you which has a nice list of ways you can make yourself feel right about anything without actually making any truely relevent points.
You use a lot of phrases that include, "It looks like" and "It seems to me" when discussing someone's post. They usually end, "...you can't beat me" "...you lack evidence" "...that thinking makes you an idiot."
Quotes from historical intellectuals, as if I couldn't do the same and make superficial points by your side. It's as if you have a point system and everytime you insert a quote or call for examples, you earn 5 points and shout "Yahtzee!!!!"
And just to clarify since you can't seem to remember anything without EXAMPLES!?!?@# in your face, I posted moral views -> You posted a pic of Osama in response. You said, "That type of thinking" as in, my type of thinking, could get me a rape charge. aka, "You think like a rapist." And the entire forums are littered with your implications that I am stupid. I have to agree with what Covarr said at this point. I don't think there is any real point to dicussing anything with you in the future. I just wish I hadn't believed that you were some type of sensible human being for so long.
-
Everytime I come on any forum, FB or anything related with online chatting and see anything titled "Religion" or anything of that sort, I start to laugh. Why? Because we can all pretty much expect what is going to happen -- some views exchanged, others giving their views and then everything goes down the drain.
I dunno why bother posting these type of threads if it will bring major flaming, humiliation and insult someone's morals. Oh well, we all can't think alike so maybe it is needed so that we can see what the other eye sees.
-
I believe the world would be better off without religion because I have evidence: religion causes greater harm around the world than good. Like priests raping little boys and popes covering up for them.
1. The vast majority of so-called cases of this are absolutely false. A few very true instances of this happened a few years aback, and all of a sudden a bunch of people decide to make false claims of this happening to them, for the sake of harming priests' reputations or attempting to make a quick buck with a fraudulent lawsuit.
2. What's more, even if this were the case, THIS IS NOT CAUSED BY RELIGION. Here you've committed another fallacy, confusing correlation with causation. The few who are, in fact, guilty did not become rapists as a result of a religion, and any supposed cover-up was not the result of religion. It's no different from a large company covering up for a valuable employee, something which happens all the time.
The fact is, you HAVEN'T a lick of evidence, even if you say you do. Every example you've come up with is flimsy at best. You say there would be a lower murder rate, but you haven't any statistics or evidence to back it up. The best you've come up with is that people murder in the name of religion, and have ignored the fact that this is not caused by religion but blamed on it; an insane person can twist ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to their warped viewpoint, and religion just happens to be an easy target for that.
Saying "I have evidence" over and over again doesn't make it true, and saying "that doesn't count" to evidence contrary to your beliefs doesn't make it false or irrelevant.
-
1. The vast majority of so-called cases of this are absolutely false. A few very true instances of this happened a few years aback, and all of a sudden a bunch of people decide to make false claims of this happening to them, for the sake of harming priests' reputations or attempting to make a quick buck with a fraudulent lawsuit.
Is that what you think?
Maybe thousands of people were abused but were afraid to come forward because they thought they wouldn't be believed. This behaviour is very common amongst abuse victims.
And maybe a couple of landmark cases gave these victims the confidence to come forward and say that they were abused too.
2. What's more, even if this were the case, THIS IS NOT CAUSED BY RELIGION.
Sure, a religion that demonises sexuality and tells young children that their natural urges are evil isn't going to cause any problems in later life at all.
And people working in a profession where they're forced to be celibate in order to keep their job certainly aren't going to end up being more sexually fucked up still.
And the position of moral and religious authority that priests have over choirboys certainly doesn't make it easier for them to abuse a child. No, not at all. Religion has nothing to do with this.
any supposed cover-up was not the result of religion. It's no different from a large company covering up for a valuable employee, something which happens all the time.
That takes away any claim to holiness (LOL!) that the Catholic church had. You're saying that Il Papa behaved like a corrupt PR man for a major corporation, covering up horrific crimes in order to preserve the company's reputation? Gotta keep those donations coming! The papal palace has quite a big electricity bill, or so I've heard.
This is the church that you follow, is it? Governed like a corrupt business?
You say there would be a lower murder rate, but you haven't any statistics or evidence to back it up.
I have, and I have given evidence. All around the world, religious countries have more murders than more secular ones with roughly equal standards of living. And within these countries, prison populations are more religious than populations out of prison. Is this a co-incidence?
And what about the religion motivated genocides still going on? It's a major factor in the Darfurian genocide. It was a major factor in the Bosnian genocide and in the Serbian attacks on Croats (there's an old joke that if a Croat is not a Catholic, he has no way of proving that he's not a Serb, implying the difference between Serbs and Croats is that the former are Orthodox and the latter are Catholic). It's a major factor in Chechnya. And religion is still a cause of violence in Northern Ireland. I'm sure you're going to cling on to the fact that there are ethnic factors in these conflicts and try to twist this fact in an attempt to prove that the religious element doesn't exist, but you should bear in mind that many of these ethnic divisions only exist because of religious divisions.
And of course, it's the only factor in Islamic terrorism around the world. Thousands die every year at the hands of people so devout that they're willing to die for their faith. It's the only factor in the reign of terror of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. That's a Christian terrorist group, if you were wondering. Most people have never heard of it, since the Western media ignores Africa. The continent is full of violence motivated by religious differences.
The best you've come up with is that people murder in the name of religion, and have ignored the fact that this is not caused by religion but blamed on it
I smell a "no true Scotsman" fallacy here.
an insane person can twist ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to their warped viewpoint, and religion just happens to be an easy target for that.
And that's a con of religion, isn't it?
Saying "I have evidence" over and over again doesn't make it true, and saying "that doesn't count" to evidence contrary to your beliefs doesn't make it false or irrelevant.
People in glass houses should not throw stones.
I've stated exactly what would happen. You ignored it or called it vague.
When you have no evidence, I'm justified in ignoring your point.
When you say "something will takes religion's place" and don't say what, I'm justified in calling your point vague.
Do you see how that works?
The shifting of priorities and tens of thousands of years of cultural evoltion and genetic evolution would undoubtedly produce a different human than we have today.
That's only relevant if we're talking about what would happen if religion had never existed at all. It has no relevance in a conversation about what would happen if religion ceased to exist in the near future.
I understand that you see the world in superficial terms, so it makes sense why you think that.
And I suppose that you're too DEEP for me?
Do you think that you don't see the world in superficial terms?
Based on your responses, it seems you simply can't comprehend what it is that I am saying. You speak about topic as if you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all
Based on your responses, it seems you simply can't comprehend what it is that I am saying. You speak about topics as if you understand them completely, and then go on to say things that make no sense at all.
I mention it, and all I hear is, "Examples! Where are the examples!"
You'll keep hearing that until you give some.
You know exactly where the examples are, you pretend like I don't.
No, I don't. You're obviously far smarter than me, so you'll have to enlighten me. My superficial brain can't find these examples on its own, so I'll need help from a genius like you.
By your rules, every post would include every post made before it
What? That doesn't follow at all! Are you cleverbot?
but it doesn't matter anyway because you have your "Idiot's Guide to Debate" beside you which has a nice list of ways you can make yourself feel right about anything without actually making any truely relevent points.
Actually, it's called "Debating for Dummies".
You use a lot of phrases that include, "It looks like" and "It seems to me" when discussing someone's post.
And yet you keep accusing me of being certain about everything.
They usually end, "...you can't beat me" "...you lack evidence" "...that thinking makes you an idiot."
I say it like I see it.
Quotes from historical intellectuals
Both are still alive, actually. Mind you, one of them doesn't have much time left.
It's as if you have a point system and everytime you insert a quote or call for examples, you earn 5 points and shout "Yahtzee!!!!"
You're currently on 0 points.
And just to clarify since you can't seem to remember anything without EXAMPLES!?!?@# in your face, I posted moral views -> You posted a pic of Osama in response.
I posted an "Oh you" macro in response. Do you think that the person in an "Oh you" macro is supposed to represent the person one is responding to? That isn't how "Oh you" macros work.
And I could only find two "Oh you" macros in my reaction images folder (I'd better stock up). The other one had Hitler in it. I shudder to think how much whining that you'd have done if I'd posted that one.
You said, "That type of thinking" as in, my type of thinking, could get me a rape charge.
Didn't I tell you that I was being facetious?
And the entire forums are littered with your implications that I am stupid.
And your clear statements that I'm mentally ill. And Covarr's clear statements that I'm an idiot. Those are personal attacks and are against forum rules. You two are lucky not to get moderated.
I have to agree with what Covarr said at this point. I don't think there is any real point to dicussing anything with you in the future. I just wish I hadn't believed that you were some type of sensible human being for so long.
(http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr52/spartyonx/dawson_crying.gif)
-
Well I dont think this thread is going any further. People think kudistos is an idiot, he thinks they are the same. Nobody really agrees on anything. The only thing left is pointless name calling, which serves no purpose whatsoever.
Topic closed, have a nice day.